Cory v. Cory

429 So. 2d 1096
CourtCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama
DecidedApril 6, 1983
DocketCiv. 3505
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 429 So. 2d 1096 (Cory v. Cory) 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
Cory v. Cory, 429 So. 2d 1096 (Ala. Ct. App. 1983).

Opinion

This is a child custody case.

Laura S. Cory and Charles Thomas Cory were divorced on July 16, 1982. Custody of the ten-month-old minor child of the marriage, Jennifer, was awarded to the father. The mother appeals.

The sole issue raised on appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting custody of the minor child to the father. There is a strong presumption in favor of the trial court's findings in child custody cases. Linderman v.Linderman, 49 Ala. App. 662, 275 So.2d 342 (1973). As in all cases where judgment is rendered after an ore tenus hearing, the judgment of the trial court is presumed correct and will be reversed on appeal "only if after consideration of the evidence, and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, the judgment or decree is found to be plainly and palpably wrong." Turner v. Turner, 46 Ala. App. 350, 351, 242 So.2d 397,398 (1970).

As we stated in Turner v. Turner, supra: "There is no law in this state which gives to either parent priority as to right of custody." The controlling consideration in child custody cases is the best interests of the child. Id. This rule has been given even further support by the supreme court's decision inEx parte Devine, 398 So.2d 686 (Ala. 1981). *Page 1097

There is no point in setting out the evidence in the present case. We have carefully read the transcript, and in accordance with the above-stated principles of law, find ample evidence to support the trial court's judgment.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court, based on our previous decisions in Turner v. Turner, supra, and Linderman v.Linderman, supra.

AFFIRMED.

BRADLEY and HOLMES, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Sockwell v. Sockwell
822 So. 2d 1219 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 2001)
Hill v. Hill
681 So. 2d 617 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1996)
H.A.S. v. C.S.
681 So. 2d 588 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1996)
Morton v. Morton
631 So. 2d 1046 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1993)
J.B. v. E.R.
628 So. 2d 942 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1993)
Bowden v. Bowden
601 So. 2d 1045 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1992)
Grant v. Grant
510 So. 2d 271 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1987)
Jennings v. Jennings
490 So. 2d 10 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1986)
Swanson v. Brookover
489 So. 2d 598 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1986)
Beene v. Hester
471 So. 2d 422 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1985)
Bradley v. Bradley
467 So. 2d 255 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1985)
Cokely v. Cokely
469 So. 2d 635 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1985)
Hanson v. Hanson
467 So. 2d 961 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1985)
Gregson v. Gregson
456 So. 2d 828 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1984)
James v. James
456 So. 2d 829 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1984)
Kyser v. Kyser
456 So. 2d 816 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1984)
Hester v. Hester
460 So. 2d 1305 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
429 So. 2d 1096, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cory-v-cory-alacivapp-1983.