Legal Opinion · Concurrence

D.E.F. v. L.M.D.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Decided July 29, 2011No. 2100466Published

1ConcurrenceMoore, Judge

I concur in the result. I write specially to explain why, in this case, the custody-modification standard established in Ex parte McLendon, 455 So.2d 863 (Ala.1984), does not conflict with the public policy favoring reunification of a dependent child with his or her natural parents. See § 12-15-312, Ala.Code 1975.

Section 12 — 15—101(b)(3), Ala.Code 1975, a part of the Alabama Juvenile Justice Act (“the AJJA”), § 12-15-101 et seq., Ala. Code 1975, establishes a goal for juvenile courts to

“reunite a child with his or her parent or parents as quickly and as safely as possible when the child has…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Santosky v. KramerSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  2. Ex Parte McLendonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1984
  3. Amoco Production Co. v. Texaco, Inc.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 2003
  4. S.P. v. E.T.Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 2005
  5. Sanders v. First Bank of Grove HillSupreme Court of Alabama · 1990

4 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