Legal Opinion · Dissent

Ex parte J.W.B.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided July 1, 2016No. 1150075Published

1DissentParker, Justice

The goal of providing finality and stability for a child should not be obtained at the expense of a biological father’s legal and God-given natural rights, especially by means of judicially condoned lies and deception, as' occurred in this case. For that reason; I join Justice Murdock’s dissent.

MURDOCK, Justice

(dissenting).. I respectfully dissent based on the following:(1) D.W., the natural father in this case (“the father”), did as much or more than the law expected of him in holding him*793self out to the public as the father of the unborn child, B.W.B. (“the child”)» providing pre-birth…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Santosky v. KramerSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  2. Meyer v. NebraskaSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
  3. Prince v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
  4. Skinner v. Oklahoma Ex Rel. WilliamsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
  5. Lehr v. RobertsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1983

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API