Ex parte DW
Decision Date | 08 February 2002 |
Citation | 835 So.2d 186 |
Parties | Ex parte D.W. and J.C.W. In re J.S. and E.S. v. D.W. and J.W. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Randall W. Nichols of Massey & Stotser, P.C., Birmingham, for petitioners.
John M. Wood and Brian D. Turner, Jr., of Wood & Shaw, L.L.C., Birmingham, for respondents.
This Court granted certiorari review to determine whether § 26-10A-30, Ala.Code 1975, is unconstitutional, as the Court of Civil Appeals held in this case that it was. J.S. v. D.W., 835 So.2d 174 (Ala.Civ.App. 2001). Presiding Judge Yates adequately stated the relevant facts in that opinion; there is no need to repeat them here. The issue presented is one of first impression before this Court. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals.
The Alabama Adoption Code, which became effective January 1, 1991, is codified at § 26-10A-1 et seq., Ala.Code 1975. The constitutionality of the following section of the Alabama Adoption Code is at issue in this case:
§ 26-10A-30, Ala.Code 1975. In short, that section allows the "natural grandparents of the adoptee" to petition for "post-adoption visitation rights" in the context of intrafamily adoptions. The section clearly abrogates, under certain circumstances, the common-law rule, which did not allow grandparents a legal right of visitation. See Ex parte Bronstein, 434 So.2d 780, 783 (Ala.1983).
Under the authority of § 26-10A-30, the trial court granted the petitioners visitation rights. The adopting parents appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals. That court reversed the judgment of the trial court, holding that § 26-10A-30 unconstitutionally infringes upon the adoptive parents' fundamental right to parent. The Court of Civil Appeals based its holding upon its interpretation and application of the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000). The Court of Civil Appeals discussed Troxel at length in its opinion, stating in part:
J.S. v. D.W., 835 So.2d at 179-80.
The Court of Civil Appeals focused upon the fundamental right of parents to rear their children, the linchpin of the United States Supreme Court's holding in Troxel. However, Troxel involved the rights of a natural mother, while this case involves the rights of adopting parents in the limited context of intrafamily adoptions. In our opinion, the Court of Civil Appeals erred in overlooking this significant distinction.
In considering the constitutionality of § 26-10A-30, we must remember that "[i]t is well established that this Court should be very reluctant to hold any act unconstitutional." Ex parte Boyd, 796 So.2d 1092, 1094 (Ala.2001). In Alabama State Federation of Labor v. McAdory, 246 Ala. 1, 9-10, 18 So.2d 810, 814-15 (1944), cert. dismissed, 325 U.S. 450, 65 S.Ct. 1384, 89 L.Ed. 1725 (1945), this Court stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial- Ex Parte E.R.G. And D.W.G.
-
E.H.G. v. E.R.G.
......at 78. Hence, the law traditionally has recognized that a parent charged with the responsibility of preparing a child for social and other obligations should be able to determine who should influence or indoctrinate that child. See Ex parte Bronstein, 434 So.2d 780, 782 (Ala.1983). Out of respect for that fundamental natural right, the common law declared that fit parents did not have any legal obligation to allow grandparent visitation. See id. “The policy reasons underlying the common law rule's ......
-
State v. K.E.L.
......State , 428 So. 2d 139, 141 (Ala. Crim. App. 1982). The term ‘may be guilty’ cannot be stretched to mean ‘shall be guilty’ because ‘[p]enal statutes are to reach no further in meaning than their words,’ Ex parte Bertram , 884 So. 2d 889, 891 (Ala. 2003) and ‘should not be extended by construction.’ Ex parte Evers , 434 So. 2d 813, 817 (Ala. 1983). "The parties have not cited any other criminal provisions of the traffic code, § 32-5A-1 et seq., or the criminal code, § 13A-[1]-1 et seq., in which the ......
-
Peak v. City of Tuscaloosa, CR-09-0805
...of legislation is well established. This Court "'should be very reluctant to hold any act unconstitutional.'" Ex parte D.W., 835 So. 2d 186, 189 (Ala. 2002) (quoting Ex parte Boyd, 796 So. 2d 1092, 1094 (Ala. 2001))." [I]n passing upon the constitutionality of a legislative act, the courts ......