A recent dispute from Limestone County rose to the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, seeking a determination of the burdens a party must meet when petitioning to modify child custody. This case, D.W. and S.W. v. A.L. and J.G., clarifies the proper standard for reviewing a child custody arrangement. While clarifying the standard, the Court also addresses the burdens which must be met to modify such an arrangement.
In July of 2020, the Limestone Juvenile Court heard a dependency case involving D.W. and S.W., the grandparents of a child, against A.L and J.G., the child’s parents. The Court awarded custody of the child to the grandparents. In August of 2022, the grandparents petitioned to modify the child’s custody, claiming that the mother had rehabilitated herself and rectified her legal issues. The modification was temporarily granted, giving custody to the mother while she resided with the grandparents. When the matter went to trial on August 18, 2023, the Court applied the Ex parte McLendon standard, which routinely applied when a third-party custodian has custody of the child. Under this standard, the mother’s circumstances had not materially changed, and so the Court declined to restore her custody. The grandparents appealed, giving rise to this decision.
On appeal, the grandparents argued against the denial of their petition to modify the custody arrangement. Instead of referring to the Ex parte McLendon standard, the grandparents asserted that under §12-15-316(2) of the Alabama Code, they only needed to show that the modification was in the child’s best interest. Under this interpretation, the grandparents argued that they were not required to show a material change in circumstances.
Reviewing the appeal, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals found that the lower court had improperly applied the Ex parte McLendon standard. Regardless of this finding, however, the Court upheld the 2023 judgment denying the modification of the custody arrangement. The Court found that, despite the incorrect application, the grandparents had failed to meet the standard they advocated for. Even under §12-15-316(2), modification still required a showing that the change was in the child’s best interest. As there was insufficient evidence supporting this claim, the previous denial of modification was upheld.
D.W. and S.W. v. A.L. and J.G. establishes the appropriate standard for reviewing petitions to modify child custody. This standard reflects the relevant public policy factoring into the approach, with the child’s best interest being the paramount consideration. While the clarified standard does not mandate change in circumstances, the party seeking modification still bears the burden of proving that the changes will benefit the child.
If you have a Federal Criminal case, a State Criminal case, a Municipal Case or a Family Law case, contact Joe Ingram or Ingram Law LLC at 205-335-2640. Get Relief Get Results.