Ex parte McLendon standard in Alabama

2005A parent seeking a change in custody must establish that the change would materially promote the interests and welfare of the child and that the benefits of the change in custody would "`more than offset the inherently disruptive effect caused by uprooting the child.'" King v. King, 521 So.2d 69, 70 (Ala.Civ.App.1988) (quoting Wood v. Wood, 333 So.2d 826, 828 (Ala.Civ.App.1976)).

2005A parent seeking a change in custody must establish that the change would materially promote the interests and welfare of the child and that the benefits of the change in custody would “ ‘more than offset the inherently disruptive effect caused by uprooting the child.’ ” King v. King, 521 So.2d 69, 70 (Ala.Civ.App.1988) (quoting Wood v. Wood, 333 So.2d 826, 828 (Ala.Civ.App.1976)).

2014Clements v. Clements, 906 So.2d 952, 957-58 (Ala.Civ.App.2005).” T.B. v. C.D.L., 910 So.2d 794, 796 (Ala.Civ.App.2005).

2005Clements v. Clements, 906 So.2d 952, 957-58 (Ala.Civ.App.2005).

2014“As this court has recently held, the application of the Alabama Parent-Child Relationship Protection Act[, Ala. Code 1975, § 30-3-160 et seq.,] not only does not preclude the application of the Ex parte McLendon [, 455 So.2d 863 (Ala.1989),] standard to a request for modification "of custody based, in part, on a parent’s desire to relocate, but, in fact, it requires' that the Ex parte McLendon standard, in addition to the factors outlined in the Act, be considered by a trial court faced with the issue after the trial court has made the initial determination regarding whether the child’s best

2009On appeal, the mother argues (1) that multiple findings of fact contained in the July 31, 2007, order, which the trial court made final on July 29, 2008, are plainly and palpably wrong, (2) that the father did not present sufficient evidence to meet the standard set forth in Ex parte McLendon, supra, (3) that the trial court failed to state any compelling reasons for separating the child from his brother, (4) that the trial court erred in calculating the amount of child support awarded to the father, (5) that the trial court erred in requiring the mother to meet the Ex parte McLendon standard

2025See Ex parte Couch, 521 So. 2d 987, 989 (Ala. 1988).

2025See Ex parte Couch, 521 So. 2d 987, 989 (Ala. 1988).

2025When any alleged ambiguity in a judgment is dispelled by a reference to the record, " 'the judgment will be upheld and carried into effect in the same manner as though its meaning and intent were made clear and manifest by its own terms.' " Coffey v. Cross, 185 Ala. 86, 91-92 , 64 So. 95, 96 (1913) (quoting 1 Black on Judgments § 123).

2025When any alleged ambiguity in a judgment is dispelled by a reference to the record, " 'the judgment will be upheld and carried into effect in the same manner as though its meaning and intent were made clear and manifest by its own terms.' " Coffey v. Cross, 185 Ala. 86, 91-92 , 64 So. 95, 96 (1913) (quoting 1 Black on Judgments § 123).

2025"It is ... well established that in the absence of specific findings of fact, appellate courts will assume that the trial court made those findings necessary to support its judgment, unless such findings would be clearly erroneous." Ex parte Bryowsky, 676 So. 2d 1322, 1324 (Ala. 1996).

2025"It is ... well established that in the absence of specific findings of fact, appellate courts will assume that the trial court made those findings necessary to support its judgment, unless such findings would be clearly erroneous." Ex parte Bryowsky, 676 So. 2d 1322, 1324 (Ala. 1996).

2025See Cochran v. Cochran, 5 So. 3d 1220 (2008); Watters v. Watters, 918 So. 2d 913 (Ala. Civ.

2025See Cochran v. Cochran, 5 So. 3d 1220 (2008); Watters v. Watters, 918 So. 2d 913 (Ala. Civ.

2024J.W. v. C.B., 56 So. 3d 693, 699 (Ala. Civ.

2023J.W. v. C.B., 56 So. 3d 693, 699 (Ala. Civ.

2007We have summarized the holding of Ex parte McLendon in numerous cases; for example, in Barber v. Moore, 897 So.2d 1150, 1153 (Ala.Civ.App.2004), we stated: "In Ex parte McLendon, supra, our supreme court held that the proper standard to be applied in child-custody cases wherein a parent has either voluntarily forfeited custody or has lost custody due to a prior judgment is whether there has been a material change in circumstances since the prior judgment; whether a change in custody will materially promote the best interests of the child; and whether the benefits of the change in custody will

2007NOTES [1] We have summarized the holding of Ex parte McLendon in numerous cases; for example, in Barber v. Moore, 897 So.2d 1150, 1153 (Ala.Civ.App.2004), we stated: "In Ex parte McLendon, supra, our supreme court held that the proper standard to be applied in child-custody cases wherein a parent has either voluntarily forfeited custody or has lost custody due to a prior judgment is whether there has been a material change in circumstances since the prior judgment; whether a change in custody will materially promote the best interests of the child; and whether the benefits of the change in cus

2007We have summarized the holding of Ex parte McLendon in numerous cases; for example, in Barber v. Moore, 897 So.2d 1150, 1153 (Ala.Civ.App.2004), we stated: "In Ex parte McLendon, supra, our supreme court held that the proper standard to be applied in child-custody cases wherein a parent has either voluntarily forfeited custody or has lost custody due to a prior judgment is whether there has been a material change in circumstances since the prior judgment; whether a change in custody will materially promote the best interests of the child; and whether the benefits of the change in custody will

2007NOTES [1] We have summarized the holding of Ex parte McLendon in numerous cases; for example, in Barber v. Moore, 897 So.2d 1150, 1153 (Ala.Civ.App.2004), we stated: "In Ex parte McLendon, supra, our supreme court held that the proper standard to be applied in child-custody cases wherein a parent has either voluntarily forfeited custody or has lost custody due to a prior judgment is whether there has been a material change in circumstances since the prior judgment; whether a change in custody will materially promote the best interests of the child; and whether the benefits of the change in cus

2007We have summarized the holding of Ex parte McLendon in numerous cases; for example, in Barber v. Moore, 897 So.2d 1150, 1153 (Ala.Civ.App.2004), we stated: "In Ex parte McLendon, supra, our supreme court held that the proper standard to be applied in child-custody cases wherein a parent has either voluntarily forfeited custody or has lost custody due to a prior judgment is whether there has been a material change in circumstances since the prior judgment; whether a change in custody will materially promote the best interests of the child; and whether the benefits of the change in custody will

2007NOTES [1] We have summarized the holding of Ex parte McLendon in numerous cases; for example, in Barber v. Moore, 897 So.2d 1150, 1153 (Ala.Civ.App.2004), we stated: "In Ex parte McLendon, supra, our supreme court held that the proper standard to be applied in child-custody cases wherein a parent has either voluntarily forfeited custody or has lost custody due to a prior judgment is whether there has been a material change in circumstances since the prior judgment; whether a change in custody will materially promote the best interests of the child; and whether the benefits of the change in cus

2007We have summarized the holding of Ex parte McLendon in numerous cases; for example, in Barber v. Moore, 897 So.2d 1150, 1153 (Ala.Civ.App.2004), we stated: "In Ex parte McLendon, supra, our supreme court held that the proper standard to be applied in child-custody cases wherein a parent has either voluntarily forfeited custody or has lost custody due to a prior judgment is whether there has been a material change in circumstances since the prior judgment; whether a change in custody will materially promote the best interests of the child; and whether the benefits of the change in custody will

2007NOTES [1] We have summarized the holding of Ex parte McLendon in numerous cases; for example, in Barber v. Moore, 897 So.2d 1150, 1153 (Ala.Civ.App.2004), we stated: "In Ex parte McLendon, supra, our supreme court held that the proper standard to be applied in child-custody cases wherein a parent has either voluntarily forfeited custody or has lost custody due to a prior judgment is whether there has been a material change in circumstances since the prior judgment; whether a change in custody will materially promote the best interests of the child; and whether the benefits of the change in cus

2005A parent seeking a change in custody must establish that the change would materially promote the interests and welfare of the child and that the benefits of the change in custody would "`more than offset the inherently disruptive effect caused by uprooting the child.'" King v. King, 521 So.2d 69, 70 (Ala.Civ.App.1988) (quoting Wood v. Wood, 333 So.2d 826, 828 (Ala.Civ.App.1976)).

2005A parent seeking a change in custody must establish that the change would materially promote the interests and welfare of the child and that the benefits of the change in custody would “ ‘more than offset the inherently disruptive effect caused by uprooting the child.’ ” King v. King, 521 So.2d 69, 70 (Ala.Civ.App.1988) (quoting Wood v. Wood, 333 So.2d 826, 828 (Ala.Civ.App.1976)).

2004In Godwin v. Balderamos, 876 So.2d 1169, 1172-73 (Ala.Civ.App.2003), this court stated: "In Murphy [v. Murphy, 479 So.2d 1261 (Ala.Civ.App.1985),] this court noted that a parent requesting a change of custody from one parent to the other must meet the Ex parte McLendon standard.

2004In Godwin v. Balderamos , 876 So.2d 1169 , 1172-73 (Ala.Civ.App. 2003), this court stated: "In Murphy [v. Murphy , 479 So.2d 1261 (Ala.Civ.App. 1985),] this court noted that a parent requesting a change of custody from one parent to the other must meet the Ex parte McLendon standard.

2016P.A. v. L.S., 78 So.3d 979, 981-82 (Ala.Civ.App.2011); In re F.W., 681 So.2d 208, 211 (Ala.Civ.App.1996).

2016P.A. v. L.S., 78 So.3d 979, 981-82 (Ala.Civ.App.2011); In re F.W., 681 So.2d 208, 211 (Ala.Civ.App.1996).

2014Clements v. Clements, 906 So.2d 952, 957-58 (Ala.Civ.App.2005).” T.B. v. C.D.L., 910 So.2d 794, 796 (Ala.Civ.App.2005).

2010See Bassett v. Brown, 598 So.2d 936, 937 (Ala.Civ.App.1992); and C.E. v. C.C.H., 963 So.2d 131 (Ala.Civ.App.2007) (concluding that there was insufficient evidence to meet the Ex parte McLendon standard when the evidence showed that the child wanted to live with the mother, that the child did not like talking to her stepmother, that the father did not spend time with the child, and that the child got to “go places” when she was in the mother’s custody).

2004Ex parte S.T.S., 806 So.2d 336, 342 (Ala.2001) (describing the Ex parte McLendon standard).

2004Ex parte S.T.S., 806 So.2d 336, 342 (Ala.2001) (describing the Ex parte McLendon standard).

2004In Godwin v. Balderamos, 876 So.2d 1169, 1172-73 (Ala.Civ.App.2003), this court stated: "In Murphy [v. Murphy, 479 So.2d 1261 (Ala.Civ.App.1985),] this court noted that a parent requesting a change of custody from one parent to the other must meet the Ex parte McLendon standard.

2004In Godwin v. Balderamos , 876 So.2d 1169 , 1172-73 (Ala.Civ.App. 2003), this court stated: "In Murphy [v. Murphy , 479 So.2d 1261 (Ala.Civ.App. 1985),] this court noted that a parent requesting a change of custody from one parent to the other must meet the Ex parte McLendon standard.