REL: 10/29/2010
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 Courts,
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, 2010-2011
2090490
T i n a Lang
v.
Michael Lang
Appeal from Pickens C i r c u i t Court
(DR-04-16.01 and DR-04-16.02)
THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e .
Tina
modifying
Lang
custody
("the m o t h e r " )
appeals
from
of the p a r t i e s ' three c h i l d r e n .
had b e e n a w a r d e d p r i m a r y p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y
a
judgment
The m o t h e r
o f t h e c h i l d r e n when
she a n d M i c h a e l L a n g ("the f a t h e r " ) d i v o r c e d i n December
2004.
2090490
I n t h e judgment a t i s s u e , t h e t r i a l
court
awarded c u s t o d y o f
t h e two y o u n g e r c h i l d r e n t o t h e f a t h e r ; i t a w a r d e d c u s t o d y o f
the o l d e s t c h i l d t o t h e c h i l d r e n ' s m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s .
children
trial.
are
were 1 6 , n i n e ,
and s i x y e a r s
The y o u n g e s t c h i l d
o l d at the time of
i s a boy; the older
father f i l e d a petition
seeking
for
staying overnight
the
c h i l d r e n were p r e s e n t ,
judgment.
hold
the father
i n contempt
s u p p o r t and f o r h i s f a i l u r e
children.
The m o t h e r
one
child
admitted
then
filed
a motion
for his failure
to exercise
asserted
and t o o k
t o pay
visitation
that
only
seeking
to
child
with a l l
the father
visited
child
f o r summer
The m o t h e r a n d t h e f a t h e r s e t t l e d
their
differences
and t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n c o r p o r a t e d t h e i r
i n t o a judgment e n t e r e d
trial
of the divorce
one
at t h a t time,
the
sex while
The f a t h e r a l s o r e q u e s t e d c u s t o d y o f t h e p a r t i e s '
The m o t h e r
vacation.
t o h o l d t h e mother i n contempt
i n contravention
children.
only
I n A u g u s t 2006, t h e
w i t h a member o f t h e o p p o s i t e
three
with
two c h i l d r e n
girls.
The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h e f o l l o w i n g .
the
The
court
also
violation
of
on A u g u s t 23, 2006.
held
t h e mother
2
I n t h a t judgment,
i n contempt
the cohabitation
agreement
provision
f o r her
of the
2090490
d i v o r c e judgment.
court
also
I n the August
23, 2006, j u d g m e n t , t h e t r i a l
s t a t e d : "The p a r t i e s
custody p e t i t i o n s
issue which
have
s h a l l be f i l e d
agreed
based
that
no
future
on t h e c o - h a b i t a t i o n
i s b e i n g r e s o l v e d by t h i s o r d e r . "
On M a r c h 26, 2007, t h e f a t h e r f i l e d
another p e t i t i o n f o r
a c u s t o d y m o d i f i c a t i o n , a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e mother had v i o l a t e d
the
August
23, 2006,
order
enforcing
the p r o v i s i o n
i n the
d i v o r c e judgment f o r b i d d i n g t h e mother t o c o h a b i t a t e .
In h i s
petition,
middle
child
the father
and
asked
sought
that
custody
custody
of
of the p a r t i e s '
the oldest
and
c h i l d r e n be a w a r d e d t o t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s .
youngest
The same
d a y - - M a r c h 26, 2 0 0 7 - - t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d an e x p a r t e o r d e r
awarding
father
pendente
lite
and a w a r d i n g
pendente
c h i l d r e n to the maternal
During
Four
the
this
motions
of the middle
lite
custody
after
order, the p a r t i e s f i l e d
regarding child
judge
appeal,
who
to the
o f t h e o t h e r two
the e n t r y of the ex p a r t e
support
j u d g e s have p r e s i d e d o v e r t h i s
trial
child
grandparents.
t h e two y e a r s
pendente l i t e
and
custody
a number o f p e t i t i o n s
and v i s i t a t i o n
case.
issues.
As p o i n t e d o u t b y
e n t e r e d t h e j u d g m e n t made t h e b a s i s o f
i t appears
from
the record that
3
the p a r t i e s
2090490
reached
agreements
p e t i t i o n s before
the
March
26,
on
the issues
raised
h e a r i n g s c o u l d be h e l d .
2007,
ex
parte
Since
custody
arrangement s e t f o r t h i n t h a t order
i n their
various
the entry of
order,
the
custody
remained i n p l a c e .
After
p r o v i d i n g time f o r t h e p a r e n t s t o submit t o drug t e s t s and f o r
a psychologist
t o e x a m i n e t h e c h i l d r e n a n d a f t e r a number o f
c o n t i n u a n c e s r e q u e s t e d by t h e a t t o r n e y s
f o r b o t h p a r t i e s and
by t h e g u a r d i a n a d l i t e m a p p o i n t e d t o r e p r e s e n t
a trial
30,
the c h i l d r e n ,
was h e l d on t h e i s s u e o f " p e r m a n e n t " c u s t o d y on J u l y
2009.
The e v i d e n c e a d d u c e d a t t h e J u l y 30, 2009, t r i a l
t o show t h e f o l l o w i n g .
custody
modification
tended
The f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he s o u g h t a
because,
at
the
time
he
filed
the
p e t i t i o n i n 2007, t h e m o t h e r was s p e n d i n g t h e n i g h t w i t h a man
who
was
a user
and m a n u f a c t u r e r
o f methamphetamine.
The
m o t h e r a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t she h a d b e e n i n a r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h
the
man,
and
she
was
aware
he
used
and
manufactured
methamphetamine, b u t , she s a i d , she d i d n o t u s e d r u g s o r d r i n k
alcohol.
The
older
c h i l d r e n were
upset
over
the mother's
r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e man, who was i n j a i l a t t h e t i m e o f t h e
trial.
The m o t h e r a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t , w h i l e
4
she was i n t h a t
2090490
r e l a t i o n s h i p , she
had
put
b e f o r e t h e needs o f h e r
she
d i d not
believe
lose
the
father
testified
after
the
said that,
at the
time,
the
relationship
might cause her
b e c a u s e , she
said,
to
at
"trying
although
trial
She
boyfriend
children
was
that,
r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h her
children.
that
c u s t o d y of her
that
her
court
she
get
had
entered
back"
her.
c o n t i n u e d the
the
ex
parte
c u s t o d y o r d e r on
M a r c h 26,
man
mother t e s t i f i e d
that
the
e n d e d more t h a n a y e a r b e f o r e t h e
2009
believed
She
also
relationship
pendente
lite
trial.
again.
The
At the
she
had
dating
time of the
known a l l o f
she
time
s a i d t h a t she
of
the
grandparents.
with
trial,
her
her
Her
She
She
two
of
she
mother t e s t i f i e d
that
t h e y had
whom
had
she
had
5
man
been
a four-bedroom,
with
the
two-
children;
At
been
living
with
2007 ex p a r t e
a f u l l - t i m e job
the
maternal
moved i n w i t h them t o
m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s as a r e s u l t o f t h e
The
that
living
had
had
engaged to a
children separated.
m o t h e r was
said that
children,
has
the
relationship
accommodate a l l t h r e e
d i d n o t want t h e
the
said
fiance
enough t o
trial,
never "stayed" w i t h
t h e m o t h e r was
life.
f o r s e v e n months.
b a t h house, l a r g e
2007, she
she
to
and
be
the
order.
could
2090490
support a l l three
in school
The
studying
test
that
that
she c o u l d
t o a drug t e s t , the r e s u l t s of which
b u t she d i d n o t s u b m i t
the t r i a l
court
drug
i n the record,
to the h a i r - f o l l i c l e
requested.
not a f f o r d the l a t t e r
to a urine
included
She a l s o s a i d t h a t she was b a c k
t o e a r n a d e g r e e as a r e g i s t e r e d n u r s e .
mother s u b m i t t e d
were n e g a t i v e ,
submit
children.
test.
The m o t h e r
testified
test but that
she d i d
The r e s u l t s o f t h a t
indicated that
t h e mother
test,
was n o t
u s i n g d r u g s o f any k i n d .
The
mother a l s o d i d n o t take
examination of the c h i l d r e n .
part
i n the psychologist's
She t e s t i f i e d t h a t she t h o u g h t
she
was t o make t h e c h i l d r e n a v a i l a b l e f o r t h e p s y c h o l o g i s t ,
but
she d i d n o t t h i n k t h a t
she was t o be t h e r e .
The
order
r e q u i r i n g the c h i l d r e n t o submit t o the examinations s t a t e s :
"[T]he court f i n d s t h a t i t i s i n the best i n t e r e s t
o f t h e c h i l d r e n t h a t t h e y be e x a m i n e d b y a l i c e n s e d
p s y c h o l o g i s t or p s y c h i a t r i s t i n order t o determine
t h e i r c u r r e n t e m o t i o n a l s t a t e ; any u n d e r l y i n g c a u s e s
o f d i s t r e s s ; and t o make r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s t o t h e
c o u r t a n d t h e g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m c o n c e r n i n g
future
h a n d l i n g o f t h e c h i l d r e n ' s emotional needs."
The
father
was
ordered
t o pay t h e cost
sessions with the psychologist.
6
of the children's
2090490
Similarly,
the
guardian
ad
b e c a u s e , she
to
contact
paid
The
l i t e m appointed
children.
guardian
a
ad
The
litem
grandparents'
father's
mother
the
mother s a i d t h a t
because,
had
house
died
a
at
she
grandfather
has
one
room, t h e
m i d d l e c h i l d has
the
v i s i t e d with
f a t h e r , he
with
the
the
children
she
said,
testified
c h i l d r e n , he
that
had
had
she
was
not
never
that
of
trial.
The
the
has
trial.
The
one
room, and
the
had
slept with
received
the
father i n his
in their
custody
sleeping
t h e y w o u l d make use
paternal
youngest c h i l d
When t h e
grandparents
i f he
children's
t h r e e bedrooms: the
w o u l d have t o "work o u t "
speculated
time
before
father
l a s t room.
paternal
the
month
p a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s ' h o u s e has
He
of
l i v i n g w i t h h i s f a t h e r i n the
paternal
father
behalf
contact
bill.
f a t h e r was
room o r
on
d i d not
s a i d , she b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m
the
the
received
t h e m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t she
of
of
room.
The
a l l three
arrangements.
"air
mattresses,
couches, whatever."
The
o n l y one
to
drive
father
testified
that
he
had
o f t h e c h i l d r e n b e c a u s e i t was
the
oldest
and
youngest
7
requested
custody
too d i f f i c u l t
children
to
for
school.
of
him
The
2090490
o l d e s t c h i l d was
i n h i g h s c h o o l i n G o r d o , and,
father f i l e d his petition,
Reform.
The
at the time
t h e y o u n g e s t c h i l d was
i n school
f a t h e r l i v e d i n G r e e n e C o u n t y , more t h a n 30
away f r o m t h e
children's
schools.
h o w e v e r , t h e m i d d l e c h i l d and
same s c h o o l .
At
the
time of the
miles
trial,
the
father s a i d that, i n a d d i t i o n to seeing
The
the
a l s o sees the
youngest
c h i l d when he t a k e s t h e m i d d l e c h i l d t o s c h o o l o r p i c k s h e r
school.
The
father
c h i l d , a d a u g h t e r , had
the
oldest
child,
testified
that
although
m i d d l e c h i l d was
the
trial.
the
father's custody.
grade,
she
By
he
did
i n the
a l l a c c o u n t s , she
lived
first
grade,
speak
with
the
that
was
mother.
child
teacher
world."
and
Both the
had
with
her
oldest
on
the
of
a good s t u d e n t w h i l e
in
i n the
father
first
called
to t e s t i f y that, while
m o t h e r and
were i n v o l v e d i n h e l p i n g
saw
time
The
had
up
weeks.
been
inattentive,
"seemed t o be
8
the
He s e l d o m
When t h e m i d d l e c h i l d was
f r e q u e n t l y d a y d r e a m e d , and
little
and
f o u r t h grade at the
middle c h i l d ' s f i r s t - g r a d e teacher
the
he
a strained relationship.
t e l e p h o n e a p p r o x i m a t e l y once e v e r y two
The
in
the youngest c h i l d a t t e n d e d
y o u n g e s t c h i l d e v e r y o t h e r weekend, he
from
the
the
j u s t i n her
f a t h e r met
t o work w i t h
with
the
the
in
had
own
the
child.
2090490
The t e a c h e r
a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t she r e c a l l e d " s o m e t h i n g a b o u t
maybe t h e power was c u t o f f " when t h e m i d d l e c h i l d was
with
the mother;
however,
the
teacher
could
s p e c i f i c a l l y where t h e power h a d been t u r n e d
d o n ' t know t h a t i t was
or
house.
I t may
noted that three
The
father
remember
o f f , saying: "I
[the middle c h i l d ' s ] mother's apartment
have been
someone e l s e ' s . "
The
teacher
y e a r s had p a s s e d s i n c e the i n c i d e n t .
conceded t h a t
he
had
n o t made
s u p p o r t payments i n t h e e i g h t months p r e c e d i n g
f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was s e l f - e m p l o y e d
fluctuated
not
living
between
$16,000
and
$30,000
any
child-
the t r i a l .
The
and t h a t h i s income
annually.
Evidence
i n t r o d u c e d a t t r i a l i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r ' s m o n t h l y income
was $1,500 and t h a t t h e m o t h e r ' s m o n t h l y income was
A p s y c h o l o g i s t who
in
the
h a d met w i t h t h e two o l d e s t c h i l d r e n
2008 t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a t t h a t
healthy,
well adjusted
oldest
being
in
child
a
psychologist
time,
children.
with
b o t h were
The p s y c h o l o g i s t
a p p e a r e d t o be
relationship with
met
$2,393.60.
angry w i t h
a
man.
At
emotionally
said that
the mother f o r
the
time
t h e c h i l d r e n , t h e mother would
the
still
have b e e n i n t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e man who a l l e g e d l y u s e d
and
m a n u f a c t u r e d methamphetamine,
9
whom
she
was
no
longer
2090490
seeing
a t the time of the t r i a l .
Likewise,
the psychologist
s a i d , he t h o u g h t t h e o l d e s t c h i l d h a d d i s t a n c e d
the
father.
oldest
The p s y c h o l o g i s t ' s
child
thought that
report
the father's
indicated
affair
f r i e n d of the f a m i l y " had caused h e r p a r e n t s '
On
January
2 1 , 2010, t h e t r i a l
herself
court
with
that
a
from
the
"close
divorce.
entered
an
order
f i n d i n g t h a t t h e f a t h e r was a f i t p a r e n t and t h a t t h e m o t h e r
was " u n f i t "
with
f o r a number o f r e a s o n s ,
whom t h e m o t h e r h a d p r e v i o u s l y been c o h a b i t a t i n g was a
methamphetamine
time
u s e r a n d m a n u f a c t u r e r who was i n p r i s o n a t t h e
of the t r i a l .
continued
The m o t h e r
to cohabitate
with
that r e l a t i o n s h i p before
trial
court
mother
with
was
had a d m i t t e d
t h e man
2006 c o n t e m p t o r d e r was e n t e r e d ,
put
i n c l u d i n g t h a t t h e man
that
she h a d
even a f t e r t h e August
s a y i n g t h a t , a t t h e t i m e , she
t h e needs o f h e r c h i l d r e n .
The
f u r t h e r noted t h a t , a t the time of the t r i a l , the
not "ready
t o acknowledge t h a t
[ t h e man had] t h r e a t e n e d
the r e l a t i o n s h i p
her custody of the c h i l d r e n . "
As f u r t h e r g r o u n d s t h a t t h e m o t h e r was " u n f i t , " t h e t r i a l
court
stated that
the p s y c h o l o g i s t
t h e mother had f a i l e d
t o p a r t i c i p a t e when
h a d e x a m i n e d t h e c h i l d r e n ; t h a t she h a d n o t
10
2090490
submitted to a h a i r - f o l l i c l e drug t e s t ;
contacted
the
c h i l d r e n ' s guardian
g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m had
and t h a t she had
ad
not
litem
1
the
although
sought her i n p u t .
B a s e d upon i t s f i n d i n g s , t h e t r i a l
c o u r t awarded
custody
of
t h e two y o u n g e r c h i l d r e n t o t h e f a t h e r and a w a r d e d
custody
of
the o l d e s t c h i l d to the maternal grandparents.
was
awarded s u p e r v i s e d v i s i t a t i o n
The
w i t h the middle
mother
child
and
t h e y o u n g e s t c h i l d and u n s u p e r v i s e d v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e o l d e s t
child.
In
addition
to
modifying
the
trial
also
determined
the f a t h e r ' s c h i l d - s u p p o r t arrearage, ordered
litem's
and
fee,
requested.
The
the
mother
r i g h t t o due
f a t h e r t o e a c h pay
and
The
child-support
court's
judgment
mother
established
custody,
denied
mother
a l l other
half
of
obligations,
the
the
guardian
the
parties
had
court v i o l a t e d
her
relief
ad
appeals.
contends
t h a t the
trial
p r o c e s s when i t e n t e r e d t h e M a r c h 2007 ex
parte
c u s t o d y o r d e r and an o r d e r e x t e n d i n g t h e t e r m s o f t h a t o r d e r ,
The
r e c o r d i n c l u d e s the r e s u l t s of u r i n e drug t e s t s
a d m i n i s t e r e d t o t h e m o t h e r and t h e f a t h e r .
The r e s u l t s o f
b o t h t e s t s were n e g a t i v e f o r t h e p r e s e n c e o f i l l e g a l d r u g s .
T h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t i n g t h a t e i t h e r t h e
mother or the f a t h e r s u b m i t t e d t o a h a i r - f o l l i c l e drug t e s t .
1
11
2090490
w h i c h was e n t e r e d
make
"temporary"
custody
orders
in April
custody
entered
2007.
Both
awards.
i n this
orders
purported to
The e x p a r t e
c a s e were
"temporary"
i n the nature
of
p e n d e n t e l i t e o r d e r s b e c a u s e t h e y were " ' e f f e c t i v e o n l y d u r i n g
the pendency o f t h e l i t i g a t i o n
the e n t r y o f a f i n a l
Evans
v. E v a n s ,
... a n d [were] ... r e p l a c e d b y
judgment'" a t t h e end o f t h e l i t i g a t i o n .
978 So. 2d 42, 48
( A l a . C i v . App.
2007)
( q u o t i n g T.J.H. v . S.N.F., 960 So. 2d 669, 672 ( A l a . C i v . App.
2006)).
The m o t h e r d i d n o t p e t i t i o n t h i s c o u r t f o r a w r i t o f
mandamus
to set aside
parte
Russell,
911 So. 2d 719
court issued a writ
vacate
ex p a r t e
custody
t h e ex p a r t e
S e e , e . g . , Ex
( A l a . C i v . App. 2005)
o f mandamus o r d e r i n g t h e t r i a l
orders
and f u r t h e r
orders.
granting
ordering
the father
the t r i a l
court to
pendente
court
to hold
e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g on t h e f a t h e r ' s m o t i o n f o r p e n d e n t e
custody).
trial
The l i t i g a t i o n
was h e l d
(this
lite
an
lite
p r o c e e d e d and, on J u l y 30, 2009, a
on t h e i s s u e
of custody
modification.
The
mother f u l l y p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h a t t r i a l , a f t e r which t h e t r i a l
court entered
effectively
t h e judgment m o d i f y i n g
custody.
r e p l a c e d t h e ex p a r t e c u s t o d y
That judgment
orders.
"'"The g e n e r a l r u l e i s , i f p e n d i n g an
a p p e a l , an e v e n t o c c u r s w h i c h r e n d e r s i t
12
2090490
i m p o s s i b l e f o r the a p p e l l a t e c o u r t to grant
any r e l i e f , t h e a p p e a l may be d i s m i s s e d .
T h e r e a r e many i n s t a n c e s i n w h i c h s u c h
c o n d i t i o n may a r i s e . . . .
The c o n d i t i o n may
... a r i s e f r o m t h e a c t o f t h e c o u r t a quo,
t h a t i s t o s a y , f r o m some o r d e r o r j u d g m e n t
i n the case pending the appeal, which i s
made by
the
court, which renders
the
d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e q u e s t i o n s p r e s e n t e d by
the
appeal
unnecessary.
Paris
Electric
L i g h t [ & Ry.] Co. v. M a r t i n (Tex. C i v . App.
[1895]) 31 S.W.
243; 2 C e n t . D i g . A p p e a l
and E r r o r , § 71 e t s e q . " '
" S i e g e l m a n v. A l a b a m a A s s ' n o f Sch. Bds., 819 So. 2d
v.
568,
575-76
( A l a . 2001)
(quoting
Caldwell
,.
L o v e l e s s , 17 A l a . App. 381, 382, 85 So. 307, 307-08
(1920)) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d i n S i e g e l m a n ) . "
Medical
Assurance
Co.
Montgomery, P.C.,
In
this
957
case,
v.
So.
the
custody
m o d i f i c a t i o n and
custody
orders
of
ex
the
consider
parte
Health
render
parte
2d 459,
the
See
Care Auth.,
the
Auburn
So.
trial
on
the
issue regarding
court
Med.
2d
this
erred
Ctr.,
Med.
of
issue
of
243,
245-46
i r r e l e v a n t t o t h e outcome o f
13
case).
parte
the p r o p r i e t y
court
will
i n entering
Inc.
2003) ( h o l d i n g t h a t a c o u r t w i l l n o t d e c i d e
is
Pain
( A l a . 2006).
Accordingly,
trial
&
j u d g m e n t r e p l a c i n g t h e ex
moot any
908
463
intervening
orders.
whether
orders.
Anesthesiology
v.
East
the
not
ex
Alabama
(Ala. Civ.
App.
a legal issue that
2090490
The
mother
contends
that
the t r i a l
court
applied
the
i m p r o p e r s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w i n m o d i f y i n g t h e c u s t o d y award s e t
forth
i n the p a r t i e s '
2004 d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t .
Specifically,
t h e m o t h e r a s s e r t s , t h e r e i s no i n d i c a t i o n i n t h e r e c o r d o r i n
the
judgment t h a t
the t r i a l
f o r t h i n Ex p a r t e McLendon,
The McLendon
court applied
445 So. 2d 863
s t a n d a r d i s as
the standard set
( A l a . 1984).
follows:
"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
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 [ , 455 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
c i r c u m s t a n c e s , 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
uprooting the c h i l d .
Ex p a r t e McLendon, s u p r a . "
Adams v. Adams, 21 So. 3d 1247, 1252
( A l a . C i v . App.
We f u r t h e r n o t e t h a t " [ a ] p e n d e n t e l i t e o r d e r a w a r d i n g
to
a parent
party
who
does
not create a presumption
i s awarded
pendente
lite
2009).
custody
i n favor of the
custody."
T.J.H.
v.
S.N.F., 960 So. 2d a t 673.
In
i t s judgment, t h e t r i a l
court modified custody
upon i t s f i n d i n g t h a t t h e m o t h e r was " u n f i t . "
a parent i s u n f i t
i s r e q u i r e d i n cases
14
A finding
i n which
a
based
that
nonparent
2090490
seeks custody o f a c h i l d .
632
( A l a . 1986).
Such a f i n d i n g i s n o t r e q u i r e d i n a c u s t o d y
d i s p u t e between p a r e n t s .
In
asserted
provision
that
supra.
the father
petition
t h e mother
was
i n violation
of a previous court order p r o h i b i t i n g
cohabitating
trial,
See McLendon,
h i s 2006 p e t i t i o n s e e k i n g a c u s t o d y m o d i f i c a t i o n , t h e
father
from
See Ex p a r t e T e r r y , 494 So. 2d 628,
with
a member
testified
i n 2006 was b e c a u s e ,
the reason
at the time,
a
t h e mother
of the opposite
that
of
sex.
he
At
f i l e d the
t h e m o t h e r was
c o h a b i t a t i n g w i t h a man known t o be u s i n g a n d m a n u f a c t u r i n g
methamphetamine.
Furthermore,
the maternal
grandparents,
were a w a r d e d c u s t o d y o f t h e o l d e s t
trial
child,
court at the outset of the July
who
made c l e a r
told
the t r i a l
court that
t o the
30, 2009, t r i a l
t h e y were n o t s e e k i n g c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d r e n .
grandmother
ultimately
that
The m a t e r n a l
she "thought
we were
here t o g e t c u s t o d y between [the f a t h e r ] and [the m o t h e r ] " and
t h a t t h e y were i n c o u r t t o be w i t n e s s e s f o r t h e m o t h e r and t o
support her.
that
The m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s
t h e y were
grandmother
not parties
said,
"[w]e're
specifically
i n the case,
not here
15
stated
and, t h e m a t e r n a l
trying
to
petition
2090490
custody."
In
the
judgment
the
trial
court
a l t h o u g h t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s had f i l e d
Ex
Parte R e l i e f
28, 2 0 0 8 ,
of
2
and M o d i f i c a t i o n
the c o u r t had c l a r i f i e d
t h e J u l y 30, 2009, t r i a l .
m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s had
at
the t r i a l
and
The
of F i n a l
noted
that,
a "Petition for
Decree"
on
August
t h e i r s t a t u s at the o u t s e t
judgment r e f l e c t e d t h a t the
s a i d t h a t t h e y were o n l y w i t n e s s e s
t h a t t h e a t t o r n e y who
had
filed
the
August
28, 2008, p e t i t i o n on b e h a l f o f t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s
appeared at the b e g i n n i n g of the t r i a l
" t o make c l e a r t h a t t h e
[ m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s ] were n o t p a r t i e s and
r e p r e s e n t them i n t h i s
Based
upon
the
had
[ t h a t ] he d i d n o t
matter."
record,
we
conclude
that
this
case
i n v o l v e s a c u s t o d y d i s p u t e b e t w e e n t h e f a t h e r and t h e m o t h e r .
T h e r e f o r e , t h e McLendon s t a n d a r d was
the c o r r e c t standard to
be a p p l i e d i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r t o m o d i f y c u s t o d y .
after
a review
of
the
judgment
and
the
r e c o r d , we
However,
find
no
i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t a p p l i e d t h e McLendon s t a n d a r d .
T h e " P e t i t i o n f o r Ex P a r t e R e l i e f and M o d i f i c a t i o n o f
F i n a l Decree"
to which the t r i a l
c o u r t r e f e r r e d i s not
i n c l u d e d i n t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l .
2
16
2090490
The t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t m o d i f y i n g c u s t o d y i s b a s e d upon i t s
f i n d i n g t h a t the mother i s
"unfit."
3
We r e c o g n i z e t h a t t h e McLendon s t a n d a r d i s l e s s
than
the p a r e n t a l - u n f i t n e s s
that
when
a
judgment
entered based
than
should
affirmed
on
standard.
awarding
upon a p p l i c a t i o n
have
the
been
a
that
custody
c o u r t has
the
the
judgment
trial
( A l a . C i v . App.
v.
( A l a . C i v . App.
Byrd,
J.P.F.,
689
668
So.
So.
2d
191
2d 843
( A l a . C i v . App.
however, the mother a l s o
support the t r i a l
b a s i s t h a t she was
is
insufficient
that
be
in
R e h f e l d v.
2004), c i t i n g
1995).
and
Lawley
I.M.
In t h i s
v.
case,
t h e e v i d e n c e does
not
c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t m o d i f y i n g c u s t o d y on
the
unfit.
asserts
to
error
court's
1997),
is
standard
i s due
a p p l y i n g t h e more s t r i n g e n t s t a n d a r d was h a r m l e s s .
R o t h , 885 So. 2d 791, 794
held
modification
o f a more s t r i n g e n t
applied,
ground
This
stringent
In f a c t ,
she a r g u e s , t h e
evidence
t o meet e v e n t h e McLendon s t a n d a r d .
We r e c o g n i z e t h a t , i n a c u s t o d y d i s p u t e b e t w e e n a p a r e n t
and a n o n p a r e n t , t o a w a r d c u s t o d y t o t h e n o n p a r e n t a t r i a l
c o u r t must f i n d , by c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e , t h a t a
parent i s u n f i t .
Thus, h a d t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s b e e n
s e e k i n g c u s t o d y o f any o f t h e c h i l d r e n , t o a w a r d c u s t o d y t o
t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s , t h e t r i a l c o u r t w o u l d have h a d t o
f i n d t h a t t h e m o t h e r was u n f i t .
3
17
2090490
"'When t h i s C o u r t r e v i e w s a t r i a l c o u r t ' s
c h i l d - c u s t o d y d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t was b a s e d
upon e v i d e n c e
presented
ore tenus,
we
presume t h e t r i a l
court's decision i s
c o r r e c t : "'A c u s t o d y d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e
t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d upon o r a l t e s t i m o n y i s
a c c o r d e d a p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s on
a p p e a l , and we w i l l n o t r e v e r s e u n l e s s t h e
evidence
so
fails
to
support
the
determination
that
i t i s plainly
and
p a l p a b l y w r o n g . E x p a r t e P e r k i n s , 646
So. 2d 46, 47 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) , q u o t i n g P h i l l i p s
v. P h i l l i p s , 622 So. 2d 410, 412 ( A l a . C i v .
App.
1993)
(citations
omitted).
This
p r e s u m p t i o n i s b a s e d on t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s
unique p o s i t i o n
t o d i r e c t l y observe the
w i t n e s s e s and t o a s s e s s t h e i r demeanor and
credibility.
This o p p o r t u n i t y to observe
witnesses
i s especially
important
in
c h i l d - c u s t o d y cases.
"In c h i l d
custody
cases
especially,
t h e p e r c e p t i o n o f an
attentive
trial
judge
is
of
great
importance."
W i l l i a m s v. W i l l i a m s , 402 So.
2d 1029, 1032 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 1 ) . '
"Ex p a r t e Fann, 810 So. 2d 631, 633
Ex p a r t e B l a c k s t o c k ,
,
( A l a . 2009) .
applies
not
[Ms. 1061445, S e p t .
to
a
the t r i a l
presumption
L a m i n a c k v. L a m i n a c k ,
11, 2009]
However, when a t r i a l
the law t o the f a c t s ,
entitled
( A l a . 2001)."
675
So.
of
court
improperly
c o u r t ' s judgment i s
correctness
2d 479,
So. 3d
481
on
appeal.
( A l a . C i v . App.
1996).
The t r i a l
were t h a t ,
c o u r t ' s grounds f o r f i n d i n g
a t one t i m e ,
the mother " u n f i t "
she h a d c o h a b i t a t e d w i t h a d r u g
18
user
2090490
and
manufacturer,
that
she
had
failed
to submit
to a h a i r -
f o l l i c l e d r u g t e s t , t h a t she had f a i l e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e
c h i l d r e n ' s e x a m i n a t i o n s by t h e p s y c h o l o g i s t ,
and t h a t she
had
f a i l e d t o c o n t a c t t h e g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m .
I n B.S.L. v. S.E.,
as
in this
filing
entry
of
case,
the
875 So. 2d 1215
a relatively
petition
of the f i n a l
long
for a
judgment.
( A l a . C i v . App.
time
custody
passed
between
modification
I n B.S.L., t h i s
2003),
the
and
court
the
reversed
a j u d g m e n t m o d i f y i n g c u s t o d y b a s e d on t h e m o t h e r ' s h i s t o r y o f
d r u g and a l c o h o l abuse when t h e m o t h e r had v o l u n t a r i l y s o u g h t
t r e a t m e n t and h a d a b s t a i n e d f r o m a b u s i n g d r u g s and a l c o h o l f o r
a l m o s t two
y e a r s as o f t h e d a t e o f t r i a l .
I n A.L.
v.
S.J.,
827
So.
2d
828
Id. at
1224.
( A l a . C i v . App.
2002),
the f a t h e r sought custody of the p a r t i e s ' 13-month-old
and t h e c h i l d ' s p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r , who
of the c h i l d ,
moved t o i n t e r v e n e .
a l s o sought
After a t r i a l ,
child,
custody
the
trial
c o u r t a w a r d e d t h e m o t h e r and t h e f a t h e r j o i n t l e g a l c u s t o d y o f
the c h i l d but awarded p r i m a r y p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y of the c h i l d t o
the p a t e r n a l grandmother.
I d . a t 830.
Evidence
i n that
i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e 1 9 - y e a r - o l d m o t h e r , among o t h e r t h i n g s ,
dated
D.W.,
a
17-year-old
who
19
admitted
that
he
had
case
had
used
2090490
illegal
d r u g s and
had
consumed a l c o h o l i n t h e p a s t ;
he
also
a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t he had
o v e r d o s e d on d r u g s i n O c t o b e r 2000.
At
litigation
one
child,
point during
the
allowed
trial
in
the
court
D.W.'s
temporary custody
had
regarding
ordered
presence
and
that
had
D.W.
However, t h e
r e c o r d i n t h a t case
had
even
spent
the
apartment i n v i o l a t i o n of the t r i a l
no e v i d e n c e ,
any
the
time
l o n g e r d a t i n g D.W.
primary
be
mother
continued
night
at
avoid
included
t o see
the
court's order.
physical
of
harmful
the
or dangerous.
trial
i n A.L.,
mother's
There
was
the
Id. at
832-33.
mother
was
custody
of
the
child
to
the
paternal
the evidence
indicated
t h a t t h e m o t h e r had e x h i b i t e d p o o r j u d g m e n t , i t f e l l s h o r t
establishing,
by
no
T h i s c o u r t r e v e r s e d the judgment awarding
grandmother, c o n c l u d i n g t h a t , although
m o t h e r was
D.W.
h o w e v e r , t h a t t h e m o t h e r had p l a c e d t h e c h i l d i n
s i t u a t i o n t h a t was
At
the
the
not
child
awarded
e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e m o t h e r had
that
the
of
o f t h e c h i l d on t h e c o n d i t i o n t h a t she
c o n t a c t w i t h D.W.
and
custody
clear
and
convincing
evidence,
that
of
the
an " ' " u n f i t o r i m p r o p e r p e r s o n t o be e n t r u s t e d w i t h
t h e c a r e and u p b r i n g i n g
of the c h i l d . " ' "
20
I d . a t 834
(quoting
2090490
Ex p a r t e
Terry,
494
So. 2d a t 632, q u o t i n g
Mathews, 428 So. 2d 58, 59
In t h i s
testified
( A l a . 1983)).
the
and
basis
that
for his
the t r i a l
request
court
b a s i s f o r f i n d i n g t h a t t h e m o t h e r was
than a year before
trial,
her
the t r i a l
t h e m o t h e r was
life.
parte
case, the mother's r e l a t i o n s h i p t h a t the f a t h e r
was
modification
i n t u r n Ex
used
for
as
a
custody
the
primary
" u n f i t " h a d e n d e d more
of t h i s case.
e n g a g e d t o a man
At the time of the
she h a d known a l l o f
T h e r e was no e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e m o t h e r ' s
f i a n c e had engaged i n improper o r i l l e g a l
conduct.
T h e r e was
no e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e m o t h e r was u s i n g i l l e g a l d r u g s
at
the time of the t r i a l .
The m o t h e r ' s
f i a n c e had
already
p u r c h a s e d a h o u s e l a r g e enough t o accommodate a l l t h r e e o f t h e
mother's c h i l d r e n .
returned
to
psychologist
school
who
The m o t h e r h e l d
to
a
registered
h a d e x a m i n e d t h e two
them b o t h t o be h e a l t h y
the
become
a full-time
older
and w e l l a d j u s t e d .
j o b and h a d
nurse.
The
children
found
I t i s true
that
o l d e r c h i l d r e n were u p s e t w i t h t h e m o t h e r ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p
a t t h e r o o t o f t h i s case; however, t h e p s y c h o l o g i s t a l s o f o u n d
t h a t t h e o l d e r c h i l d was u p s e t w i t h t h e f a t h e r , t o o , b e c a u s e
21
2090490
o f h e r b e l i e f t h a t h i s a f f a i r w i t h a f a m i l y f r i e n d had
the breakup of the p a r t i e s '
As was
this
the evidence i n
indicated
exercised
that
judgment i n the p a s t .
the
conclude
mother's
that
she
h e l d more t h a n two
the
At the
was
failed
the
to
a
may
had
father's petition
w e l l have
However,
like
to
mother
in
which
was
the
at the time of the t r i a l ,
The
court's
mother p r o v i d e d
concerns
hair-follicle
drug
that
explanations
the
test,
mother
had
failed
f a i l e d to contact
the guardian
ad l i t e m .
conclude
that
the
mother's
" ' u n f i t o r i m p r o p e r p e r s o n t o be
upbringing
of the
So.
as
did
not
to
Even i f t h e
however,
make h e r
e n t r u s t e d w i t h the
r e q u i r e d by Ex p a r t e
an
care
and
Terry,
494
632.
2d a t
child'"
conduct
had
children,
t r i a l c o u r t d i d not accept the mother's e x p l a n a t i o n s ,
we
was
l e d one
p a r t i c i p a t e i n the p s y c h o l o g i s t ' s examination of the
and had
poor
years a f t e r the f a t h e r f i l e d h i s p e t i t i o n ,
trial
take
time the
unfit.
changed f o r the b e t t e r .
regarding
mother
circumstances
B.S.L., h e r c i r c u m s t a n c e s
had
marriage.
t h e c a s e w i t h t h e m o t h e r i n A.L.,
case
filed,
caused
A f t e r r e v i e w i n g t h e r e c o r d i n t h i s c a s e , we
there
conclude that
i s i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence to support a f i n d i n g that
22
the
2090490
m o t h e r was u n f i t ,
to
and, t h u s , t h e j u d g m e n t f i n d i n g t h e m o t h e r
be u n f i t i s p l a i n l y
and p a l p a b l y w r o n g .
Because t h e r e i s
i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e f i n d i n g t h a t the mother
was
unfit,
the t r i a l
c o u r t ' s award o f c u s t o d y o f t h e o l d e s t
c h i l d t o t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s , w i t h whom t h e m o t h e r
was
l i v i n g so she c o u l d be w i t h t h e o l d e s t and y o u n g e s t
was
i m p r o p e r and must be r e v e r s e d .
at
632.
Our
propriety
of
See Ex p a r t e T e r r y , 494 So. 2d
holding precludes
awarding
child,
custody
the
of
the
need
to
oldest
address
child
the
to the
m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s on t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e y were n o t p a r t i e s
in
this
matter.
Furthermore,
because the evidence
does n o t s u p p o r t t h e
t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t t h e m o t h e r was u n f i t , we c a n n o t s a y
that
application
of
the
incorrect,
albeit
more
s t a n d a r d of d e t e r m i n i n g whether t o modify custody
harmless
error.
There
judgment t o s u g g e s t
change
in
constituted
i s nothing i n the r e c o r d or i n the
that
t h e r e had been a m a t e r i a l
proposed
stringent,
the t r i a l
change
custody
c o u r t c o n s i d e r e d whether
i n circumstances, that the
would
materially
promote
c h i l d r e n ' 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 b r o u g h t
the
about
b y t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n 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
23
2090490
e f f e c t c a u s e d by u p r o o t i n g t h e c h i l d r e n .
reverse
two
the
trial
youngest
court
to
court's
children.
consider
the
standard
to
parties'
children i s
judgment m o d i f y i n g
remand t h i s
evidence
determine
B e c a u s e we
the
We
Therefore,
whether
in
a
change
custody
cause
light
of
of
the
custody
also
of
f o r the
the
trial
McLendon
of
the
warranted.
r e v e r s e t h e judgment o f t h e t r i a l
modification
we
of
custody
of
a l l three
c o u r t as
children,
to
we
p r e t e r m i t d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e o t h e r i s s u e s t h e m o t h e r r a i s e s on
appeal.
REVERSED AND
Pittman,
Moore,
REMANDED.
Bryan,
and
J . , concurs
Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r .
i n part
writing.
24
and
dissents
in part,
with
2090490
MOORE, J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g i n p a r t a n d d i s s e n t i n g i n p a r t .
When
a circuit
grandparent
court
awards
custody
of a c h i l d
to a
o v e r t h e o b j e c t i o n o f a n a t u r a l p a r e n t , i t may do
so o n l y b a s e d upon an e x p r e s s f i n d i n g t h a t t h e p a r e n t i s u n f i t
to
e x e r c i s e custody of the c h i l d .
628,
632 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) .
Ex p a r t e T e r r y , 494 So. 2d
I n i t s f i n a l judgment, t h e t r i a l
court
awarded c u s t o d y o f t h e p a r t i e s ' o l d e s t c h i l d t o t h e c h i l d r e n ' s
maternal grandparents
a f t e r they had e x e r c i s e d pendente
custody
f o r o v e r two y e a r s .
of that c h i l d
lite
Hence, t h e t r i a l
c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t t h e m o t h e r was u n f i t was a n e c e s s a r y p a r t
of
i t s judgment,
grandparents
custody.
regardless of the fact
testified
In other
that
words,
they
were
that the maternal
not p e t i t i o n i n g f o r
the ultimate d i s p o s i t i o n
custody
of the oldest c h i l d
made t h i s
dispute
between
and t h e mother,"
the father
opinion concludes.
That
being
So. 3d a t
said,
I
agree
more t h a n
unfit
sufficient
parent.
I note
that
"a c u s t o d y
as t h e m a i n
.
with
t h e main
c o n c l u s i o n t h a t , a t the time of t h e t r i a l ,
an
of the
opinion's
t h e m o t h e r was n o t
the unfitness of a
parent
t o deprive t h a t parent of h i s or her custody of a
c h i l d must be p r o v e n b y c l e a r a n d c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e .
25
Terry,
2090490
supra.
That
evidence
custody
must
disposition,
show t h a t ,
the
parent
at
the
lacks
See
[Ms.
2090042, May
,
App.
2010)
unfitness
28,
2010]
(Moore, J . ,
equates
to
So.
dissenting)
a
3d
of
the
ability
the
w i l l i n g n e s s to p r o p e r l y care f o r the c h i l d .
time
or
J.W.
v.
T.D.,
(Ala. Civ.
(noting t h a t a f i n d i n g of
finding that
a parent
i s unable
or
u n w i l l i n g to discharge h i s or her p a r e n t a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s to
and
f o r t h e c h i l d ) ; and
30,
2010]
J.,
concurring
So.
S t o c k s v. S t o c k s ,
3d
,
i n part
[Ms.
2080941, A p r i l
( A l a . C i v . App.
and
2010)
d i s s e n t i n g i n part)
t h e u n f i t n e s s o f a p a r e n t must be
(Moore,
(noting
a d j u d g e d as o f t h e
that
time
of
t h e c u s t o d i a l d i s p o s i t i o n ) ( c i t i n g Ex p a r t e P h i l l i p s , 266 A l a .
198,
200,
95
Ala.
522,
524,
Mills,
App.
So.
2d
48
49 A l a . App.
1973)).
77,
So.
79
2d
658,
(1957);
771,
772
661-62, 275
Edwards v.
(1950);
So.
part
currently
and
254
Borsdorf
340-41
v.
(Civ.
Hence, t h i s c o u r t w i l l a f f i r m a j u d g m e n t f i n d i n g
c o u l d have c l e a r l y c o n v i n c e d
children.
and
2d 338,
a p a r e n t u n f i t o n l y i f the evidence i n the
was
Sessions,
unable
Stocks,
the t r i a l
or
u n w i l l i n g to
So.
3d a t
dissenting in part).
record
reasonably
court that that parent
properly
parent
(Moore, J . , c o n c u r r i n g
I agree w i t h the main
26
the
in
opinion
2090490
t h a t the evidence proved
unfit
—
during
paramour —
was
no
her
t h a t t h e m o t h e r may
relationship
with
have once b e e n
her
drug-abusing
b u t t h a t she h a d s i n c e r e h a b i l i t a t e d so t h a t
longer unable
responsibilities
to
or u n w i l l i n g
and
f o r the
to d i s c h a r g e her
children.
she
parental
Accordingly, I
agree t h a t t h a t p a r t of the judgment awarding
custody of the
oldest
is
child
reversed.
The
to
the
maternal
mother
c u s t o d y she
had
had
obtained
custody
awarded the
o n l y based
McLendon, 445
So.
on
2d 863
c o r r e c t l y summarizes.
of
to
the
of
the
two
be
younger
v a l i d c u s t o d y judgment,
not v o l u n t a r i l y
c o u l d have
children
due
4
c h i l d r e n by v i r t u e o f a p r i o r ,
court
grandparents
forfeited.
father
Thus, t h e
custody
standard set
of the
forth
which
trial
younger
i n Ex
parte
( A l a . 1984), which the main o p i n i o n
So. 3d a t
.
Although a
finding
u n f i t n e s s of the c u s t o d i a l parent i s not r e q u i r e d i n order
I a l s o note t h a t , at the time of the t r i a l , the mother
was r e s i d i n g w i t h t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s .
By
awarding
custody of the o l d e s t c h i l d to the maternal grandparents, the
t r i a l c o u r t p l a c e d t h e c h i l d i n t h e home i n w h i c h t h e m o t h e r
was
r e s i d i n g and, p r e s u m a b l y ,
where t h e m o t h e r e x e r c i s e d
a u t h o r i t y over the c h i l d .
T h e r e f o r e , the l e g a l
custody
a r r a n g e m e n t c r e a t e d by t h e judgment w o u l d h a v e , i n a l l
l i k e l i h o o d , r e s u l t e d i n t h e m o t h e r e x e r c i s i n g de f a c t o c u s t o d y
of t h e c h i l d .
4
27
2090490
for
a noncustodial parent
t o meet t h e McLendon s t a n d a r d ,
n o n c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t can p r o v e
s i n c e the l a s t
meeting
custody
t h a t the c u s t o d i a l parent
j u d g m e n t , become u n f i t
the f i r s t prong
The
P.W.,
burden
prove
628
remains,
So.
2d
753,
however,
the remaining elements
In
has,
as a means o f
o f t h e McLendon s t a n d a r d , i . e . , t h a t
a m a t e r i a l change o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s has
H.J.B. v.
on
occurred.
See,
e.g.,
754
( A l a . C i v . App.
1993).
the
noncustodial parent
the t r i a l
c o u r t c o u l d have,
and p r o b a b l y d i d , d e t e r m i n e t h a t a change o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s
since
the
entry
to
o f t h e McLendon s t a n d a r d .
f i n d i n g the mother u n f i t ,
occurred
a
of
the
last
custody
had
judgment.
However, t h a t change o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s had become i m m a t e r i a l by
t h e t i m e o f t r i a l b e c a u s e t h e m o t h e r had r e h a b i l i t a t e d h e r s e l f
so t h a t h e r p a s t c o n d u c t
current
mother
fitness
showed
was
no
as a p a r e n t .
virtually
longer d e t e r m i n a t i v e of
At the time
the
same
of the t r i a l ,
capacity to
parent
her
the
the
c h i l d r e n as she h a d d i s p l a y e d a t t h e t i m e o f t h e e n t r y o f t h e
last
c u s t o d y j u d g m e n t , o r t h e f a t h e r a t l e a s t f a i l e d t o show
any m a t e r i a l change i n h e r p a r e n t i n g a b i l i t y t h a t p e r s i s t e d a t
the
time
of
trial.
Hence,
the
28
trial
c o u r t c o u l d not
have
2090490
r e l i e d on t h e m o t h e r ' s u n f i t n e s s t o s a t i s f y t h e f i r s t p r o n g o f
t h e McLendon
Our
standard.
caselaw
holds
that
when
a judgment
omits
express
f i n d i n g s o f f a c t t h a t a r e n o t r e q u i r e d by law, t h i s c o u r t
ordinarily
assume t h a t t h e t r i a l
findings
necessary
McCormick
v. E t h r i d g e ,
2008).
In this
to
c o u r t i m p l i c i t l y made t h o s e
support
i t s judgment.
15 So. 3d 524, 529
case, the t r i a l
See, e . g . ,
(Ala. C i v .
t h e main o p i n i o n
App.
c o u r t made f i n d i n g s o f f a c t .
Those f i n d i n g s , h o w e v e r , do n o t s u p p o r t i t s j u d g m e n t .
with
will
that the t r i a l
court
I agree
d i d n o t f i n d any
a d d i t i o n a l f a c t s t h a t w o u l d have j u s t i f i e d a change o f c u s t o d y
u n d e r t h e McLendon s t a n d a r d .
2d 8 8 1 , 891-93
of fact
presume t h e t r i a l
when e n t e r i n g
record
does
Ramsey v . Ramsey, 995 So.
( A l a . C i v . App. 2008)
( a r g u i n g t h a t , when a t r i a l
findings
See
c o u r t v o l u n t a r i l y makes
t o support
i t s judgment,
that
judgment).
not contain
on
this
specific
court
must
c o u r t r e l i e d on o n l y t h o s e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t
I f u r t h e r conclude
any e v i d e n c e
change o f c u s t o d y u n d e r t h e McLendon
Based
(Moore, J . , d i s s e n t i n g )
the foregoing
that
would
that the
support
a
standard.
analysis,
I
agree
that
the
j u d g m e n t s h o u l d be r e v e r s e d , b u t I s e e no r e a s o n t o remand t h e
29
2090490
case.
W i t h o u t e v i d e n c e o f a m a t e r i a l change o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s
existing
at the time of t r i a l ,
discretion
to
reconsideration
standard
could
modify
of
the t r i a l
custody
the
at
evidence
produce only
one
d e n i a l of the f a t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n
c o u r t w o u l d have no
a l l .
In
in light
legally
my
of
opinion,
the
valid
render
opinion
a
judgment
f o r the mother.
remands f o r t h e t r i a l
respectfully
30
result
—
a
t h e judgment
Because
court to reconsider
dissent.
McLendon
f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n of custody.
Hence, I b e l i e v e t h i s c o u r t s h o u l d s i m p l y r e v e r s e
and
a
the
main
the case, I
