In re: B.F. v. C.D. and A.D.

── In re: B.F. v. C.D. and A.D. ── Case No.: SC-2025-0655 Court: Supreme Court of Alabama Date: March 27, 2026 Author: Tommy Bryan Category: General Rel: March 27, 2026 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) 229-0650), 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, 2025-2026 _________________________ SC-2025-0655 _________________________ Ex parte C.D. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS (In re: B.F. v. C.D. and A.D.) (Coffee Juvenile Court: JU-21-122.02; Court of Civil Appeals: CL-2025-0032) SC-2025-0655 BRYAN, Justice. B.F. ("the father") filed a petition in the Coffee Juvenile Court ("the juvenile court"), seeking custody of his son, S.G.R. ("the child"). The juvenile court had previously placed the child in the custody of C.D. and her husband, A.D.; C.D. is a longtime friend of the child's mother, M.R. ("the mother"). The juvenile court denied the father's petition, and he appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the judgment, concluding that the juvenile court had applied the incorrect standard in evaluating whether the child's custody should be modified. B.F. v. C.D., [Ms. CL-2025-0032, Aug. 22, 2025] ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2025). The juvenile court had applied the standard set forth in Ex parte McLendon, 455 So. 2d 863 (Ala. 1984); the Court of Civil Appeals concluded that the juvenile court should have applied the standard set forth in Ex parte Terry, 494 So. 2d 628 (Ala. 1986). In making that conclusion, the Court of Civil Appeals correctly determined that it was bound by this Court's decisions in Ex parte D.J., 645 So. 2d 303 (Ala. 1994), and Ex parte G.C., 924 So. 2d 651 (Ala. 2005). In a special concurrence, Presiding Judge Moore urged this Court to overrule Ex parte D.J. and Ex parte G.C.; all the other judges on that court joined 2 SC-2025-0655 the special concurrence. C.D. then petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari, asking this Court to overrule Ex parte D.J. and Ex parte G.C., and we granted the petition to consider that request. For the reasons discussed below, we now overrule Ex parte D.J. and Ex parte G.C. insofar as they conflict with the new standard that we establish today, and we reverse and remand. The child was born out of wedlock in April 2021. In October 2021, the juvenile court determined that the child was dependent, and that court granted physical and legal custody of the child to C.D. and her husband, A.D. C.D. is a longtime friend of the mother, and C.D. and A.D. also have custody of two other children of the mother; those children are half siblings of the child. The mother voluntarily relinquished custody of the child and agreed that the child should reside with C.D. The juvenile court's order declaring the child to be dependent and granting custody to C.D. and A.D. also stated that the father of the child was unknown. The father was incarcerated in June 2021, shortly after the child was born in April 2021 but before the child was declared dependent in October 2021. The father remained incarcerated until July 2022, when he entered a substance-abuse rehabilitation program. The father 3 SC-2025-0655 finished that program in December 2023. In February 2024, the father filed a "Petition to Determine Paterni