T.C.M. v. W.L.K.
Decision Date | 28 April 2017 |
Docket Number | 2160031,2160131 |
Parties | T.C.M. and C.N.M. v. W.L.K. T.C.M. and C.N.M. v. W.L.K. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Robert E. Lusk, Jr., of Lusk Law Firm, LLC, Fairhope; Bryant Andrew Whitmire, Jr., Birmingham; and Marcus A. Jones III, Birmingham, for appellants T.C.M. and C.N.M.
Richard L. Wyatt, Homewood; and Robert Echols, Jr., Birmingham, for appellee W.L.K.
This is the seventh time these parties—W.L.K. ("the father") and T.C.M. and C.N.M. ("the prospective adoptive parents")—have appeared before this court seeking review of one or another court's orders respecting the custody of M.M. ("the child"). See Ex parte W.L.K., 175 So.3d 652 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015) (plurality opinion) (" W.L.K. I"); T.C.M. v. W.L.K. (No. 2130936, February 27, 2015), 206 So.3d 593 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015) (table) (appeal dismissed); Ex parte T.C.M. (No. 2140717, June 30, 2015), 212 So.3d 241 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015) (table) (petition denied); Ex parte W.L.K., 222 So.3d 357 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015) (" W.L.K. II") ( ); T.C.M. v. W.L.K., 208 So.3d 39 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016) (" T.C.M. II") ( ); Ex parte T.C.M., 231 So. 3d 330 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016) (table) ( ); and T.C.M. v. W.L.K., 231 So.3d 238 (Ala. Civ. App 2016) (released today).
The facts underlying this controversy were outlined in T.C.M. II, 208 So.3d at 40–43 :
In T.C.M. II, we first considered whether the petition for the writ of mandamus filed by the prospective adoptive parents was the appropriate vehicle for review of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Rowland v. Tucker
-
T.C.M. v. W.L.K., 2160032
...(No. 2150935, September 16, 2016), 231 So. 3d 330 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016) (table) (petition dismissed as moot); and T.C.M. v. W.L.K., 237 So.3d 238 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017) (released today). The Facts and Procedural History The basic procedural history underlying these appeals was set out in W.L......
- Bragg v. Roche (Ex parte Bragg)
- J.F. v. J.S.