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.
91 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ex Parte Perkinsgreen2 sentences2011Appellate courts do not sit in judgment of disputed evidence that was presented ore tenus before the trial court in a custody hearing.” Ex parte Bryowsky, 676 So.2d 1322, 1324 (Ala.1996); see also Ex parte Perkins, 646 So.2d 46, 47 (Ala.1994). 2010Appellate courts do not sit in judgment of disputed evidence that was presented ore tenus before the trial court in a custody hearing." Ex parte Bryowsky, 676 So.2d 1322, 1324 (Ala.1996); see also Ex parte Perkins, 646 So.2d 46, 47 (Ala.1994). | 34 | 34 |
Phillips v. Phillipsgreen2 sentences2025See Ex parte Perkins, 646 So. 2d 46, 47 (Ala. 1994), wherein this Court, quoting Phillips v. Phillips, 622 So. 2d 410, 412 (Ala. Civ. 2025See Ex parte Perkins, 646 So. 2d 46, 47 (Ala. 1994), wherein this Court, quoting Phillips v. Phillips, 622 So. 2d 410, 412 (Ala. Civ. | 33 | 34 |
Ex Parte Bryowskygreen2 sentences2026"Appellate courts do not sit in judgment of disputed evidence that was presented ore tenus before the trial court in a custody hearing." Id. 2018"Appellate courts do not sit in judgment of disputed evidence that was presented ore tenus before the trial court in a custody hearing." Ex parte Bryowsky , 676 So.2d 1322 , 1324 (Ala. 1996). | 21 | 29 |
Burgett v. Burgettgreen2 sentences2015Appellate courts do not sit in judgment of disputed evidence that was presented ore tenus before the trial court in a custody hearing.” ’ “Burgett v. Burgett, 995 So.2d 907, 912 (Ala.Civ.App.2008) (quoting Ex parte Bryowsky, 676 So.2d 1322, 1324 (Ala.1996)). “‘ “However, even under the ore tenus rule, ‘[w]here the conclusion of the trial court is so opposed to the weight of the evidence that the variable factor of witness demeanor could not reasonably substantiate it, then the conclusion. is clearly erroneous and must- be reversed.’ ” B.J.N. v. P.D., 742 So.2d 1270, 1274 (Ala.Civ.App.1999) (qu 2012Appellate courts do not sit in judgment of disputed evidence that was presented ore tenus before the trial court in a custody hearing.” ’ “Burgett v. Burgett, 995 So.2d 907, 912 (Ala.Civ.App.2008) (quoting Ex parte Bryowsky, 676 So.2d 1322, 1324 (Ala.1996)). | 12 | 13 |
Sts v. Ctgreen2 sentences2008Because this case, like S.G., is more in the nature of a custody dispute between two out-of-wedlock parents than a true dependency proceeding, we remand the cause for the juvenile court "to conduct further proceedings consistent with this opinion and to apply an appropriate custody standard to the facts of this case." J.A.P. v. M.M., 872 So.2d 861, 867 (Ala.Civ.App. 2003); see also S.T.S. v. C.T., 746 So.2d 1017, 1021 (Ala.Civ.App.1999). 2008Because this case, like S.G., is more in the nature of a custody dispute between two out-of-wedlock parents than a true dependency proceeding, we remand the cause for the juvenile court “to conduct further proceedings consistent with this opinion and to apply an appropriate custody standard to the facts of this case.” J.A.P. v. M.M., 872 So.2d 861, 867 (Ala.Civ.App.2003); see also S.T.S. v. C.T., 746 So.2d 1017, 1021 (Ala.Civ.App.1999). | 8 | 8 |
Cheek v. Dyessgreen2 sentences2010Appellate courts do not sit in judgment of disputed evidence that was presented ore tenus before the trial court in a custody hearing.'" Burgett v. Burgett, 995 So.2d 907, 912 (Ala. Civ.App.2008) (quoting Ex parte Bryowsky, 676 So.2d 1322, 1324 (Ala.1996)). "`However, even under the ore tenus rule, "[w]here the conclusion of the trial court is so opposed to the weight of the evidence that the variable factor of witness demeanor could not reasonably substantiate it, then the conclusion is clearly erroneous and must be reversed." ' B.J.N, v. P.D., 742 So.2d 1270 , 1274 (Ala.Civ.App.1999) (quotin 2010Appellate courts do not sit in judgment of disputed evidence that was presented ore tenus before the trial court in a custody hearing.’ ” Burgett v. Burgett, 995 So.2d 907, 912 (Ala.Civ.App.2008) (quoting Ex parte Bryowsky, 676 So.2d 1322, 1324 (Ala.1996)). “ ‘However, even under the ore tenus rule, “[w]here the conclusion of the trial court is so opposed to the weight of the evidence that the variable factor of witness demeanor could not reasonably substantiate it, then the conclusion is clearly erroneous and must be reversed.’” B.J.N. v. P.D., 742 So.2d 1270, 1274 (Ala.Civ.App.1999) (quoting | 5 | 5 |
Jacoby v. Bellgreen2 sentences2015Appellate courts do not sit in judgment of disputed evidence that was presented ore tenus before the trial court in a custody hearing.” ’ “Burgett v. Burgett, 995 So.2d 907, 912 (Ala.Civ.App.2008) (quoting Ex parte Bryowsky, 676 So.2d 1322, 1324 (Ala.1996)). “‘ “However, even under the ore tenus rule, ‘[w]here the conclusion of the trial court is so opposed to the weight of the evidence that the variable factor of witness demeanor could not reasonably substantiate it, then the conclusion. is clearly erroneous and must- be reversed.’ ” B.J.N. v. P.D., 742 So.2d 1270, 1274 (Ala.Civ.App.1999) (qu 2010Appellate courts do not sit in judgment of disputed evidence that was presented ore tenus before the trial court in a custody hearing.’ ” Burgett v. Burgett, 995 So.2d 907, 912 (Ala.Civ.App.2008) (quoting Ex parte Bryowsky, 676 So.2d 1322, 1324 (Ala.1996)). “ ‘However, even under the ore tenus rule, “[w]here the conclusion of the trial court is so opposed to the weight of the evidence that the variable factor of witness demeanor could not reasonably substantiate it, then the conclusion is clearly erroneous and must be reversed.’” B.J.N. v. P.D., 742 So.2d 1270, 1274 (Ala.Civ.App.1999) (quoting | 5 | 5 |
Bjn v. Pdgreen2 sentences2015Appellate courts do not sit in judgment of disputed evidence that was presented ore tenus before the trial court in a custody hearing.” ’ “Burgett v. Burgett, 995 So.2d 907, 912 (Ala.Civ.App.2008) (quoting Ex parte Bryowsky, 676 So.2d 1322, 1324 (Ala.1996)). “‘ “However, even under the ore tenus rule, ‘[w]here the conclusion of the trial court is so opposed to the weight of the evidence that the variable factor of witness demeanor could not reasonably substantiate it, then the conclusion. is clearly erroneous and must- be reversed.’ ” B.J.N. v. P.D., 742 So.2d 1270, 1274 (Ala.Civ.App.1999) (qu 2010Appellate courts do not sit in judgment of disputed evidence that was presented ore tenus before the trial court in a custody hearing.’ ” Burgett v. Burgett, 995 So.2d 907, 912 (Ala.Civ.App.2008) (quoting Ex parte Bryowsky, 676 So.2d 1322, 1324 (Ala.1996)). “ ‘However, even under the ore tenus rule, “[w]here the conclusion of the trial court is so opposed to the weight of the evidence that the variable factor of witness demeanor could not reasonably substantiate it, then the conclusion is clearly erroneous and must be reversed.’” B.J.N. v. P.D., 742 So.2d 1270, 1274 (Ala.Civ.App.1999) (quoting | 4 | 5 |
Bsl v. Segreen2 sentences2003This court has held that "[w]hen a review of the record discloses that the hearing relates to custody rather than to dependency,... the trial court must apply *329 the appropriate custody standard." B.S.L. v. S.E., 826 So.2d 890, 893 (Ala.Civ.App. 2002). 2003This court has held that “[w]hen a review of the record discloses that the hearing relates to custody rather than to dependency, ... the trial court must apply the appropriate custody standard.” B.S.L. v. S.E., 826 So.2d 890, 893 (Ala.Civ.App.2002). | 4 | 4 |
Jap v. Mmgreen2 sentences2008Because this case, like S.G., is more in the nature of a custody dispute between two out-of-wedlock parents than a true dependency proceeding, we remand the cause for the juvenile court "to conduct further proceedings consistent with this opinion and to apply an appropriate custody standard to the facts of this case." J.A.P. v. M.M., 872 So.2d 861, 867 (Ala.Civ.App. 2003); see also S.T.S. v. C.T., 746 So.2d 1017, 1021 (Ala.Civ.App.1999). 2008Because this case, like S.G., is more in the nature of a custody dispute between two out-of-wedlock parents than a true dependency proceeding, we remand the cause for the juvenile court “to conduct further proceedings consistent with this opinion and to apply an appropriate custody standard to the facts of this case.” J.A.P. v. M.M., 872 So.2d 861, 867 (Ala.Civ.App.2003); see also S.T.S. v. C.T., 746 So.2d 1017, 1021 (Ala.Civ.App.1999). | 2 | 4 |
Ex Parte STSgreen2 sentences2005Ex parte S.T.S., 806 So.2d at 341 . 2005Ex parte S.T.S., 806 So.2d at 341 . | 2 | 4 |
Ex Parte Fanngreen2 sentences2012The July 30, 2010, order merely states: “The court, in order to gain a greater grasp of the issues, has again listened to the entire testimony as presented on February 9, 2010, having done so by resort to the court reporter’s tape recordings thereof.” We conclude that our standard of review is as stated in Ex parte Fann, 810 So.2d 631, 633 (Ala.2001): “When [an appellate court] reviews a trial court’s child-custody determination that was based upon evidence presented ore tenus, we presume the trial court’s decision is correct: ‘ “A custody determination of the trial court entered upon oral tes 2005In Ex parte Fann , 810 So.2d 631 , 633 (Ala. 2001), this Court stated: "When this Court reviews a trial court's child-custody determination that was based upon evidence presented ore tenus, we presume the trial court's decision is correct: `"A custody determination of the trial court entered upon oral testimony is accorded a presumption of correctness on appeal, and we will not reverse unless the evidence so fails to support the determination that it is plainly and palpably wrong. . . ."' Ex parte Perkins , 646 So.2d 46 , 47 (Ala. 1994), quoting Phillips v. Phillips , 622 So.2d 410 , 412 (Ala. | 2 | 2 |
Me v. Shelby County Dhrgreen2 sentences2010As the mother points out, a finding of dependency must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. §§ 12-15-310(b) and -311(a), Ala.Code 1975. "`"`[C]lear and convincing evidence' is `[e]vidence that, when weighed against evidence in opposition, will produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm conviction as to each essential element of the claim and a high probability as to the correctness of the conclusion.'"'" M.E. v. Shelby County Dep't of Human Res., 972 So.2d 89, 92-93 (Ala.Civ.App.2007) (quoting Ex *1249 parte T.V., 971 So.2d 1, 9 (Ala.2007), quoting in turn other authority). 2010As the mother points out, a finding of dependency must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. §§ 12-15-310(b) and -311(a), Ala.Code 1975. “ ‘ “ ‘[Cjlear and convincing evidence’ is ‘[ejvidence that, when weighed against evidence in opposition, will produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm conviction as to each essential element of the claim and a high probability as to the correctness of the conclusion.’ ” ’ ” M.E. v. Shelby County Dep’t of Human Res., 972 So.2d 89, 92-93 (Ala.Civ.App.2007) (quoting Ex parte T.V., 971 So.2d 1, 9 (Ala.2007), quoting in turn other authority). | 2 | 2 |
Ex Parte TVgreen2 sentences2010As the mother points out, a finding of dependency must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. §§ 12-15-310(b) and -311(a), Ala.Code 1975. "`"`[C]lear and convincing evidence' is `[e]vidence that, when weighed against evidence in opposition, will produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm conviction as to each essential element of the claim and a high probability as to the correctness of the conclusion.'"'" M.E. v. Shelby County Dep't of Human Res., 972 So.2d 89, 92-93 (Ala.Civ.App.2007) (quoting Ex *1249 parte T.V., 971 So.2d 1, 9 (Ala.2007), quoting in turn other authority). 2010As the mother points out, a finding of dependency must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. §§ 12-15-310(b) and -311(a), Ala.Code 1975. “ ‘ “ ‘[Cjlear and convincing evidence’ is ‘[ejvidence that, when weighed against evidence in opposition, will produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm conviction as to each essential element of the claim and a high probability as to the correctness of the conclusion.’ ” ’ ” M.E. v. Shelby County Dep’t of Human Res., 972 So.2d 89, 92-93 (Ala.Civ.App.2007) (quoting Ex parte T.V., 971 So.2d 1, 9 (Ala.2007), quoting in turn other authority). | 2 | 2 |
Scholl v. Parsonsgreen2 sentences2005Scholl v. Parsons, 655 So.2d 1060, 1062 (Ala.Civ.App. 1995). 2004Scholl v. Parsons, 655 So.2d 1060, 1062 (Ala.Civ.App.1995). | 2 | 2 |
Crowley v. Crowleygreen2 sentences2003Compare Crowley v. Crowley, 708 N.E.2d 42 (Ind.Ct.App.1999)(holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying a military parent's motion for a stay pursuant to the Act and by entering a provisional child-support order during the pendency of the divorce action because the service member's ability to prosecute or defend at the final hearing would not be impaired); Catlin v. Catlin, 494 N.W.2d 581 (N.D.1992)(holding that the trial court's refusal to stay an interim custody order did not prejudice the military parent's litigation position on the merits in a permanent-custody hea 2003Compare Crowley v. Crowley, 708 N.E.2d 42 (Ind.Ct.App.1999)(holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying a military parent’s motion for a stay pursuant to the Act and by entering a provisional child-support order during the pendency of the divorce action because the service member’s ability to prosecute or defend at the final hearing would not be impaired); Catlin v. Catlin, 494 N.W.2d 581 (N.D.1992)(holding that the trial court’s refusal to stay an interim custody order did not prejudice the military parent’s litigation position on the merits in a permanent-custody hea | 2 | 2 |
Trevino v. Trevinogreen2 sentences2003Compare Crowley v. Crowley, 708 N.E.2d 42 (Ind.Ct.App.1999)(holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying a military parent's motion for a stay pursuant to the Act and by entering a provisional child-support order during the pendency of the divorce action because the service member's ability to prosecute or defend at the final hearing would not be impaired); Catlin v. Catlin, 494 N.W.2d 581 (N.D.1992)(holding that the trial court's refusal to stay an interim custody order did not prejudice the military parent's litigation position on the merits in a permanent-custody hea 2003Compare Crowley v. Crowley, 708 N.E.2d 42 (Ind.Ct.App.1999)(holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying a military parent’s motion for a stay pursuant to the Act and by entering a provisional child-support order during the pendency of the divorce action because the service member’s ability to prosecute or defend at the final hearing would not be impaired); Catlin v. Catlin, 494 N.W.2d 581 (N.D.1992)(holding that the trial court’s refusal to stay an interim custody order did not prejudice the military parent’s litigation position on the merits in a permanent-custody hea | 2 | 2 |
Ex Parte Byarsgreen2 sentences2009The controlling consideration in such a case is the best interest of the child.’ Ex parte Byars, 794 So.2d 345, 347 (Ala.2001) (citing Ex parte Couch, 521 So.2d 987 (Ala.1988)).” Burgett v. Burgett, 995 So.2d 907, 912 (Ala.Civ.App.2008). 2009The controlling consideration in such a case is the best interest of the child.' Ex parte Byars , 794 So.2d 345 , 347 (Ala. 2001) (citing Ex parte Couch , 521 So.2d 987 (Ala. 1988))." Burgett v. Burgett , 995 So.2d 907 , 912 (Ala. Civ.App. 2008). | 1 | 2 |
Gallant v. Gallantgreen1 sentence2025See Gallant v. Gallant, 184 So. 3d 387, 401 (Ala. Civ. | 1 | 1 |
Berryman v. Berrymangreen1 sentence2018See generally Berryman v. Berryman, 816 So.2d 43 , 45 (Ala. Civ. | 1 | 1 |
| Hanner v. METRO BANK AND PROTECT. LIFE INS.green | 1 | 1 |
| Tll v. Tflgreen | 1 | 1 |
Greene v. Greenegreen2 sentences2016Discussion When a court has awarded sole physical custody of children to one parent in a final judgment, that judgment may be modified to transfer custody of the children to the other parent based on the standard established in Ex parte McLendon, 465 So.2d 863 (Ala.1984): “The correct standard in this case is: “ ‘Where a parent has transferred to another [whether it be a non-parent or the other parent], the custody of h[er] infant child by fair agreement, which has been acted upon by such other person to the manifest interest and welfare of the child, the parent will not be permitted to reclai 2016Discussion When a court has awarded sole physical custody of children to one parent in a final judgment, that judgment may be modified to transfer custody of the children to the other parent based on the standard established in Ex parte McLendon, 465 So.2d 863 (Ala.1984): “The correct standard in this case is: “ ‘Where a parent has transferred to another [whether it be a non-parent or the other parent], the custody of h[er] infant child by fair agreement, which has been acted upon by such other person to the manifest interest and welfare of the child, the parent will not be permitted to reclai | 1 | 1 |
| Light v. Employees' Retirement System of Alabamagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Wth v. Mmmgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Moore v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Tb v. Cdlgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ex Parte Ebbersgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ex Parte Mjwgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Williams v. Lidegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ex Parte NLRgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Eubanks v. Halegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Sims v. Simsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ex Parte McLendon
green
2 sentences2016When a parent has relinquished custody of a child to a nonparent, .in order to regain custody, the parent must meet the custody standard set forth in Ex parte McLendon, 455 So.2d 863 (Ala. 1984). 2005Therefore, if the parties and the trial court had complied with this court's mandate, the father, in asserting a claim to custody of the child after remand, would be required to meet the more stringent custody standard set forth in Ex parte McLendon, 455 So.2d 863 (Ala.1984), that applies to modifications of a prior (in this case, the initial) custody order. | 8 | 2002–2016 |
Ex Parte Terry
green
2 sentences2005In Ex parte Terry, 494 So.2d 628 (Ala.1986), this Court noted that in a custody dispute between a parent and a nonparent, the parent has a prima facie right to custody: “ ‘The prima facie right of a natural parent to the custody of his or her child, as against the right of custody in a nonparent, is grounded in the common law concept that the primary parental right of custody is in the best interest and welfare of the child as a matter of law. 2005In Ex parte Terry, 494 So.2d 628 (Ala. 1986), this Court noted that in a custody dispute between a parent and a nonparent, the parent has a prima facie right to custody: "`The prima facie right of a natural parent to the custody of his or her child, as against the right of custody in a nonparent, is grounded in the common law concept that the primary parental right of custody is in the best interest and welfare of the child as a matter of law. | 6 | 2002–2005 |
Cp v. Mk
green
2 sentences2003See also S.T.S. v. C.T., 746 So.2d 1017 , 1020 (Ala.Civ.App.1999) ("After thoroughly reviewing the juvenile dependency statutes and applicable caselaw, we conclude that this case was primarily a custody dispute and, therefore, did not fall within the scope of the dependency statute."); C.P. v. M.K., 667 So.2d 1357 (Ala.Civ.App. 1994) (after concluding that the action was more in the nature of a custody dispute than a dependency action and that the standard set forth in Ex parte Terry, 494 So.2d 628 (Ala.1986), applied, this court reversed a judgment awarding custody to nonparents). 2003See also S.T.S. v. C.T., 746 So.2d 1017, 1020 (Ala.Civ.App.1999) (“After thoroughly reviewing the juvenile dependency statutes and applicable caselaw, we conclude that this case was primarily a custody dispute and, therefore, did not fall within the scope of the dependency statute.”); C.P. v. M.K., 667 So.2d 1357 (Ala.Civ.App.1994) (after concluding that the action was more in the nature of a custody dispute than a dependency action and that the standard set forth in Ex parte Terry, 494 So.2d 628 (Ala.1986), applied, this court reversed a judgment awarding custody to nonparents). | 6 | 2002–2003 |
Ex Parte GC
green
2 sentences2026Id. at ___ (Moore, P.J., concurring specially). 2016Ex parte C.G., 924 So.2d at 659 ; T.L.L. v. T.F.L., 580 So. 2d 1359, 1361 (Ala. Civ. | 2 | 2016–2026 |
Ex Parte Couch
green
2 sentences2009The controlling consideration in such a case is the best interest of the child.’ Ex parte Byars, 794 So.2d 345, 347 (Ala.2001) (citing Ex parte Couch, 521 So.2d 987 (Ala.1988)).” Burgett v. Burgett, 995 So.2d 907, 912 (Ala.Civ.App.2008). 2009The controlling consideration in such a case is the best interest of the child.' Ex parte Byars , 794 So.2d 345 , 347 (Ala. 2001) (citing Ex parte Couch , 521 So.2d 987 (Ala. 1988))." Burgett v. Burgett , 995 So.2d 907 , 912 (Ala. Civ.App. 2008). | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Catlin v. Catlin
green
2 sentences2003Compare Crowley v. Crowley, 708 N.E.2d 42 (Ind.Ct.App.1999)(holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying a military parent's motion for a stay pursuant to the Act and by entering a provisional child-support order during the pendency of the divorce action because the service member's ability to prosecute or defend at the final hearing would not be impaired); Catlin v. Catlin, 494 N.W.2d 581 (N.D.1992)(holding that the trial court's refusal to stay an interim custody order did not prejudice the military parent's litigation position on the merits in a permanent-custody hea 2003Compare Crowley v. Crowley, 708 N.E.2d 42 (Ind.Ct.App.1999)(holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying a military parent’s motion for a stay pursuant to the Act and by entering a provisional child-support order during the pendency of the divorce action because the service member’s ability to prosecute or defend at the final hearing would not be impaired); Catlin v. Catlin, 494 N.W.2d 581 (N.D.1992)(holding that the trial court’s refusal to stay an interim custody order did not prejudice the military parent’s litigation position on the merits in a permanent-custody hea | 2 | 2003–2003 |
Jones v. Webb
green
2 sentences2002See Ex parte S.T.S., 806 So.2d 336 (Ala.2001); C.P. v. M.K., 667 So.2d 1357 (Ala.Civ.App.1994); Jones v. Webb, 524 So.2d 374 (Ala.Civ.App.1988). 2002See Ex parte S.T.S., 806 So.2d 336 (Ala.2001); C.P. v. M.E, 667 So.2d 1357 (Ala.Civ.App.1994); Jones v. Webb, 524 So.2d 374 (Ala.Civ.App.1988). | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Stringfellow v. Somerville
green
2 sentences2016Discussion When a court has awarded sole physical custody of children to one parent in a final judgment, that judgment may be modified to transfer custody of the children to the other parent based on the standard established in Ex parte McLendon, 465 So.2d 863 (Ala.1984): “The correct standard in this case is: “ ‘Where a parent has transferred to another [whether it be a non-parent or the other parent], the custody of h[er] infant child by fair agreement, which has been acted upon by such other person to the manifest interest and welfare of the child, the parent will not be permitted to reclai 2016Discussion When a court has awarded sole physical custody of children to one parent in a final judgment, that judgment may be modified to transfer custody of the children to the other parent based on the standard established in Ex parte McLendon, 465 So.2d 863 (Ala.1984): “The correct standard in this case is: “ ‘Where a parent has transferred to another [whether it be a non-parent or the other parent], the custody of h[er] infant child by fair agreement, which has been acted upon by such other person to the manifest interest and welfare of the child, the parent will not be permitted to reclai | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Fordham v. Siderius
green
1 sentence2016Ex parte Siderius, supra. Further, we agree with the mother that the trial court erred in denying her motion to dismiss the father’s custody claim, and, therefore, we grant her petition for a writ of mandamus and direct the trial court to vacate its June 8, 2016, order denying that motion to dismiss. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Ex Parte Rawls green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| In re the Marriage of Barnes green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Lacaze v. Lacaze green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.