D.E.F. v. L.M.D.
Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama
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
- Santosky v. KramerSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Ex Parte McLendonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1984
- Amoco Production Co. v. Texaco, Inc.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 2003
- S.P. v. E.T.Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 2005
- Sanders v. First Bank of Grove HillSupreme Court of Alabama · 1990
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.