M.R.J. v. D.R.B.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/09/2009 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e Reporter of Decisions, Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 2080764 M.R.J. v. D.R.B. Appeal from Montgomery J u v e n i l e Court (JU-06-1038.01 and JU-06-1038.02) MOORE, J u d g e . M.R.J. Montgomery child") ("the m o t h e r " ) Juvenile Court to the c h i l d ' s awarding t h e mother appeals from a judgment awarding custody father liberal D.R.B. visitation of the o f Z.R.J. ("the ("the f a t h e r " ) and at the d i s c r e t i o n of 2080764 the in c h i l d ' s g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m . We a f f i r m i n p a r t and reverse part. This this 2009] court i s t h e s e c o n d t i m e t h e s e p a r t i e s have b e e n court. See So. 3d M.R.J. v. D.R.B., ( A l a . C i v . App. [Ms. 2070487, 2009). s e t out the p e r t i n e n t p r o c e d u r a l before Feb. I n M.R.J., history: "The r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t t h e c h i l d was b o r n i n September 2003. U n t i l t h e i n s t a n t p r o c e e d i n g s , t h e mother had m a i n t a i n e d p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y of t h e c h i l d s i n c e t h e c h i l d ' s b i r t h . The f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d v o l u n t a r i l y p a i d some c h i l d s u p p o r t t o t h e m o t h e r b u t t h a t , a t some p o i n t b e f o r e December 2006, the mother had sought a formal adjudication r e g a r d i n g c h i l d s u p p o r t i n t h e Montgomery J u v e n i l e Court. In that proceeding, the j u v e n i l e court e s t a b l i s h e d t h e p a t e r n i t y o f t h e c h i l d and o r d e r e d the f a t h e r t o pay the mother s p e c i f i e d monthly c h i l d support. " W h i l e t h e c h i l d - s u p p o r t p r o c e e d i n g was still pending, the father filed a complaint i n the j u v e n i l e c o u r t on December 1 1 , 2006, r e q u e s t i n g t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t f i n d t h e c h i l d d e p e n d e n t ; award the f a t h e r custody of the c h i l d , s u b j e c t t o the m o t h e r ' s r i g h t t o v i s i t a t i o n ; and r e q u i r e t h e m o t h e r t o p a y c h i l d s u p p o r t . On M a r c h 29, 2007, t h e m o t h e r f i l e d h e r own c o m p l a i n t a l l e g i n g t h e d e p e n d e n c y o f t h e c h i l d and r e q u e s t i n g t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t award h e r l e g a l c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d . "On December 1 2 , 2007, t h e j u v e n i l e court c o n d u c t e d an o r e t e n u s p r o c e e d i n g t o h e a r t h e competing complaints seeking custody of the c h i l d . On J a n u a r y 25, 2008, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t t h a t made no d e t e r m i n a t i o n as t o d e p e n d e n c y but s t a t e d , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : 2 27, this 2080764 " ' B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g , t h e C o u r t f i n d s and i t i s h e r e b y ORDERED as f o l l o w s : "'1. That i t i s i n the best i n t e r e s t of the minor c h i l d t h a t the p a r t i e s be and a r e h e r e b y v e s t e d w i t h joint legal custody of the minor c h i l d , with p h y s i c a l custody vested i n [the f a t h e r . ] "'2. T h a t [ t h e m o t h e r ] i s a w a r d e d liberal visitation, which s h a l l be e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e G u a r d i a n ad L i t e m and s u b m i t t e d t o t h e C o u r t i n w r i t i n g for i n c l u s i o n i n t h i s f i l e . ' "The mother f i l e d a t i m e l y n o t i c e of a p p e a l and requested t h a t the j u v e n i l e c o u r t appoint her an a t t o r n e y on a p p e a l . " ___ So. On 3d a t ___ appeal, (footnote this custody-modification court case omitted). determined and that that the this c a s e was j u v e n i l e court i n c o r r e c t l y a p p l i e d the b e s t - i n t e r e s t s - o f - t h e - c h i l d ___ So. judgment analyze 3d a t ___ . and remanded the reversed case for So. discussion of 2d 863 the ( A l a . 1984). visitation the the the evidence under the s t a n d a r d McLendon, 455 any T h u s , we court's j u v e n i l e court s e t f o r t h i n Ex issue. had standard. juvenile This court On a to parte pretermited remand, the j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d a judgment s t a t i n g , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : " T h i s [ c o u r t ] has r e v i e w e d t h e e v i d e n c e , t h e [ c o u r t ] f i l e & t h e t r a n s c r i p t o f t h e t r i a l & has d e t e r m i n e d 3 2080764 t h a t t h e f a t h e r met t h e McLendon s t a n d a r d for a change i n c u s t o d y . I t w a s / i s i n the c h i l d ' s b e s t i n t [ e r e s t ] t h a t c u s t o d y be v e s t e d i n t h e f a t h e r & t h e b e n e f i t s o f s u c h a c u s t o d y change o u t w e i g h t h e disruptive effects." On amend, April or operation 9, vacate of C i v . P. 2009, The the law the mother filed judgment; that on A p r i l 23, a motion motion 2009. See to was alter, denied R u l e 59.1, by Ala. m o t h e r f i l e d h e r n o t i c e o f a p p e a l t h a t same R. day. Facts The m o t h e r had had birth. The convicted mother of custody of the c h i l d s i n c e the admitted that, "shoplifting" and in 2004, child she child's had been neglect; those c o n v i c t i o n s r e s u l t e d from the mother's l e a v i n g the c h i l d , was one year o l d at the son in a discount hotel room time, while caseworker involved testified that care the of with the child child's t e s t i f i e d t h a t she the had had mother's went stole diapers. with D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s become the mother the d e p a r t m e n t s t o r e and social-service and the two-year-old to a Wal-Mart Joyce McCord, a Montgomery County ("DHR"), t e s t i f i e d t h a t DHR family at that been t e m p o r a r i l y maternal regained 4 grandmother. custody of the who time. placed The had McCord in the mother c h i l d but that 2080764 her son's f a t h e r had s u c c e s s f u l l y p e t i t i o n e d f o r custody o f her son. At the t r i a l , t h e mother admitted that she h a d moved a p p r o x i m a t e l y 12 t i m e s s i n c e t h e c h i l d was b o r n a n d t h a t she had also that changed jobs moving McCord, that multiple much however, could testified times. n o t be that The m o t h e r good a p r o b l e m once t h e c h i l d b e g i n s s c h o o l . she f o r the t h e moves detrimental t o the c h i l d but that continued admitted had child. not been moves c o u l d become McCord t e s t i f i e d t h a t b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e mother had changed. The father t e s t i f i e d that one o f h e r p r e v i o u s the child. boyfriends t h e mother had t o l d h a d " j u m p e d on h e r " i n f r o n t o f The m o t h e r a d m i t t e d t h a t she h a d t o l d t h a t , b u t she s t a t e d t h a t she h a d been l y i n g . admitted that she him t h a t regularly drives the father The m o t h e r a l s o without a license. Further, i n J a n u a r y 2007, t h e m o t h e r p l e a d e d g u i l t y t o d r i v i n g without a failing a license, t o have t h e c h i l d red light. other driving Both without liability insurance, i n a safety restraint, the father and t h e mother and accused o f n o t s h o w i n g up f o r v i s i t a t i o n e x c h a n g e s . testified that, because t h e mother 5 had running changed each The f a t h e r telephone 2080764 numbers s e v e r a l t i m e s , her on he h a d been u n a b l e t o g e t i n t o u c h w i t h occasions. At the time of the t r i a l , t h e m o t h e r h a d m a r r i e d and was l i v i n g w i t h h e r h u s b a n d and t h e c h i l d i n a t h r e e - b e d r o o m h o u s e t h a t was deemed a c c e p t a b l e by McCord. h o u s e f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y two months. a t h r e e - b e d r o o m house that They h a d l i v e d i n t h a t The f a t h e r h a d l i v e d i n he h a d s h a r e d w i t h t h e i r two c h i l d r e n f o r a l m o s t one y e a r . at t h e same j o b f o r o v e r two years. h i s wife He h a d been e m p l o y e d He t e s t i f i e d that c h i l d g e t s a l o n g w e l l w i t h h i m , h i s w i f e , and t h e c h i l d ' s siblings. outside t h e home and t h a t she w i l l half be a v a i l a b l e t o c a r e f o r The m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r h a d p i c k e d t h e c h i l d up w i t h o u t a c a r s e a t . testified the the The f a t h e r ' s w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t she does n o t work the c h i l d f u l l - t i m e . Further, and that the c h i l d was The f a t h e r , h o w e v e r , t o o o l d t o need a car seat. t h e m o t h e r a d m i t t e d t h a t she h a d n o t o f f e r e d t o l e t father use h e r c a r s e a t . The father admitted to being b e h i n d on h i s c h i l d - s u p p o r t payments b e c a u s e he h a d b e e n o u t of to health work f o r two months due problems. The father t e s t i f i e d t h a t h i s h e a l t h p r o b l e m s were u n d e r c o n t r o l a t t h e time of the trial. 6 2080764 M c C o r d recommended t h a t t h e c h i l d s t a y i n t h e c u s t o d y o f the mother. The g u a r d i a n a d l i t e m recommended t h a t t h e f a t h e r be a w a r d e d custody. Standard of Review "'When e v i d e n c e i n a child-custody case has been p r e s e n t e d o r e tenus t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t , that court's findings of fact b a s e d on t h a t e v i d e n c e a r e p r e s u m e d t o b e c o r r e c t . The t r i a l court i s i n the best p o s i t i o n t o make a c u s t o d y d e t e r m i n a t i o n -¬ it hears the evidence and o b s e r v e s t h e w i t n e s s e s . A p p e l l a t e c o u r t s do n o t s i t i n judgment of d i s p u t e d evidence that was presented ore tenus before the t r i a l court in a custody hearing.'" B u r g e t t v . B u r g e t t , 995 S o . 2 d 9 0 7 , 912 ( A l a . C i v . App. (quoting 2d Ex parte Bryowsky, 676 So. 1322, 2008), 1324 ( A l a . 1996)). Discussion On exceeded appeal, mother i t s discretion the f a t h e r . discretion in the argues i n awarding that the trial court custody o f the c h i l d t o She a l s o a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e x c e e d e d i t s i n awarding t h e g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m s o l e discretion d e t e r m i n i n g the mother's v i s i t a t i o n . Custody "A p a r e n t s e e k i n g t o m o d i f y a c u s t o d y j u d g m e n t awarding primary p h y s i c a l custody t o the other 7 2080764 p a r e n t must meet t h e s t a n d a r d f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n o f c u s t o d y s e t f o r t h i n Ex p a r t e M c L e n d o n f , 445 So. 2d 863 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) ] . Under t h a t s t a n d a r d , t h e p a r e n t seeking to modify custody of a child must d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t t h e r e has been a m a t e r i a l change i n circumstances, t h a t t h e p r o p o s e d change i n c u s t o d y w i l l m a t e r i a l l y promote t h e c h i l d ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t s , and t h a t t h e b e n e f i t s o f t h e change w i l l more t h a n o f f s e t t h e i n h e r e n t l y d i s r u p t i v e e f f e c t caused by u p r o o t i n g t h e c h i l d . Ex p a r t e McLendon, s u p r a . " Adams v. Adams, [Ms. 2070895, A p r i l 24, 2009] (Ala. In C i v . App. the present So. 3d 2009). case, the evidence indicates c h i l d ' s l i f e s t y l e w i t h t h e m o t h e r was v e r y u n s t a b l e . there was instabiity could that disputed , testimony regarding h a d h a d on t h e c h i l d , n o t be g o o d f o r t h e c h i l d . the that the Although effect that t h e mother a d m i t t e d t h a t i t Further, McCord admitted t h e d i s r u p t i o n c a u s e d by m o v i n g c o u l d become a p r o b l e m when t h e c h i l d b e g a n s c h o o l i f t h e c h i l d were f o r c e d t o change schools frequently. T h e r e was no i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e m o t h e r ' s l i f e s t y l e had s t a b i l i z e d , b e c a u s e t h e m o t h e r h a d been living i n h e r home f o r o n l y two months a t t h e t i m e o f t h e t r i a l . mother had a l s o t a k e n a c t i o n s The t h a t had endangered the c h i l d , most r e c e n t l y when she h a d r u n a r e d l i g h t w h i l e d r i v i n g w i t h the c h i l d who was n o t i n a s a f e t y r e s t r a i n t . The m o t h e r h a d also p r e v i o u s l y l e f t the c h i l d without s u p e r v i s i o n i n a h o t e l 8 2080764 w h i l e she went t o a W a l - M a r t s t o r e t o s t e a l d i a p e r s . Finally, we had not note that the father testified that t h e mother shown up f o r v i s i t a t i o n e x c h a n g e s and t h a t she h a d f a i l e d t o apprise him of her new telephone number when i t changed. B a s e d on t h e f o r e o i n g , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e t r i a l have found that a material change in court could circumstances had occurred. W i t h r e g a r d t o t h e f a t h e r , t h e e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e s t h a t he had b e e n e m p l o y e d w i t h t h e same company f o r o v e r two y e a r s and that he h a d l i v e d i n t h e same h o u s e f o r a l m o s t a y e a r . t e s t i f i e d t h a t he c o u l d p r o v i d e mother well could. with Further, outside the He him, also could and the father's wife t h e home a n d t h a t child full-time. have f o r the c h i l d b e t t e r than the t e s t i f i e d that h i s wife, the child's t e s t i f i e d that she w i l l that the "change o f t h e change w i l l along siblings. she does n o t work in court custody interests, will and t h a t t h e more t h a n o f f s e t t h e i n h e r e n t l y d i s r u p t i v e e f f e c t c a u s e d by u p r o o t i n g So. 3d a t half gets be a v a i l a b l e t o c a r e f o r m a t e r i a l l y promote t h e c h i l d ' s b e s t benefits the c h i l d B a s e d on t h a t e v i d e n c e , t h e t r i a l determined He . 9 the c h i l d . " Adams, 2080764 The mother also s h o u l d have o v e r r i d d e n However, because court 2008] the evidence of f a c t . " So. 3d this court Ex p a r t e , argument. was adversely McCord's a decision i s not permitted weighing trier that of the t r i a l to reweigh i s solely Mclnish, a [Ms. ( A l a . 2008). against affected her; DHR that and her that standard applied; and t h a t comply analyze the evidence using juvenile note, court however, this court's the c o r r e c t d i d n o t make s p e c i f i c that the mother Thus, Burleson v. B u r l e s o n , 2003) we (holding that decline 875 findings failed consider So. 2d 316, that i s r a i s e d f o r the f i r s t court may t i m e on 10 to them to "[t]his Sept. prejudice rights were t h e McLendon j u d g m e n t on to because the of f a c t . preserve We those to the j u v e n i l e them. 322 5, merit instructions standard a r g u m e n t s b e c a u s e she d i d n o t p r e s e n t court. that the j u v e n i l e court's with of the the j u v e n i l e that due-process an evidence, function 1060600, b e c a u s e she d i d n o t have n o t i c e d i d not the The m o t h e r a l s o a r g u e s t h a t biased court, Thus, we f i n d no violated remand recommendation t h e g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m ' s recommendation. " [ i ] n reviewing appellate in argues See, e.g., ( A l a . C i v . App. not consider appeal"). an issue 2080764 Visitation Finally, the mother argues that the juvenile court e x c e e d e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n a w a r d i n g t h e g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m s o l e d i s c r e t i o n i n d e t e r m i n i n g the mother's v i s i t a t i o n . "'Visitation i s the joint p a r e n t and t h e c h i l d . ... f u r t h e r e d by of both the agree. noncustodial The b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d a r e g u i d e d by b o t h of h i s or her n a t u r a l p a r e n t s . ' " J a c k s o n v. J a c k s o n , 999 So. 2d 488, ( q u o t i n g J o h n i t a M.D. D.D., Ct. 494 the right We c h i l d b e i n g n u r t u r e d and ( A l a . C i v . App. 191 M i s c . 2d 301, 2002)). 2007) 303, 740 N.Y.S.2d 811, 813 T h i s c o u r t has c o n s i s t e n t l y h e l d t h a t v. (N.Y. David Sup. a judgment t h a t leaves v i s i t a t i o n to the s o l e d i s c r e t i o n of the custodial p a r e n t i s an abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n b e c a u s e i t , i n e f f e c t , awards no visitation. See, e.g., 471-72 ( A l a . C i v . App. 56 841 ( A l a . C i v . App. visitation ad litem. and K.L.U. v. M.C., 2001). The guardian argue h i s or her 3d 468, ad litem c l i e n t ' s case 809 So. 2d of the c h i l d ' s i s an guardian attorney e n t i t l e d to t o t h e c o u r t as i s any a t t o r n e y , b u t he o r she i s n o t d e l e g a t e d any s p e c i a l 11 837, same p r i n c i p l e a p p l i e s when i s at the s o l e d i s c r e t i o n "A R.B.B., 4 So. 2 0 0 7 ) ; B r y a n t v. B r y a n t , 739 So. 2d 53, 1999); ( A l a . C i v . App. A.M.B. v. other authority 2080764 of t h e c o u r t . " K.D.H. v. T.L.H., 3 So. 3 d 894, 899-900 C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) . (Ala. B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n awarding, i n e f f e c t , no v i s i t a t i o n t o t h e m o t h e r . Conclusion Based regard with on t h e f o r e g o i n g , we affirm t h e judgment t o t h e c u s t o d y m o d i f i c a t i o n , we r e v e r s e regard to visitation, t h e judgment a n d we remand t h e c a s e e n t r y o f a judgment i n a c c o r d a n c e with this with f o r the opinion. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED. Pittman, B r y a n , a n d Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . Thompson, P . J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t , w i t h o u t 12 writing.

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.