Mother challenge in Alabama

2024When considering whether a court has abused its discretion in denying a motion to stay, " ' [t]hree issues must be addressed to determine if a stay in ... civil ... proceedings based on Fifth Amendment concerns in a pending criminal action is warranted: (1) whether the civil proceeding and the criminal proceeding are parallel, see Ex parte Weems, 711 So. 2d 1011, 1013 (Ala. 1998); (2) whether the moving party's Fifth Amendment protection against self- incrimination will be threatened if the civil proceeding is not stayed, see Ex parte Windom, 763 So. 2d 946, 950 (Ala. 2000); and (3) whether th

2024When considering whether a court has abused its discretion in denying a motion to stay, " ' [t]hree issues must be addressed to determine if a stay in ... civil ... proceedings based on Fifth Amendment concerns in a pending criminal action is warranted: (1) whether the civil proceeding and the criminal proceeding are parallel, see Ex parte Weems, 711 So. 2d 1011, 1013 (Ala. 1998); (2) whether the moving party's Fifth Amendment protection against self- incrimination will be threatened if the civil proceeding is not stayed, see Ex parte Windom, 763 So. 2d 946, 950 (Ala. 2000); and (3) whether th

2024When considering whether a court has abused its discretion in denying a motion to stay, " ' [t]hree issues must be addressed to determine if a stay in ... civil ... proceedings based on Fifth Amendment concerns in a pending criminal action is warranted: (1) whether the civil proceeding and the criminal proceeding are parallel, see Ex parte Weems, 711 So. 2d 1011, 1013 (Ala. 1998); (2) whether the moving party's Fifth Amendment protection against self- incrimination will be threatened if the civil proceeding is not stayed, see Ex parte Windom, 763 So. 2d 946, 950 (Ala. 2000); and (3) whether th

2024When considering whether a court has abused its discretion in denying a motion to stay, " ' [t]hree issues must be addressed to determine if a stay in ... civil ... proceedings based on Fifth Amendment concerns in a pending criminal action is warranted: (1) whether the civil proceeding and the criminal proceeding are parallel, see Ex parte Weems, 711 So. 2d 1011, 1013 (Ala. 1998); (2) whether the moving party's Fifth Amendment protection against self- incrimination will be threatened if the civil proceeding is not stayed, see Ex parte Windom, 763 So. 2d 946, 950 (Ala. 2000); and (3) whether th

2024When considering whether a court has abused its discretion in denying a motion to stay, " ' [t]hree issues must be addressed to determine if a stay in ... civil ... proceedings based on Fifth Amendment concerns in a pending criminal action is warranted: (1) whether the civil proceeding and the criminal proceeding are parallel, see Ex parte Weems, 711 So. 2d 1011, 1013 (Ala. 1998); (2) whether the moving party's Fifth Amendment protection against self- incrimination will be threatened if the civil proceeding is not stayed, see Ex parte Windom, 763 So. 2d 946, 950 (Ala. 2000); and (3) whether th

2024When considering whether a court has abused its discretion in denying a motion to stay, " ' [t]hree issues must be addressed to determine if a stay in ... civil ... proceedings based on Fifth Amendment concerns in a pending criminal action is warranted: (1) whether the civil proceeding and the criminal proceeding are parallel, see Ex parte Weems, 711 So. 2d 1011, 1013 (Ala. 1998); (2) whether the moving party's Fifth Amendment protection against self- incrimination will be threatened if the civil proceeding is not stayed, see Ex parte Windom, 763 So. 2d 946, 950 (Ala. 2000); and (3) whether th

2024Instead, despite the fact that the mother does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the termination-of-parental-rights judgments, DHR focuses its brief on the application of the ore tenus rule and argues that the juvenile court's factual findings in those judgments are supported by clear and convincing evidence. 4 CL-2024-0546, CL-2024-0547, CL-2024-0548, CL-2024-0549, and CL- 2024-0550 Ex parte Coastal Training Inst., 583 So. 2d 979, 980-81 (Ala. 1991).

2024Instead, despite the fact that the mother does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the termination-of-parental-rights judgments, DHR focuses its brief on the application of the ore tenus rule and argues that the juvenile court's factual findings in those judgments are supported by clear and convincing evidence. 4 CL-2024-0546, CL-2024-0547, CL-2024-0548, CL-2024-0549, and CL- 2024-0550 Ex parte Coastal Training Inst., 583 So. 2d 979, 980-81 (Ala. 1991).

2008Analysis Although on appeal the mother does not challenge the jurisdiction of the circuit court, "[j]urisdictional matters are of such importance that a court may take notice of them ex mero motu." McMurphy v. East Bay Clothiers, 892 So.2d 395, 397 (Ala.Civ.App.2004).

2008Analysis Although on appeal the mother does not challenge the jurisdiction of the circuit court, “[jjurisdictional matters are of such importance that a court may take notice of them ex mero motu.” McMur-phy v. East Bay Clothiers, 892 So.2d 395, 397 (Ala.Civ.App.2004).

2015On October 3, 2014, the mother filed a timely notice of appeal seeking this court’s review of five issues — whether the circuit court erred by failing to require the father to meet the custody-modification burden set forth in Ex parte McLendon, 455 So.2d 863 (Ala.1984), by failing to properly apply the provisions of the Act, by failing to properly interpret the education clause, by awarding the mother standard visitation, and by failing to subtract the cost of the child’s health-care insurance that was paid by Kip.

2010See McLendon, supra. In his 2006 petition seeking a custody modification, the father asserted that the mother was in violation of a provision of a previous court order prohibiting the mother from cohabitating with a member of the opposite sex.

1983Weatherford, supra. We note also our recent statement in Young v. State, 416 So.2d 1109, 1111 (Ala. Cr.App.1982), holding as follows: “Where the rule for the exclusion of witnesses from the courtroom is invoked, it is within the sound discretion of the trial court to allow any one of the witnesses to remain in the courtroom during the examination of the others and the exercise of this discretion is not reviewable on appeal.” (Citations omitted.) II Appellant asserts the trial court erred in the following ruling, made during the cross-examination of the victim’s mother by defense counsel: “MR.

1983Weatherford, supra. We note also our recent statement in Young v. State , 416 So.2d 1109 , 1111 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982), holding as follows: "Where the rule for the exclusion of witnesses from the courtroom is invoked, it is within the sound discretion of the trial court to allow any one of the witnesses to remain in the courtroom during the examination of the others and the exercise of this discretion is not reviewable on appeal." (Citations omitted.) II Appellant asserts the trial court erred in the following ruling, made during the cross-examination of the victim's mother by defense counsel: "MR

2023See Ex parte Turner, 840 So. 2d 132, 134-35 (Ala. 2002). 2 CL-2023-0017 and CL-2023-0018 against the mother; that petition, which does not appear in the materials before this court, was assigned case number DR-19-900863.01 ("the .01 action").

2014See White Sands Grp., L.L.C. v. PRS II, LLC, 998 So.2d 1042, 1058 (Ala.2008) ("Rule 28(a)(10)[, Ala. R.

2012See Ex parte Riley, 464 So.2d 92, 94 (Ala.1985).

2012In McCarthy v. Popwell, 915 So.2d 56, 59 (Ala.Civ.App.2005), a plurality of this court reasoned that, because a stepparent has no legal obligation to support a child of his or her spouse’s former marriage, the income of a noncustodial parent’s new spouse could not be considered part of the financial resources of the parents of the child in determining whether to award postminority educational support; however, McCarthy does not stand for the proposition that a trial court cannot consider a parent’s economic arrangement with a new spouse in assessing that parent’s independent ability to contrib

2011Owners’ Ass’n, 51 So.3d 317, 321-23 (Ala.2010) (Because plaintiff lacked standing, complaint failed to invoke trial court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, and action was due to be dismissed in toto, including defendant’s counterclaims.).

2011See, e.g., A.M.B. v. 4 So.3d 468 (Ala.Civ.App.2007) (affirming a custody judgment based on a finding of unfitness, but reversing that part of the judgment that failed to set forth a specific schedule of visitation for the mother).

2011See Ex parte Owens, 65 So.3d 953, 956 (Ala.Civ.App.2010) (Mother’s rule nisi petition did not invoke jurisdiction of trial court because she failed to properly register foreign support order pursuant to the UIFSA.).

2011Ex parte Owens, 65 So.3d at 956-57 (Mother’s rule nisi petition was a nullity because of her failure to properly register foreign support order pursuant to the UIFSA, and, therefore, her subsequent attempt to comply with the UIFSA was likewise a nullity.); Blevins v. Hillwood Office Ctr.

2003The alleged biological father cites several Alabama cases on equal protection; however, those cases predate Ex parte Melof, 735 So.2d 1172, 1186 (Ala.1999), in which the Alabama Supreme Court held that the Alabama Constitution does not contain an express equal-protection provision.