miscarriage of justice warranting reversal. III. ¶ 33. We affirm the family court’s order to transfer custody from Lisa to Janet. We are, however, under no delusions that a transfer of custody is simple under even the best of circumstances. We are mindful of the fact that much time has passed since Janet and IMJ spent a significant amount of time together. We are also aware that the family court found that Lisa is the cause of this estrangement. As reflected below, the family court should have great discretion at the hearing called for in the mandate of this order to reevaluate Janet’s relationship with IMJ at that time and ensure a transition that comports with the law’s intent to defend and protect IMJ’s best interests. Cf. In re Stacks, 406 So. 2d 979, 980-81 (Ala. Civ. App. 1981) (<HOLDING>). ¶34. Because this Court desires to minimize
holding that evidence was sufficient to support trial courts best interest finding where mother allowed child to be in contact with individual who had physically abused her mother was not capable of caring for child on her own mother admitted at trial she had not found stable employment and child was doing well in her current placement holding that where child was in care of grandmother for much of his life trial court was correct in delaying permanent transfer of custody to childs mother to allow child to become reacquainted with her and to prevent the trauma to him of an abrupt removal holding that grandmother who had intermittent custody of her grandchild had no protected liberty interest in the continued custody of the child holding that maternal grandmother had standing to intervene in pending sapcr to seek managing conservatorship of child pursuant to former section 102004b and section 102004a where she had substantial past contact with child there was evidence of abuse and neglect of child by mother and mother had been arrested and had subsequently engaged in bizarre and dangerous behavior towards child had attacked grandmother with frying pan and hedge clippers and had been involuntarily committed to psychiatric center all of which established serious and immediate concern for welfare of child holding that trial court improperly awarded custody of child to the childs stepmother and grandparents where no pleading in the case was directed at such relief and the childs mother had no notice that the issue would be considered