child.” The father made no assertions in his petition tending to show that the child was dependent according to the definition of a “dependent child” found in former § 12-15-1(10), Ala.Code 1975. By failing to allege with specificity that the child was in need of supervision or to otherwise allege facts that, if proven, would establish the child’s dependency, the father, in turn, failed to properly invoke the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. The juvenile court proceeded, however, to hold status conferences on the motions made by the mother and the father and to enter various orders regarding visitation between the child and the father and to ultimately make a determination of custody, even asserting on the case-action-summary sheet at one point that the court “takes origin .1999) (<HOLDING>); Ex parte W.H., supra (holding that juvenile
holding that juvenile court that determined child was not dependent had no jurisdiction to thereafter determine custody of child holding that the trial court had continuing jurisdiction over all subsequent custody orders once the trial court acquired jurisdiction holding that once juvenile court found children dependent it had exclusive jurisdiction to determine their custody holding that when evidence did not prove dependency of child as alleged in complaint but revealed pure custody dispute juvenile court was without jurisdiction to determine custody of child holding that juvenile court that had never declared child dependent had no jurisdiction to enter order affecting visitation rights of father