M.B. v. L.B.

5 Citing cases

  1. E.K. v. J.H.

    No. 2181036 (Ala. Civ. App. Jun. 12, 2020)

    NO OPINION. See Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(F), Ala. R. App. P.; Ex parte Anonymous, 803 So. 2d 542, 546 (Ala. 2001); Ex parte McLendon, 455 So. 2d 863 (Ala. 1984); M.B. v. L.B., 154 So. 3d 1043, 1048 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014); Enzor v. Enzor, 98 So. 3d 15, 19 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011); P.A. v. L.S., 78 So. 3d 979, 981 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011); J.W. v. C.B., 56 So. 3d 693, 699 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010); Quick v. Burton, 960 So. 2d 678, 681 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006); K.W. v. J.G., 856 So. 2d 859, 869 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003); Williams v. Williams, 602 So. 2d 425 (Ala. Civ. App. 1992); Reuter v. Neese, 586 So. 2d 232 (Ala. Civ. App. 1991); and Wilson v. State Dep't of Human Res., 527 So. 2d 1322 (Ala. Civ. App. 1988). 2181036 and 2181037 -- AFFIRMED.

  2. Powell v. Grubbs

    No. 2200403 (Ala. Civ. App. Nov. 19, 2021)

    See Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(C), Ala. R. App. P.; B.F.G. v. C.N.L., 204 So.3d 399, 404-06 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016); M.B. v. L.B., 154 So.3d 1043, 1048 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014); and M.R.D. v. T.D., 989 So.2d 1111, 1114 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008).

  3. Clark v. Clark

    292 So. 3d 1054 (Ala. Civ. App. 2019)   Cited 3 times

    Given the evidence in the record, together with the presumption that evidence heard by the trial court but not set forth in the record supports the trial court's judgment, we conclude that the father has failed to demonstrate on appeal that he met his respective burdens to warrant a change in custody of either child and that, therefore, he has failed to establish that the trial court erred in denying his claims seeking a modification of custody of the son and the daughter. M.B. v. L.B., 154 So. 3d 1043, 1048 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014). The father also argues that the trial court erred in its determination of child support.

  4. Clark v. Clark

    2171013 (Ala. Civ. App. Apr. 19, 2019)

    Given the evidence in the record, together with the presumption that evidence heard by the trial court but not set forth in the record supports the trial court's judgment, we conclude that the father has failed to demonstrate on appeal that he met his respective burdens to warrant a change in custody of either child and that, therefore, he has failed to establish that the trial court erred in denying his claims seeking a modification of custody of the son and the daughter. M.B. v. L.B., 154 So. 3d 1043, 1048 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014). The father also argues that the trial court erred in its determination of child support.

  5. B.F.G. v. C.N.L.

    204 So. 3d 399 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016)   Cited 9 times
    Recognizing that a trial court cannot craft its visitation restriction in a manner that allows a custodial parent to deny a noncustodial parent visitation without being subject to a contempt citation

    However, we note that a denial of rights of visitation may be affirmed if the trial court determines that such a decision serves the best interests of the child. M.B. v. L.B., 154 So.3d 1043, 1047 (Ala.Civ.App.2014).With regard to the issue of visitation, in its February 27, 2015, judgment, the trial court made the following factual findings and legal determinations: