Court Opinion

ID: 7768602
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-30 20:49:22.550064+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:40:44.021589
License: Public Domain

I write separately to note my understanding that the presumption recognized by our Supreme Court in Ex parte McLendon, 455 So.2d 863
(Ala. 1984), is applicable when there has been a prior judgment awarding physical custody of a child to either a parent or a nonparent (or a voluntary relinquishment or forfeiture of the physical custody of a child), and the same has been "`acted upon by such other person to the manifest interest and welfare of the child.'" 455 So.2d at 865-66
(quoting Greene v. Greene, 249 Ala. 155, 157, 30 So.2d 444, 445 (1947));Kaiser v. Kaiser, [Ms. 2010287, June 27, 2003] 868 So.2d 1095, 1101 n. 2 (Ala.Civ.App. 2003); R.K. v. R.J., 843 So.2d 774, 777-78 (Ala.Civ.App. 2002); DiIorio v. Long, 839 So.2d 650, 652-53 (Ala.Civ.App. 2001) (plurality opinion). See Spears v. Wheeler, [Ms. 2020583, October 24, 2003] 877 So.2d 607, 609 (Ala.Civ.App. 2003) (Murdock, J., dissenting) (reviewing applicable authority). See also R.O.M. v. B.B., 854 So.2d 98,100 (Ala.Civ.App. 2003). Having said that, I concur in the result reached by the main opinion.