# R.K. v. R.J.

> Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · September 6, 2002 · 843 So. 2d 774

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7758710

## Case

- **Full name:** R.K. and C.K. v. R.J.
- **Court:** Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama
- **Decided:** September 6, 2002
- **Citations:** 843 So. 2d 774; 2002 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 694
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Crawley
- **Judges:** Murdock, Thompson, Pittman, Yates, Crawley
- **Cited by:** 44 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7758710

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing the relative importance of stability in a child's environment and in the child's relationships with those who have cared for and loved the child in comparison to a child's biological ties with a natural parent when the latter has made himself a stranger to the child
- concluding that a father who did not have custody of his child had nonetheless abandoned the child by failing to fulfill his parental role to the extent circumstances allowed
- noting irreconcilable tension between the holding in Ex parte D.J. and other child-custody cases
- discussing the voluntary-forfeiture exception in the context of parental neglect or abandonment

## Opinion text

CRAWLEY, Judge,
dissenting.
I must respectfully dissent. The majority holds that the father has voluntarily relinquished custody of his child and that, in order to reclaim custody, he must meet the Ex parte McLendon, 455 So.2d 863 (Ala.1984), standard. I disagree. In fact, it appears from the record that the father lost his parental presumption vis-a-vis the mother when she was awarded custody in the paternity judgment. However, the “contest [here] is not between the [father] and a person to whom [the father] has *787 transferred [custody] ... by fair agreement [or by prior judgment].” Ex parte Terry, 494 So.2d 628, 632 (Ala.1986) (internal quotations and citation omitted). Accordingly, under Terry, the father does not have to meet the McLendon standard to “reclaim” custody as against the grandparents. Similarly, Ex parte Berryhill, 410 So.2d 416 (Ala.1982), the facts of which are quite similar to the present case, stands for the proposition that when a father is not awarded custody of a child, he is still given the benefit of the parental presumption against third parties, provided he is not found unfit.
I also believe that Ex parte D.J., 645 So.2d 303 (Ala.1994), requires that the trial court’s judgment be affirmed. The D.J. court found that “application of the parental presumption in [cases like this one] promotes the sound policy of encouraging fathers to fulfill their paternal roles.” Ex parte D.J., 645 So.2d at 306 . The father in this case, once he discovered the mother’s unfitness, chose to assume his paternal role. I must dissent from the majority’s reversal of the trial court’s application of the principles espoused by our supreme court in Ex parte D.J., Ex parte Terry, and Ex parte Berryhill.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7758710. Public record. Not legal advice.