Kayla Dykes v. Joshua Dykes

── Kayla Dykes v. Joshua Dykes ── Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama Date: May 15, 2026 Author: Bowden Category: General Rel: May 15, 2026 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published in Southern Reporter. ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2025-2026 _________________________ CL-2025-0536 _________________________ Kayla Dykes v. Joshua Dykes Appeal from Dallas Circuit Court (DR-24-900056) BOWDEN, Judge. Kayla Dykes ("the wife") appeals from the February 25, 2025, judgment of the Dallas Circuit Court ("the circuit court") divorcing her from Joshua Dykes ("the husband") and, among other things, awarding the husband sole physical custody of their minor child, K.E.D. ("the CL-2025-0536 child"). The wife raises several issues on appeal, including that the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to make an initial child-custody determination regarding the child under Alabama's version of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act ("the UCCJEA"), Ala. Code 1975, § 30-3B-101 et seq. We do not reach the merits of the wife's arguments, however, because she failed to timely invoke this court's appellate jurisdiction by filing a notice of appeal within 42 days of the entry of the February 25, 2025, divorce judgment. The wife did send an e-mail to an employee in the circuit court clerk's office after the entry of the February 25, 2025, divorce judgment, and the circuit court construed that e-mail as a postjudgment motion. But, under the existing rules and orders of the Supreme Court of Alabama, a document cannot be "filed" by e-mailing it to a trial-court clerk's office. Thus, the wife's e-mail did not suspend the time to file a notice of appeal, and the wife had until April 8, 2025, to file a notice of appeal from the February 25, 2025, divorce judgment. The wife filed her notice of appeal on July 9, 2025. Therefore, we dismiss the wife's appeal as untimely. 2 CL-2025-0536 Procedural History The husband, acting pro se, filed a complaint for a divorce on April 8, 2024. The husband simultaneously filed, among other things, a handwritten settlement agreement providing, in part, that the wife would have "sole primary custody" of the child and that the husband would have visitation "when able to do so based on work schedule." After the husband had commenced the underlying divorce action, the wife filed a child-custody action concerning the child in North Carolina. The respective testimony of the parties indicates that the North Carolina court dismissed the wife's child-custody action in deference to the underlying divorce action. On July 30, 2024, the husband, represented by an attorney, filed a "notice of recission of handwritten agreement." That same day, the husband filed a "motion for pendente lite relief," requesting, among other things, sole physical custody of the child. On October 2, 2024, the husband filed an amended complaint, requesting, among other things, sole physical custody of the child. Later that same day, the circuit court held a hearing and entered a pendente lite order awarding the parties joint legal and joint physical custody of 3 CL-2025-0536 the child, with physical custody of the child alternating between the parties from month to month. The cir