Deaton v. South Highland Child Development Center, Inc. and Suzanne Snow, [Ms. SC-2023-0484, June 7, 2024] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2024). The Court (Parker, C.J.; Wise, Mendheim, Stewart, Mitchell, and Cook, JJ., concur; Shaw, Bryan, and Sellers, JJ., concur in the result) affirms the Jefferson Circuit Court’s order dismissing Leanne Deaton’s claims against South Highland Child Development Center, Inc. (“South Highland”), and its executive director Suzanne Snow for failure to state a claim and striking Deaton’s amended complaint.
The Court first rejects Deaton’s argument that Rule 78, Ala. R. Civ. P., afforded her an automatic right to amend her complaint within 10 days of the dismissal order, Ms. **9-13, and explains “[r]ule 78 provides, in pertinent part: ‘Unless the court orders otherwise, an order granting a motion to dismiss shall be deemed to permit an automatic right of amendment of the pleading to which the motion is directed within ten (10) days from service of the order.’ (Emphasis added.)
In affirming the dismissal of Deaton’s negligence and wantonness claims predicated on the Defendants’ delivering her child, R.E.D., to the father, the Court concludes “Deaton has not established (1) that South Highland and Snow owed any duty to her or (2) that their duty of reasonable supervision included any duty to R.E.D. to deliver her to a particular parent, particularly one who was not on the approved pickup list. Nor has she sued on behalf of R.E.D.” Ms. *18.
The Court also affirms dismissal of Deaton’s claim for intentional interference with a parental right (“IIPR”) added in her second amended complaint which was stricken due to undue delay. To state a claim for IIPR, a plaintiff must plead facts showing “‘(1) some active or affirmative effort by [the] defendant to detract the child from the parent’s custody or service, (2) [that] the enticing or harboring [was] willful, [and] (3) [that the enticing or harboring was done] with notice or knowledge that the child had a parent whose rights were thereby invaded.’” Ms. **25-26, quoting Anonymous v. Anonymous, 672 So. 2d 787, 790 (Ala. 1995), quoting in turn 67A C.J.S. Parent and Child § 131, p. 513 (1978). The Court concludes “Deaton did not present the circuit court with sufficient facts to allow a reasonable jury to conclude that South Highland and Snow intended to interfere with her parental rights or that South Highland and Snow ‘enticed’ or ‘harbored’ R.E.D.” Ms. *27.
The Court also affirms the striking of the second amended complaint for undue delay because Deaton offered no explanation for her five-month delay between the filing of her first and second amended complaints. Ms. *29.