You are in the military, and you move around every few years at the needs of the military. It can be hard, but this is the life you choose, and you do it to serve your country. Eventually, on a two-year stop in San Diego, you meet the woman of your dreams. There she is, playing beach volleyball. Love burns hot; she must be yours, and you do not lose, especially if it is something you want. A few days later, the two of you begin dating, and by the end of the year, you get married to each other. The military keeps moving you around the country with a stop here and there, and then you two decide to have kids. Kids make everything harder, and the constant moves have taken a toll. The burning love you once felt on the beach is no more, and you start to wonder if there is any love there at all. You separate and contemplate divorce but choose to do nothing. Your wife moves to Alabama during the separation, and you obtain a reassignment to an Alabama base to be near your family. You and your wife start to slowly reconnect, and she gets pregnant. Everything is trending back up until birth, and the child is clearly not yours. This is the last straw, you decide you want to file for divorce. Then, before you can file, she moves to Oregon across the country. You still file for divorce and allege the mother has abducted the child from you. She returns the child for trial; however, this still feels like abduction. You then ask your attorney: has child abduction really occurred?

In a case with similar circumstances decided on May 9, 2025, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals held that child abduction had not occurred. The case Stanford v. Anaya arises out of events surrounding the mother's decision to move the couple's child to Oregon shortly before divorce was filed in Alabama. In this case, the father claimed the mother abducted the child. The father claimed that because the mother abducted the child, the trial court's decision on custody and visitation was improper and should be reversed. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals rejected this argument, affirming the trial court's custody ruling and affirming that child abduction had not taken place.

Under Alabama law, abduction is defined as "[t]he wrongful removal or wrongful retention of a child." Ala. Code 1975, § 30-3C-2(1). "Wrongful removal" means "[t]he taking of a child that breaches rights of custody or visitation given or recognized under the law of this state." § 30-3C-2(10). Stanford v. Anaya, No. CL-2024-0877, 2025 WL 1351653, at *3 (Ala. Civ. App. May 9, 2025); (Quoting Ala. Code 1975§ 30-3C-2(10)). "Wrongful retention" refers to "[t]he keeping or concealing of a child that breaches rights of custody or visitation given or recognized under the law of this state." Stanford, WL 1351653, at *3; (Quoting Ala. Code 1975§ 30-3C-2(11)). In this case, the trial court did issue an order for the mother to return the child to the state, and the mother did not abide by that order. The child was only returned to the state the day of the trial. The father specifically argued this constituted abduction by breaching his right of visitation, thus qualifying as wrongful retention. In response, the Court held this breach was "replaced by the final judgment" Stanford, WL 1351653, at *3. Therefore, the custody decision could not be replaced due to the alleged child abduction. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court's decision. See Id.

In this case, the Court did not make the right decision. The Court completely avoided the issue of whether child abduction had occurred, leaving the issue up in the air. The Court did, however, declare the issue void as it relates to overturning a custody decision. This is the wrong legal decision. A person should come to the court with clean hands and no wrongdoing when seeking a ruling. In this case, the mother came to the court after fleeing the state and refusing to return the child to the state until trial against a direct court order. The mother did not have clean hands in this case, and the Court ignored this. The mother faced no consequences for directly disobeying the court's order, setting a dangerous precedent. The fact that the mother disobeyed the order should not be ignored by the courts, and in this case it was. This directly weakens the power of the court and is against the basic principle of legal equity that an individual should come to court with clean hands.

If you have a Federal Criminal case, a State Criminal case, a Municipal Case or a Family Law case, contact Joe Ingram or Joe Joe Ingram Law, LLC at 205-335-2640. Get Relief * Get Results.