(Download) "Valisha Jones v. Jessie J. Webb Matter" by Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Valisha Jones v. Jessie J. Webb Matter
- Author : Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama
- Release Date : January 14, 1988
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 57 KB
Description
INGRAM, Judge This child custody case was initiated by a petition for change of custody filed by Jessie J. Webb, the natural
father of six-year-old Antavious Jones. The child's mother is Valisha Jones. The parents of the minor child have never been
married. The child was declared to be the son of Jessie J. Webb by the Montgomery County Circuit Court on June 13, 1983. In
the same order the court awarded legal custody of Antavious Jones to his mother. In September 1987, the father filed a petition
seeking change of custody. A hearing was held, and on January 12, 1988, the Montgomery County Circuit Court found Antavious
Jones to be a dependent child, as defined by § 12-15-1, Code 1975 (1986 Repl. Vol.). The court then awarded custody
of the child to the father. Ordinarily, a judgment of dependency and subsequent transfer of custody of a child as provided for in § 12-15-71,
Code 1975 (1986 Repl. Vol.), are governed by the child's best interests, such as the child's age, sex, health, and any emotional,
social, and material needs. See Jensen v. Short, 494 So. 2d 90 (Ala. Civ. App. 1986). Both statute and case law seem clear
that once dependency is determined, the trial court is authorized to make certain Dispositions, including transferring the
legal custody of a dependent child to a relative. Section 12-15-71, (supra) ; Sanders v. Guthrie, 437 So. 2d 1313 (Ala. Civ.
App. 1983). But the mother did not present any issue in this appeal concerning the adjudication of dependency. Instead, she
contends that the proper standard is that required by Ex parte McLendon, 455 So. 2d 863 (Ala. 1984), which holds that a change
of custody of a child must not only materially promote the child's best interest, but that evidence must be produced to overcome
the "inherently disruptive effect caused by uprooting the child."