Chavers v. Hammac
Decision Date | 12 September 1990 |
Parties | April CHAVERS v. Anita HAMMAC. Civ. 7711. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Melissa A. Posey of Montiel & Posey, Mobile, for appellant.
No brief for appellee.
ROBERT P. BRADLEY, Retired Appellate Judge.
This is a child visitation case.
Anita L. Hammac (Ms. Hammac) filed a petition in the Circuit Court of Mobile County against April Rachel Chavers (Ms. Chavers) on November 9, 1989, seeking visitation privileges with Samantha Chavers pursuant to § 30-3-4, Code 1975. On April 16, 1990 Ms. Chavers filed a motion to dismiss Ms. Hammac's petition on the ground that Ms. Hammac was the child's great-grandmother, not the child's grandmother.
The trial court denied the motion to dismiss and proceeded to hear the matter on its merits. After the hearing the trial court ordered that Ms. Hammac have unsupervised overnight visitation with the child. Ms. Chavers appeals.
On appeal Ms. Chavers argues that the trial court erred in awarding Ms. Hammac, the child's greatgrandmother, visitation rights pursuant to § 30-3-4, Code 1975, the "Grandparent Visitation Statute."
In Ex parte Bronstein, 434 So.2d 780 (Ala.1983), the supreme court said:
"Alabama is a common law state, and there is no question that the common law did not allow grandparents a legal right of visitation, and the legislature has not seen fit to abrogate this common law rule."
434 So.2d at 783 (citation omitted).
In a special concurring opinion, Justice Shores said: "I hope, however, that the Legislature will address this issue and pass legislation extending to grandparents a right to retain and maintain a relationship with the children of their children." 434 So.2d at 784.
Shortly after the release of the Bronstein opinion by the supreme court, the legislature enacted a statute, later codified as § 30-3-4, Code 1975, authorizing a court, in its discretion, to allow visitation between grandparents and grandchildren.
Section 30-3-4, Code 1975, provides as follows:
We held in In re Morris, 494 So.2d 87 (Ala.Civ.App.1986), that § 30-3-4 must be strictly construed, and a failure to fit the circumstances of a particular case within the requirements of the code section mandates a denial of the petition for visitation.
Under § 30-3-4, the trial court has...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ed H. v. Ashley C.
...statutes to exclude great-grandparents when not expressly included in the statute.3 (See, e.g., Chavers v. Hammac (Ala.Civ.App. 1990) 568 So.2d 1252, 1253 ; In re M.D.E . (Colo.Ct.App. 2013) 297 P.3d 1058, 1061 ; Hammons v. Jenkins-Griffith (Ind.Ct.App. 2002) 764 N.E.2d 303, 305-306 ; Skov ......
-
F.S. v. D.D. (Ex parte R.D.)
...be strictly construed; it cannot extend to persons who do not fit the definition specified by the Legislature. See Chavers v. Hammac, 568 So. 2d 1252 (Ala. Civ. App. 1990) ; Shoemaker v. Shoemaker, 563 So. 2d 1032 (Ala. Civ. App. 1990)." T.R.S.S. v. R.S., 828 So. 2d 327, 330 (Ala. Civ. App.......
-
In re M.D.E.
...same conclusion where the statute in question did not expressly give great-grandparents a right to seek visitation. Chavers v. Hammac, 568 So.2d 1252, 1253 (Ala.Civ.App.1990); Hammons, 764 N.E.2d at 305–06;Skov, 32 P.3d at 1127–28;Cole, 735 S.W.2d at 334–35;David L. v. Tracey L., 230 A.D.2d......
-
Lott v. Alexander
...same conclusion where the statute in question did not expressly give great-grandparents a right to seek visitation. Chavers v. Hammac, 568 So.2d 1252, 1253 (Ala.Civ.App.1990); In re M.D.E., 297 P.3d 1058, 1061 (Colo.App.2013); Hammons v. Jenkins–Griffith, 764 N.E.2d 303, 305–06 (Ind.Ct.App.......