Account information only. It is never shown to the AI client you connect, and it is kept apart from your research — which is not logged at all.
Your token is the key to the MCP: claude.ai custom connectors and ChatGPT developer mode take it in the URL; Claude Code and the rest take it as a bearer header. It is also in your welcome email. Install instructions.
No token yet. One token per address, shown once and mailed to you with setup steps — claude.ai custom connectors and ChatGPT developer mode need it in the URL; Claude Code and the rest take it as a bearer header. Install instructions.
Your MCP token. Anyone holding it can search on your subscription, so keep it off shared screens.
Header form (recommended) — this endpoint, with
Authorization: Bearer <your token>.
URL form — for claude.ai custom connectors and ChatGPT developer mode, which cannot set a header. The whole credential is in the address:
The dedicated fast index: searches run on a machine nobody else queues for, with full-text highlighted excerpts. Higher MCP limits, and semantic search when it lands.
See ProThank you.
Manage billingDelete my account: email [email protected] and it is done by hand, usually the same day. (Self-serve deletion is not built yet.)
Free, and it takes a minute. A syfert.com account skips the bot checks on search and case pages, keeps your details and plan under the account icon, and comes with an MCP token for Claude, ChatGPT or any MCP-capable assistant — emailed to you with setup instructions, and always available under that icon.
Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
22 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2026 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Alabama courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Bsl v. Segreen2 sentences2011See B.S.L. v. S.E., 826 So.2d 890, 892-93 (Ala.Civ.App.2002) (the best-interests-of-the-child standard applies in a dependency action); and O.L.D. v. J.C., 769 So.2d 299, 302 (Ala.Civ.App.1999) (same). 2011See B.S.L. v. S.E., 826 So.2d 890, 892-93 (Ala.Civ.App.2002) (the best-interests-of-the-child standard applies in a dependency action); and O.L.D. v. J.C., 769 So.2d 299, 302 (Ala.Civ.App.1999) (same). | 3 | 3 |
Ex Parte Devinegreen2 sentences2017This court continued: "However, even using the best-interests-of-the-child standard, the juvenile court was required to consider 'the effect on the child of disrupting or continuing an existing custodial status.' Ex parte Devine , 398 So.2d 686 , 697 (Ala. 1981). 2014However, even using the best-interests-of-the-child standard, the juvenile court was required to consider “the effect on the child of disrupting or continuing an existing custodial status.” Ex parte Devine, 398 So.2d 686, 697 (Ala.1981). | 2 | 3 |
Boseman v. Jarrellgreen2 sentences2011Boseman v. Jarrell, 704 S.E.2d 494, 503, 505 (N.C. 2010). 2011Boseman v. Jarrel, 704 S.E.2d 494, 503, 505 (N.C.2010). | 2 | 2 |
Tgs v. Dlsgreen2 sentences2008See, e.g., T.G.S. v. D.L.S., 608 So.2d 743 (Ala.Civ.App. 1992); I.L. v. L.D.L., 604 So.2d 425 (Ala. Civ.App.1992); Miller v. Hawkins, 549 So.2d 102 (Ala.Civ.App.1989); and McAllister v. Price, 562 So.2d 517 (Ala.Civ.App. 1990). 2008See, e.g., T.G.S. v. D.L.S., 608 So.2d 743 (Ala.Civ.App. 1992); I.L. v. L.D.L., 604 So.2d 425 (Ala. Civ.App.1992); Miller v. Hawkins, 549 So.2d 102 (Ala.Civ.App.1989); and McAllister v. Price, 562 So.2d 517 (Ala.Civ.App. 1990). | 2 | 2 |
Ex Parte Couchgreen2 sentences1999On January 6, 1998, the judge who had Stephens's petition entered an order finding that Stephens had not presented sufficient evidence to establish that a change in custody was in the son's best interest and denying Stephens's petition to modify. 1 See Ex parte Couch, 521 So.2d 987 , 989 (Ala. 1988) (where the original custody determination does not favor one parent over the other, the best-interests-of-the-child standard applies). 1999On January 6, 1998, the judge who had Stephens's petition entered an order finding that Stephens had not presented sufficient evidence to establish that a change in custody was in the son's best interest and denying Stephens's petition to modify. [1] See Ex parte Couch, 521 So.2d 987, 989 (Ala.1988) (where the original custody determination does not favor one parent over the other, the best-interests-of-the-child standard applies). | 1 | 6 |
Ex Parte McLendongreen2 sentences2026App. 1997), in which "[a] natural parent has a prima facie right to the custody of his or her child." Ex parte McLendon, 455 So. 2d 863, 865 (Ala. 1984). 2009Thus, we reversed the juvenile court’s judgment and remanded the case for the juvenile court to analyze the evidence under the standard set forth in Ex parte McLendon, 455 So.2d 863 (Ala.1984). | 1 | 3 |
Watson v. Watsongreen1 sentence2015See also N.T. v. P.G., 54 So.3d 918, 920 (Ala.Civ.App.2010) (“On a petition to modify visitation, a court does not reexamine the evidence to determine if its original judgment was correct; rather, it decides whether modification is warranted based on changed circumstances.”); compare Watson v. Watson, 634 So.2d 589 (Ala.Civ.App.1994) (holding that because the parties were awarded joint custody in the original divorce judgment, the best-interests-of-the-child standard applied to the custody and visitation modifications at issue in that case). | 1 | 1 |
N.T. v. P.G. and J.M.green1 sentence2015See also N.T. v. P.G., 54 So.3d 918, 920 (Ala.Civ.App.2010) (“On a petition to modify visitation, a court does not reexamine the evidence to determine if its original judgment was correct; rather, it decides whether modification is warranted based on changed circumstances.”); compare Watson v. Watson, 634 So.2d 589 (Ala.Civ.App.1994) (holding that because the parties were awarded joint custody in the original divorce judgment, the best-interests-of-the-child standard applied to the custody and visitation modifications at issue in that case). | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Erggreen1 sentence2012See, e.g., Ex parte E.R.G., 73 So.3d at 657 (Parker, J., concurring specially) (Pointing out that a trial court may award custody of a child in accordance with the best interests of the ehild when that child is found to be dependent, and stating: “Where both parents are unfit, their parental rights no longer provide the court any guidance, and the best-interests-of-the-child standard applies to balance the claims of competing parties.”); see also Ala.Code 1975, § 12-15-314(a)(4) (“If a child is found to be dependent, the juvenile court may ... [m]ake any ... order as the juvenile court in its | 1 | 1 |
Old v. Jcgreen2 sentences2011See B.S.L. v. S.E., 826 So.2d 890, 892-93 (Ala.Civ.App.2002) (the best-interests-of-the-child standard applies in a dependency action); and O.L.D. v. J.C., 769 So.2d 299, 302 (Ala.Civ.App.1999) (same). 2011See B.S.L. v. S.E., 826 So.2d 890, 892-93 (Ala.Civ.App.2002) (the best-interests-of-the-child standard applies in a dependency action); and O.L.D. v. J.C., 769 So.2d 299, 302 (Ala.Civ.App.1999) (same). | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Riveragreen1 sentence2007In Grayson v. State Department of Pensions & Security, 419 So.2d 234, 236 (Ala.Civ.App.1982), this court said: "To remove custody from the natural parent there must be clear and convincing evidence that it would be against the best interests of the child to remain with the natural parent." See also Hamilton v. State, 410 So.2d 64 (Ala.Civ.App.1982); In re Sanders, 420 So.2d 790 (Ala.Civ.App. 1982). *1209 In Rivera v. State, 444 So.2d 858, 860 (Ala.Civ.App.1983), the court said: "Before a trial court can terminate a parent's right to custody of its child, there must be clear and convincing evid | 1 | 1 |
Grayson v. State Department of Pensions & Securitygreen1 sentence2007In Grayson v. State Department of Pensions & Security, 419 So.2d 234, 236 (Ala.Civ.App.1982), this court said: "To remove custody from the natural parent there must be clear and convincing evidence that it would be against the best interests of the child to remain with the natural parent." See also Hamilton v. State, 410 So.2d 64 (Ala.Civ.App.1982); In re Sanders, 420 So.2d 790 (Ala.Civ.App. 1982). *1209 In Rivera v. State, 444 So.2d 858, 860 (Ala.Civ.App.1983), the court said: "Before a trial court can terminate a parent's right to custody of its child, there must be clear and convincing evid | 1 | 1 |
Cornelius v. Corneliusgreen2 sentences2002As early as 1858, this Court held: "The welfare of the offspring is the controlling consideration, in applications such as this.... "... [O]rders of this kind are made for the benefits of the child ...." Cornelius v. Cornelius, 31 Ala. 479, 481 (1858). [8] The trend of applying the Devine factors in a "morally neutral" fashion followed closely upon the heels of the liberalization of divorce commonly known as "no-fault" divorce. 2002As early as 1858, this Court held: "The welfare of the offspring is the controlling consideration, in applications such as this. . . . ". . . [O]rders of this kind are made for the benefits of the child. . . ." Cornelius v. Cornelius , 31 Ala. 479 , 481 (1858). 8 The trend of applying the Devine factors in a "morally neutral" fashion followed closely upon the heels of the liberalization of divorce commonly known as "no-fault" divorce. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dodd v. Burleson
green
2 sentences2011In rejecting the best-interests-of-the-child standard as written by the legislature into the Act and grafting onto it a standard of harm to the child, the Court of Civil Appeals chose to depart from its prior decisions in Dodd v. Burleson, 932 So.2d 912 (Ala.Civ.App.2005), and Dodd v. Burleson, 967 So.2d 715 (Ala.Civ.App. 2007), both plurality decisions. 2011In rejecting the best-interests-of-the-child standard as written by the legislature into the Act and grafting onto it a standard of harm to the child, the Court of Civil Appeals chose to depart from its prior decisions in Dodd v. Burleson, 932 So.2d 912 (Ala.Civ.App.2005), and Dodd v. Burleson, 967 So.2d 715 (Ala.Civ.App.2007), both plurality decisions. | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Hawk v. Hawk
green
2 sentences2011Instead, the Court of Civil Appeals relied heavily on a case decided by the Supreme Court of Tennessee, Hawk v. Hawk, 855 S.W.2d 573 (Tenn.1993), in which the court invalidated Tennessee's grandparent-visitation statute because it was inconsistent with Tennessee's constitution. 2011Instead, the Court of Civil Appeals relied heavily on a case decided by the Supreme Court of Tennessee, Hawk v. Hawk, 855 S.W.2d 573 (Tenn.1993), in which the court invalidated Tennessee’s grandparent-visitation statute because it was inconsistent with Tennessee’s constitution. | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Dodd v. Burleson
green
2 sentences2011In rejecting the best-interests-of-the-child standard as written by the legislature into the Act and grafting onto it a standard of harm to the child, the Court of Civil Appeals chose to depart from its prior decisions in Dodd v. Burleson, 932 So.2d 912 (Ala.Civ.App.2005), and Dodd v. Burleson, 967 So.2d 715 (Ala.Civ.App. 2007), both plurality decisions. 2011In rejecting the best-interests-of-the-child standard as written by the legislature into the Act and grafting onto it a standard of harm to the child, the Court of Civil Appeals chose to depart from its prior decisions in Dodd v. Burleson, 932 So.2d 912 (Ala.Civ.App.2005), and Dodd v. Burleson, 967 So.2d 715 (Ala.Civ.App.2007), both plurality decisions. | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Ex Parte Beasley
green
2 sentences2011Therefore, a finding of `dependency' would be warranted, and the State would have a duty to act in accordance with that child's best interest." 564 So.2d at 954 . [13] Where both parents are unfit, their parental rights no longer provide the court any guidance, and the best-interests-of-the-child standard applies to balance the claims of competing parties. 2011Therefore, a finding of ‘dependency’ would be warranted, and the State would have a duty to act in accordance with that child’s best interest.” 564 So.2d at 954 . 13 Where both parents are unfit, their parental rights no longer provide the court any guidance, and the best-interests-of-the-child standard applies to balance the claims of competing parties. | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Mrj v. Drb
green
2 sentences2009On appeal, this court determined that this case was a custody-modification case and that the juvenile court had incorrectly applied the best-interests-of-the-child standard. 17 So.3d at 686 . 2009On appeal, this court determined that this case was a custody-modification case and that the juvenile court had incorrectly applied the best-interests-of-the-child standard. 17 So.3d at 686 . | 2 | 2009–2009 |
McAllister v. Price
neutral
2 sentences2008See, e.g., T.G.S. v. D.L.S., 608 So.2d 743 (Ala.Civ.App. 1992); I.L. v. L.D.L., 604 So.2d 425 (Ala. Civ.App.1992); Miller v. Hawkins, 549 So.2d 102 (Ala.Civ.App.1989); and McAllister v. Price, 562 So.2d 517 (Ala.Civ.App. 1990). 2008See, e.g., T.G.S. v. D.L.S., 608 So.2d 743 (Ala.Civ.App. 1992); I.L. v. L.D.L., 604 So.2d 425 (Ala. Civ.App.1992); Miller v. Hawkins, 549 So.2d 102 (Ala.Civ.App.1989); and McAllister v. Price, 562 So.2d 517 (Ala.Civ.App. 1990). | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Miller v. Hawkins
green
2 sentences2008See, e.g., T.G.S. v. D.L.S., 608 So.2d 743 (Ala.Civ.App. 1992); I.L. v. L.D.L., 604 So.2d 425 (Ala. Civ.App.1992); Miller v. Hawkins, 549 So.2d 102 (Ala.Civ.App.1989); and McAllister v. Price, 562 So.2d 517 (Ala.Civ.App. 1990). 2008See, e.g., T.G.S. v. D.L.S., 608 So.2d 743 (Ala.Civ.App. 1992); I.L. v. L.D.L., 604 So.2d 425 (Ala. Civ.App.1992); Miller v. Hawkins, 549 So.2d 102 (Ala.Civ.App.1989); and McAllister v. Price, 562 So.2d 517 (Ala.Civ.App. 1990). | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Il v. Ldl, Jr.
green
2 sentences2008See, e.g., T.G.S. v. D.L.S., 608 So.2d 743 (Ala.Civ.App. 1992); I.L. v. L.D.L., 604 So.2d 425 (Ala. Civ.App.1992); Miller v. Hawkins, 549 So.2d 102 (Ala.Civ.App.1989); and McAllister v. Price, 562 So.2d 517 (Ala.Civ.App. 1990). 2008See, e.g., T.G.S. v. D.L.S., 608 So.2d 743 (Ala.Civ.App. 1992); I.L. v. L.D.L., 604 So.2d 425 (Ala. Civ.App.1992); Miller v. Hawkins, 549 So.2d 102 (Ala.Civ.App.1989); and McAllister v. Price, 562 So.2d 517 (Ala.Civ.App. 1990). | 2 | 2008–2008 |
D.D. v. E.E.B.
green
1 sentence2026When deciding the custody of a child in a parentage case, the trial court applies the best-interests-of-the-child standard, see D.D. v. E.E.B., 707 So. 2d 247 (Ala. Civ. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Ex Parte Terry
green
1 sentence2014The mother also incorrectly asserts that the juvenile court was required to make an express finding of unfitness under Ex parte Terry, 494 So.2d 628 (Ala.1986), in order to sustain a finding of dependency; however, our caselaw has consistently rejected that point, as the main opinion explains. 144 So.3d at 278. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
E.H.G. v. E.R.G.
green
1 sentence2011The Court of Civil Appeals noted that “a court cannot award grandparent visitation without clear and convincing evidence demonstrating that denial of the requested visitation would harm the child.” 73 So.3d at 626 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
King v. State
neutral
1 sentence2007In Grayson v. State Department of Pensions & Security, 419 So.2d 234, 236 (Ala.Civ.App.1982), this court said: "To remove custody from the natural parent there must be clear and convincing evidence that it would be against the best interests of the child to remain with the natural parent." See also Hamilton v. State, 410 So.2d 64 (Ala.Civ.App.1982); In re Sanders, 420 So.2d 790 (Ala.Civ.App. 1982). *1209 In Rivera v. State, 444 So.2d 858, 860 (Ala.Civ.App.1983), the court said: "Before a trial court can terminate a parent's right to custody of its child, there must be clear and convincing evid | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Matter of Sanders
green
1 sentence2007In Grayson v. State Department of Pensions & Security, 419 So.2d 234, 236 (Ala.Civ.App.1982), this court said: "To remove custody from the natural parent there must be clear and convincing evidence that it would be against the best interests of the child to remain with the natural parent." See also Hamilton v. State, 410 So.2d 64 (Ala.Civ.App.1982); In re Sanders, 420 So.2d 790 (Ala.Civ.App. 1982). *1209 In Rivera v. State, 444 So.2d 858, 860 (Ala.Civ.App.1983), the court said: "Before a trial court can terminate a parent's right to custody of its child, there must be clear and convincing evid | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Hamilton v. State
green
1 sentence2007In Grayson v. State Department of Pensions & Security, 419 So.2d 234, 236 (Ala.Civ.App.1982), this court said: "To remove custody from the natural parent there must be clear and convincing evidence that it would be against the best interests of the child to remain with the natural parent." See also Hamilton v. State, 410 So.2d 64 (Ala.Civ.App.1982); In re Sanders, 420 So.2d 790 (Ala.Civ.App. 1982). *1209 In Rivera v. State, 444 So.2d 858, 860 (Ala.Civ.App.1983), the court said: "Before a trial court can terminate a parent's right to custody of its child, there must be clear and convincing evid | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Mastin v. State, Department of Pensions & Security
neutral
1 sentence2007In Grayson v. State Department of Pensions & Security, 419 So.2d 234, 236 (Ala.Civ.App.1982), this court said: "To remove custody from the natural parent there must be clear and convincing evidence that it would be against the best interests of the child to remain with the natural parent." See also Hamilton v. State, 410 So.2d 64 (Ala.Civ.App.1982); In re Sanders, 420 So.2d 790 (Ala.Civ.App. 1982). *1209 In Rivera v. State, 444 So.2d 858, 860 (Ala.Civ.App.1983), the court said: "Before a trial court can terminate a parent's right to custody of its child, there must be clear and convincing evid | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.