AMK v. ED
| Decision Date | 01 February 2002 |
| Citation | 826 So.2d 889 |
| Parties | Ex parte State of Alabama. (In re A.M.K. v. E.D.) |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
J. Coleman Campbell and James E. Long, asst. attys. gen., Department of Human Resources, for petitioner.
Dana Jill Simpson, Rainsville, for respondent.
A.M.K., the maternal grandmother ("the grandmother"), of K.D. and L.D., the children of E.D. and T.D, who is deceased, filed a complaint on July 14, 2000, seeking grandparent visitation pursuant to § 30-3-4.1, Ala.Code 1975. The grandmother alleged that she was very active in the lives of her minor grandchildren before her daughter's (their mother's) death and that since T.D.'s death her visitation with the minor children has been sporadic and limited. In her amended complaint filed on November 14, 2000, she alleges that she has no intention to hinder the parent/child relationship, that she and the children are physically and mentally capable of safely exercising visitation with each other, and that visitation is in the children's best interests.
E.D. answered by filing a motion to dismiss on August 18, 2000. However, not until E.D. filed his second motion to dismiss on December 8, 2000, was the State of Alabama notified that he was challenging the constitutionality of § 30-3-4.1, Ala. Code 1975. The second motion to dismiss alleged that there is no constitutional basis on which to interfere with the family unit; that § 30-3-4.1, Ala.Code 1975, is unconstitutional; and that the United States Supreme Court has determined in Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000), that a state may not infringe on the fundamental rights of parents to make child-rearing decisions. In January 2001 the attorney general's office, acting on behalf of the State of Alabama, filed a brief in the trial court in support of the constitutionality of the statute.
On March 1, 2001, the trial court issued a lengthy order in which it declared § 30-3-4.1, Ala.Code 1975, to be unconstitutional and denied A.M.K.'s request for visitation. In its judgment, the trial court, relying primarily on Troxel v. Granville, determined that both § 30-3-4.1(e) () and § 30-3-4.1(d) () were unconstitutional. The trial court concluded that without those two provisions, the statute failed to provide any standard by which a court could determine whether and under what circumstances to award visitation. Therefore, the trial court concluded, the entire statute was facially unconstitutional. On March 28, 2001, the grandmother filed a motion for a new trial pursuant to Rule 59. Only the State appealed.
On May 31, 2001, the grandmother and E.D., by and through their attorneys of record, offered the trial court a joint agreement to extend the time for ruling on the grandmother's post-trial motion. This stipulation was incorporated into trial court orders issued on June 11 and June 12, 2001. Rule 59.1, Ala. R. Civ. P., provides that a postjudgment motion will be denied by operation of law 90 days after it is filed "unless with the express consent of all the parties, which consent shall appear of record" to extend time for ruling (emphasis added). The stipulation contained in the trial court record reflects that the State did not expressly consent to the stipulation. Therefore, we conclude that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
E.H.G. v. E.R.G.
...upon a sufficient showing that the denial of visitation would result in substantial harm to the child. Id.; see also A.M.K. v. E.D., 826 So.2d 889 (Ala.Civ.App.2002) (adopting reasoning of L.B.S.). Nevertheless, in the next few opinions this court issued concerning the Act, the court revers......
-
Boyd v. Boyd
...other authorities, HealthSouth Corp. v. Brookwood Health Servs., Inc., 814 So.2d 267, 268 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000), and A.M.K. v. E.D., 826 So.2d 889, 890 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002), both of which had involved state instrumentalities as additional parties whose consents had not been shown of record......
-
State v. Redtop Market, Inc.
...Schiesz, [Ms. 2041024, May 5, 2006] ___ So.2d ___ Ala. Civ.App.2006); Moore v. Moore, 910 So.2d 137 (Ala.Civ.App.2004); A.M.K. v. E.D., 826 So.2d 889 (Ala.Civ.App.2002); Brown v. Brown, 808 So.2d 40 (Ala.Civ.App.2001); HealthSouth Corp. v. Brookwood Health Servs., Inc., 814 So.2d 267 (Ala.C......
-
Ex Parte A.R.S.
...of grandparents; see Hays v. Hays, 946 So.2d 867 (Ala.Civ.App.2006); C.D.P. v. D.P., 927 So.2d 841 (Ala.Civ.App. 2005); A.M.K. v. E.D., 826 So.2d 889 (Ala. Civ.App.2002); L.B.S. v. L.M.S., 826 So.2d 178 (Ala.Civ.App.2002); and R.S.C. v. J.B.C., 812 So.2d 361 In light of the evidence concern......