Jimmy Sandlin, Attorney At Law

08/05/2024

Understanding Alabama Alimony

06/20/2024

Jimmy Sandlin, Attorney at Law cares about you and your family. We are a small law office serving Hu

05/16/2024

WHAT DO YOU THINK?
In Etowah County a young couple divorced after only one year of marriage. The Wife was pregnant at the time of divorce. The couple agreed that the Wife should be awarded sole physical custody of the child upon birth, with the Husband receiving visitation every other weekend. Not long after the child was born the mother placed the child in the care of her parents. The father continued to exercise his visitation on weekends. This arrangement continued until the child was around 8 years old. At that time, the parties agreed to a shared custody arrangement where the father would exercise parenting time for one week and the grandparents would exercise parenting time for the following week. One year later the parties went back to the weekend visitation schedule for the father. When the child was around 10 years old DHR opened an investigation of child abuse involving the mother and another child belonging to her and her new paramour. The Grandparents became concerned that this investigation might lead to a removal of the child in their home as the mother still had legal custody of that child. They filed a Petition seeking legal and physical custody of the child. The father contested the grandparents’ petition and argued that he should be granted custody over the grandparents because he was a fit and willing parent and should be given priority over a non-parent. The case went to trial and the trial court awarded full custody of the child to the grandparents and visitation to the father every other weekend. The father appealed. On appeal, the father argued that the trial court committed an error by granting custody to a non-parent over a parent when the parent in question is fit, willing and able to care for the child. The only allegation against the father was that he had failed to regularly give the child his ADHD medications.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial Court ruling and allowed the grandparents to retain custody. The court stated that, when parents are joint custodians of a child sharing equal responsibilities, the failure of one parent to properly discharge those responsibilities renders the child dependent. This means that the child can be placed in the custody of a non-parent. The court went on to state that, as a matter of Alabama law, a child can be placed in the home of a non-parent even when one parent is fit, willing and able to care for his/her child.

05/02/2024

04/08/2024

When your marriage is a total eclipse, call me!

03/01/2024

Grandparent’s Rights - Cases involving children and grandparents’ rights for custody and visitation occur on a regular basis. Judge Sandlin understands the emotional toll these cases can take on both the children and grandparents. If you are the caretaker of a minor child, you may be entitled to legal custody.

02/13/2024

JB and CS were childhood sweethearts who renewed their relationship years later with a short-lived fling. Not long after the fling ended CS announced that she was pregnant. After the birth DHR took custody of the child from CS and placed him in foster care. JB immediately requested custody and submitted to a paternity test in order to prove that the child was his. Once the test results affirmed his paternity, DHR began to investigate his background and determined that he was fit to be a parent.
The only reservation that DHR had about JB was his continued contact with the mother, whom they deemed to be a danger to the child. The mother had serious mental health issues including delusional thoughts, manic episodes, criminal misconduct, threatening behavior, and financial and housing issues. They instructed JB to terminate ALL contact with CS. In spite of this warning, CS continued to regularly come to JB’s home. He also continued to talk with her on the telephone and send her pictures of the child which he took during his visitation times. JB did not disclose to DHR that he was continuing to have contact with CS, but none of the contact occurred in the presence of the child.
When DHR discovered that JB was having contact with CS over their objections, they ceased his visitation and recommended to the court that custody of the child be placed with the foster parents. The trial court agreed, reasoning that JB had forfeited his right to custody by failing to exercise protective capacity for the child regarding the mother.
JB appealed and the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court. The appellate court stated that, although JB continued to have contact with CS over DHR’s objection, he never endangered the safety of the child, as the child was never present when CS visited JB’s home. The court stated that JB was never ordered by the court to cease all contact with CS, and therefore the failure to comply with a DHR requirement was not fatal to his request for custody. The court stated that DHR’s fear for the child’s safety was based on mere speculation that JB would expose the child to his mother. DHR presented no hard facts which would support their fear that the child would be placed in danger if JB was granted custody. The appellate court ordered the judge to grant custody of the child to JB.
WHAT DO YOU THINK? Should a parent lose custody of his/her child if he/she continues a relationship with the other parent who is a danger to the child’s safety?

01/26/2024

T.D. (age 18) and N.G. (age 17) had been dating for about three years when N.G.’s father, R.G., decided that T.D. might not be the right choice for his daughter. R.G. had read some text messages from T.D. which had been sent to N.G. and after that he told her that she couldn’t see T.D. again for a while.
N.G. responded by running away from home. She contacted T.D.’s mother and asked her to pick her up and take her to T.D.’s home. She did not inform T.D.’s mother that she was running away. T.D. and N.G. then went to Clarksville, TN where N.G.’s mother lived. In the meantime, R.G. was convinced that T.D. had kidnapped his daughter and directed law enforcement to go to his home and search for her not once, not twice, but a total of nine times.
R.G. then went to the Madison County Courthouse and filed a Petition for a Protection Order on behalf of his daughter. The Judge entered a temporary order against T.D. and set the matter for hearing. At the hearing, R.G. alleged that T.D. was a dangerous threat to his daughter. He stated that T.D. was both verbally and physically abusive, that he owned a gun, had a criminal record and had been expelled from school. N.G. testified that T.D. had never hurt her and was not a danger to her. She stated that she ran away from home because her father was too strict, and they argued all the time. She stated that she couldn’t go anywhere without first getting his permission, even if it was just a short trip to the store.
After hearing all the evidence the trial court entered a permanent protection order prohibiting T.D. from having any contact with N.G.. T.D. appealed and the Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court's decision. The Appellate Court stated that there was no evidence that T.D. had been violent toward N.G. or that he had kidnapped her or otherwise held her against her will. The Court stated that N.G. just ran away from home and that was not a basis for a protection order.

WHAT DO YOU THINK? Should a father of a minor be allowed to obtain a protection order prohibiting his daughter’s boyfriend from having any contact with the daughter if he does not believe that the young man is appropriate?

05/05/2023

P.H met T.R. at a strip club in Madison County. T.R. was a dancer at the club and P.H. was a patron. He invited T.R. to go to lunch with him the next day and T. R. accepted. She picked up P.H. at his home, and the two new friends spent the day eating at an expensive restaurant and shopping at an upscale shopping center. P.H. spent close to $2,000.00 on food and gifts for T.R. that afternoon, including some Victoria Secret designer undergarments. Next they drove back to P.H.’s house for what P.H. thought would be a continuation of the ”date.” When they arrived at the home, P.H. exited T.R.’s vehicle, expecting T.R. to also get out of the car and come inside. Instead, T.R. immediately locked the car doors and drove away. P.H. sued T.R. demanding reimbursement for the $2000 he spent on her that afternoon. The court denied P.H.’s claim stating that, “He knew what he wanted, and she knew what she was doing. As despicable as the deception was, it was not illegal.” The court went on to categorize the expenditures as gifts and stated that this incident was an expensive lesson for P.H.

WHAT DO YOU THINK? Should a person who purchases expensive gifts in anticipation of a sexual favor be reimbursed if the recipient does not follow through?

02/20/2023

Happy Presidents Day from the Law Office of Jimmy Sandlin.