THOMPSON, Presiding Judge.
This is the second time these parties have been before this court. See Holifield v. Lambert, 112 So.3d 489 (Ala.Civ.App.
112 So.3d at 490-91 (footnotes omitted). In Holifield, the father filed a notice of appeal of the circuit court's judgment well in excess of the 14-day period allowed by the Rules of Juvenile Procedure. Accordingly, this court dismissed the appeal as untimely. 112 So.3d at 491.
While the father's appeal in Holifield was pending, the mother, alleging that the father had failed to obtain a stay of the November 14, 2011, circuit-court
The father moved to dismiss the action in the family court, arguing that the "matter was resolved and satisfied in February 1988" and that, in a June 7, 1996, order, the family court had determined that it lacked jurisdiction over the parties.
The family court conducted an ore tenus hearing. The majority of the transcript of that hearing sets forth the arguments of the parties' attorneys concerning the issues presented to the family court. The only witness to testify was the mother's attorney, who testified in support of the mother's claim seeking an award of an attorney fee.
On April 2, 2013, the family court entered a judgment in which it, among other things, denied the father's motion to dismiss, found the father in civil contempt and ordered him to pay $10,000 to purge himself of that contempt, redetermined the current child-support-arrearage amount, and awarded the mother an attorney fee in the amount of $25,000. The father timely appealed.
On appeal, the father raises a legal argument pertaining to the contempt finding, and he challenges whether the evidence supports the award of the attorney fee to the mother. In her petition for a rule nisi filed in the family court, the mother specifically focused on the father's purported violation of the June 2012 order of the circuit court. In Holifield, supra, this court noted that, as an action filed in the family court concerning the enforcement of an out-of-state paternity and child-support judgment, this action is governed by Alabama Rules of Juvenile Procedure. See also J.F. v. R.J., 59 So.3d 719, 721 n. 1 (Ala.Civ.App.2010) ("The case was docketed with a `CS' case number, which indicates that the matter involves a juvenile-court child-support matter."). Thus, we conclude that, in addressing this matter, the family court in this case acted in its capacity as a juvenile court. See Ex parte L.N.K., 64 So.3d 656, 657-58 (Ala.Civ.App. 2010) ("[T]he Jefferson Family Court acted as the juvenile court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit.").
"Juvenile courts are purely creatures of statute and have extremely limited jurisdiction." T.B. v. T.H., 30 So.3d 429, 431 (Ala.Civ.App.2009). The statutes governing the jurisdiction of the juvenile courts provide that "the juvenile court may punish a person for contempt of court for disobeying an order of the juvenile court or for obstructing or interfering with the proceedings of the juvenile court or the enforcement of its orders." § 12-15-110(a), Ala.Code 1975. Thus, the family court could properly find the father in contempt for violating one of its own orders, but it could not find the father in contempt for violating an order of the circuit court.
In its April 2, 2013, judgment, the family court found the father "in civil contempt," but it did not specify the basis for that finding. Thus, this court is unable to determine whether the family court found that the father had violated the provisions
During the hearing in this matter, the mother's attorney argued that the father had failed to make any payment toward the satisfaction of the 2009 arrearage judgment. The father made no objection to the assertion of that claim. Therefore, it is possible that the family court based its finding of contempt on the father's failure to comply with earlier orders of that court establishing the amounts due rather than on the father's violation of the circuit-court order. We recognize that this court may affirm a judgment that is correct for any reason. See Boykin v. Magnolia Bay, Inc., 570 So.2d 639, 642 (Ala.1990) (holding that, generally, a correct judgment may be affirmed for any reason). However, because the failure to specify the basis for the contempt finding might implicate the jurisdiction of the family court, this court declines, under the facts of this case, to affirm on that basis. Further, we note that the family court did not receive evidence but, rather, relied on the arguments and representations of the parties' attorneys in reaching that part of its judgment pertaining to its contempt finding.
We reverse the family court's judgment and remand the case to that court to determine whether it has jurisdiction to consider the mother's contempt claim and, if so, to specify whether its contempt finding is based on a violation of an order of that court. We pretermit any analysis of the father's arguments pertaining to the attorney-fee award. However, we note that the award of an attorney fee to the mother was based in part on her prevailing in the family court on the contempt claim. Accordingly, the family court may reconsider that award in connection with its determination of the contempt issue on remand.
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
PITTMAN, THOMAS, MOORE, and DONALDSON, JJ., concur.