Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

64 So. 3d 637

J.L. v. W.E.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided December 3, 2010

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 2010-12-03

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently June 2018

5 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“"dependency is a status created by law that either is true of a child or is not. That is, either a child is dependent or it is not. A child cannot be dependent vis-À-vis one parent but not dependent as to the other parent. If the child is not dependent `as to one parent,' then the child is not dependent."”

quoted by 4 later decisions, including E.D. v. Lee Cnty. Dep't of Human Res., Tk v. Mg

Relies on J.L. v. W.E.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2010-12-03

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

LYONS, Justice.

¶1WRIT DENIED. NO OPINION.

COBB, C.J., and WOODALL, PARKER, and SHAW, JJ., concur. MURDOCK, J., concurs specially. STUART and BOLIN, JJ., dissent. MURDOCK, Justice

¶2(concurring specially).

¶3I do not take issue with the result reached by the Court of Civil Appeals in its opinion in this case. J.L. v. W.E., 64 So.3d 631 (Ala.Civ.App.2010). I write, however, to note that dependency is a status created by law that either is true of a child or is not. That is, either a child is dependent or it is not. A child cannot be dependent vis-a-vis one parent but not dependent as to the other parent. If the child is not dependent “as to one parent,” then the child is not dependent.1 In this case, L.L. is no longer dependent, and I concur in the denial of certiorari review.

¶4. See Ala.Code 1975, § 12-15-102(8)a.2., defining a "dependent child” as including a child "[w]ho is without a parent, legal guardian, or legal custodian willing and able to provide for the care, support, or education of the child.”
/64/so3d/637 · .json · Public domain