D.C.S. v. L.B.

I concur with the main opinion insofar as it concludes that the juvenile court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction to consider the father’s petition to modify his child-support obligation. 84 So.3d at 957-58 (citing Ex parte T.C., 63 So.3d 627, 631 (Ala.Civ.App.2010)). Cf. Ex parte C.E., [Ms. 1090624, July 29, 2011] _ So.3d _, _ (Ala.2011) (wherein our supreme court approved this court’s interpretation of § 12-15-117(a), Ala.Code *9641975, and, thus, our holding in Ex parte T.C., supra).

However, I dissent from the main opinion’s conclusion that the juvenile court retained jurisdiction to…