Legal Opinion · Dissent

McLendon v. Mills

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Decided July 10, 2015No. 2140389Published

1DissentThompson, Presiding Judge

Because I believe our caselaw prohibits us from applying the harmless-error rule to the specific circumstances of this case; I must respectfully dissent.

It is well settled that a trial court will use one of two standards in custody-modification proceedings: the more stringent standard set forth in Ex parte McLendon, 455 So.2d 863 (Ala. 1984) (“the McLendon standard”), and the less stringent standard set forth in Ex parte Couch, 521 So.2d 987 (Ala. 1988) (“the best-interests standard”). Typically, a trial court’s application of the incorrect standard requires reversal of that trial court’s…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Ex Parte McLendonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1984
  2. Ex Parte CouchSupreme Court of Alabama · 1988
  3. W.T.M. v. S.P.Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 2002
  4. I.M. v. J.P.F.Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1995
  5. Lawley v. ByrdCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1997

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

Powered by the Exa API