S.L.M. v. S.C. (Ex parte S.L.M.)
Decision Date | 19 September 2014 |
Docket Number | 1130573. |
Citation | 171 So.3d 673 |
Parties | Ex parte S.L.M. and R.S.M. (In re S.L.M. and R.S.M. v. S.C.). |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Christopher R. Garner of Burns Garner Law Firm, Gadsden, for petitioners.
Jane V. Floyd of Floyd Law Firm, Gadsden, for respondent.
This Court issued a writ of certiorari to determine, among other issues, whether the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals on return to remand, determining that sufficient evidence was presented to support the juvenile court's decision to modify custody, conflicts with Ex parte McLendon, 455 So.2d 863 (Ala.1984).1 We reverse the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals and render a judgment for S.L.M. and R.S.M.
S.C., the maternal grandmother, petitioned the Etowah Juvenile Court to intervene and to grant her custody of S.D.A., who was 19 months old at the time of trial, and R.D.A., who was 9 months old at the time of trial, both of whom were in the custody of S.L.M. and R.S.M. (S.D.A. and R.D.A. are hereinafter referred to collectively as “the children”).2 S.L.M. and R.S.M. are not related to the children. In the petitions, the grandmother alleged that the children were dependent as to the mother and the biological father, that S.L.M. may have been awarded temporary custody of the children, and that it would be in the best interest of the children for the children to be placed in her custody.
At trial, the maternal grandmother testified that she lived in Kentucky, that she and the children's mother were estranged, that she had custody of the mother's oldest child, and that she had been unaware of the births of the children. She explained that, when she learned about the children, she contacted the Department of Human Resources, requesting information about and custody of the children. She testified that she was physically and financially able to take care of all three children and that she wanted them to grow up as a family. The maternal grandmother admitted that she had never met the children and that the oldest child had only seen photographs of the children.
S.L.M. testified that, although she was not a blood relative of the mother, she had known the mother for over 20 years and considered the mother a “sister.” She explained:
With regard to her relationship with the children, S.L.M. testified that the children had lived with her and her husband, R.S.M., since their respective births. She explained that she brought each child to her home from the hospital because of the mother's drug-addiction problems. S.L.M. testified:
She stated that R.S.M. is a good father and that their daughter loves the children. When asked how often the mother visits with the children, S.L.M. replied, She stated that she allowed the mother to visit with the children if the mother was “straight.”
R.S.M. testified that he shares custody of the children with S.L.M., his wife of 13 years. He stated that he loved the children like his own daughter and that he willingly provided for them, carried them to doctor's appointments, and used his income to support them.
The mother testified that she wanted S.L.M. to have custody of her children. She elaborated about the children's lives with S.L.M., stating:
The mother admitted that the maternal grandmother could provide adequately for the children but maintained that she wanted the children to remain with S.L.M. and R.S.M. so that she could continue to have a relationship with the children.
The following testimony was developed with regard to the mother's visitation and relationship with the children:
“[THE COURT]: How often do you see the two children here?
“[The mother]: Well, up until I had
left [
] I was getting to see them once a week to once every two weeks, depending upon their schedule.
In closing, the maternal grandmother's counsel argued that the children should be placed with a relative and that, because the children's half sister was in the custody of the maternal grandmother, the children should be placed in the custody of the maternal grandmother and be united with their half sister.
After considering the evidence, the juvenile court entered orders awarding custody of the children to the maternal grandmother. After S.L.M. and R.S.M.'s posttrial motions were denied, they appealed the judgment to the Court of Civil Appeals.
The Court of Civil Appeals, after reviewing the record, remanded the cases to the juvenile court to make written findings of fact to support its judgments. S.L.M. v. S.C., 171 So.3d 656, 663 (Ala.Civ.App.2013). On remand, the juvenile court entered identical orders as to each child explaining the reasons for its decision to modify custody with regard to each child, stating:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
G. L.C. v. C.E.C. (Ex parte G.L.C.)
...court. Therefore, we must apply de novo the standard of review that was applicable in the Court of Civil Appeals." ’ " Ex parte S.L.M., 171 So.3d 673, 677 (Ala. 2014) (quoting Ex parte Helms, 873 So.2d 1139, 1143 (Ala. 2003), quoting in turn Ex parte Toyota Motor Corp., 684 So.2d 132, 135 (......
- Jones v. State (Ex parte Jones)
- Ex parte Hicks
- J.B. v. J.M.