Ex parte R.G.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Rel: 1/30/15 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 2290649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter. SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2014-2015 ____________________ 1140191 ____________________ Ex parte R.G. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS (In re: R.G. v. Limestone County Department of Human Resources) (Limestone Juvenile Court, JU-12-145.02; Court of Civil Appeals, 2130582) BRYAN, Justice. WRIT DENIED. NO OPINION. 1140191 Stuart, Bolin, Parker, Murdock, Shaw, Main, and Wise, JJ., concur. Moore, C.J., dissents. 2 1140191 MOORE, Chief Justice (dissenting). I respectfully dissent. The Limestone Juvenile Court terminated the parental rights of R.G., the petitioner, who challenges Alabama courts' use of the ore tenus standard of review in termination-of-parental-rights cases. Judge Moore discussed this issue thoroughly in his special concurrence in J.C. v. State Department of Human Resources, 986 So. 2d 1172, 1197-1202 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007) (analyzing Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982), which adopted the clear-and-convincing evidence standard of proof in termination-of-parental-rights cases). Judge Moore concluded that the "constitutional concerns implicated in every termination-of-parental-rights case command stricter provides." 986 So. 2d constitutional concerns scrutiny than the ore tenus rule at 1199. I agree with Judge Moore's about the standard of review in termination-of-parental-rights cases; therefore, I would grant the petition and ask the parties to submit additional briefs regarding the constitutionality of the ore tenus standard of review in such cases. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
