B.M. v. K.L.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

B.M. v. K.L.

812 So. 2d 1290, 2001 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 571, 2001 WL 1104915

CourtCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama

DecidedSeptember 21, 2001

Docket2000764

StatusPublished

This text of 812 So. 2d 1290 (B.M. v. K.L.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

B.M. v. K.L., 812 So. 2d 1290, 2001 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 571, 2001 WL 1104915 (Ala. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

In February 2001, K.L. (“the maternal grandmother”) filed a petition for grandparent visitation, pursuant to § 30-3-4.1, Ala.Code 1975. She alleged in her petition that B.M. and S.M. (“the parents”) have disallowed her visitation with her grandchild J.M. (“the child”). The parents filed a motion to dismiss the maternal grandmother’s petition, arguing that § 30-3-4.1 is unconstitutional. As required by § 6-6-227, Ala.Code 1975, the parents served the motion on the Attorney General. Following a trial, the juvenile court granted the maternal grandmother certain visitation rights with the child. The parents filed a postjudgment motion, which the juvenile court denied.

The parents appeal, arguing that the trial court erred in granting the maternal grandmother visitation rights. They reassert their argument that § 30-3-4.1 is unconstitutional. We agree with the parents.

A majority of this court held that § 30-3-4.1 was unconstitutionally applied in R.S.C. v. J.B.C., 812 So.2d 361 (Ala.Civ.App.2001). We conclude that this case presents no reasons for a result different from that reached by a majority of this court in R.S.C., and we, therefore, conclude that § 30-3-4.1 was unconstitutionally applied in this case as well. Therefore, the trial court’s judgment is reversed. On remand, the trial court is instructed to enter an order consistent with this opinion

REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

YATES, P.J., and THOMPSON, PITTMAN, and MURDOCK, JJ„ concur. CRAWLEY, J., concurs in the result.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

In February 2001, K.L. (“the maternal grandmother”) filed a petition for grandparent visitation, pursuant to § 30-3-4.1, Ala.Code 1975. She alleged in her petition that B.M. and S.M. (“the parents”) have disallowed her visitation with her grandchild J.M. (“the child”). The parents filed a motion to dismiss the maternal grandmother’s petition, arguing that § 30-3-4.1 is unconstitutional. As required by § 6-6-227, Ala.Code 1975, the parents served the motion on the Attorney General. Following a trial, the juvenile court granted the maternal grandmother certain visitation rights with the child. The parents filed a postjudgment motion, which the juvenile court denied.

The parents appeal, arguing that the trial court erred in granting the maternal grandmother visitation rights. They reassert their argument that § 30-3-4.1 is unconstitutional. We agree with the parents.

A majority of this court held that § 30-3-4.1 was unconstitutionally applied in R.S.C. v. J.B.C., 812 So.2d 361 (Ala.Civ.App.2001). We conclude that this case presents no reasons for a result different from that reached by a majority of this court in R.S.C., and we, therefore, conclude that § 30-3-4.1 was unconstitutionally applied in this case as well. Therefore, the trial court’s judgment is reversed. On remand, the trial court is instructed to enter an order consistent with this opinion

REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

YATES, P.J., and THOMPSON, PITTMAN, and MURDOCK, JJ„ concur. CRAWLEY, J., concurs in the result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

812 So. 2d 1290, 2001 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 571, 2001 WL 1104915, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bm-v-kl-alacivapp-2001.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack