Percy Marsh v. Heather Marsh Smith
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 1/21/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 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 o f 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, 2010-2011 2091108 Percy Marsh v. Heather Marsh Smith Appeal from Mobile C i r c u i t (DR-04-501376.80) Court THOMAS, J u d g e . P e r c y M a r s h ("the f a t h e r " ) a p p e a l s Mobile C i r c u i t Court denying h i s request custody. from a judgment o f t h e for a modification of The f a t h e r a n d H e a t h e r M a r s h S m i t h ("the m o t h e r " ) were d i v o r c e d i n J u l y 2005; t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t a w a r d e d t h e 2091108 p a r t i e s j o i n t custody of the p a r t i e s ' daughter with the parents periods. The until mother the having joint alternating custodial remarried Lucedale, The via custodial functioned t o move f r o m r e s i d e d a f t e r the well Mobile divorce, to Mississippi. mother i n f o r m e d the conversations serve decided child"), long arrangement and C o u n t y , where b o t h p a r e n t s had week ("the regarding P r o t e c t i o n Act 3-160 et petition ("the seq. to failed hold returned In Alabama Parent-Child to Relationship A c t " ) , c o d i f i e d a t A l a . Code 1975, The properly provide requested the appropriate she § 30-3¬ of the but c o n t a i n i n g t h e i n f o r m a t i o n r e q u i r e d by A l a . Code 1975, part with matter, relocate notice a father the i n t e n t to written 165, the f a t h e r of her father the then mother in n o t i c e of her temporary custody to Mobile to i n the contempt trial for 30¬ court a failing to r e l o c a t i o n ; i n h i s motion, of the child until the he mother County. response filed § counterpetitioned custody of the the father's petition, the mother f o r a m o d i f i c a t i o n of custody, s e e k i n g child. a m o d i f i c a t i o n , seeking The f a t h e r then c o u n t e r p e t i t i o n e d s o l e custody of the 2 c h i l d as sole for well. 2091108 The child father sought i n March safety of the prescription emergency 2008 b a s e d child by on of the mother's the giving medication. temporary endangering the child overdose the The mother custody an opposed the of a father's m o t i o n , a l l e g i n g t h a t h e r m i s t a k e i n g i v i n g t h e c h i l d t o o much o f t h e m e d i c a t i o n was inadvertent p r o m p t l y and h a n d l e d by a properly hearing, temporary the sole At she had the t h a t the the mother. parties agreed physical custody m o t h e r t o have v i s i t a t i o n e v e n i n g on and to place the child in the the father and for the of from Thursday a f t e r n o o n trial She explained c u r r e n t husband's p a r e n t s , a l s o l i v e n e a r b y , when t h e further explained father and or visitation the child that she periods guardian ad 3 resided next M a r i o n and B o b b i S m i t h and t h a t t h e child grandchildren, is in Mississippi. had begun e x e r c i s i n g i n Mobile litem that that they l i v e d s p e n d s t i m e w i t h them and h e r c u r r e n t h u s b a n d ' s custodial Sunday i n November 2008, t h e m o t h e r a d m i t t e d ( c o l l e c t i v e l y r e f e r r e d t o as " t h e S m i t h s " ) , mother to a l t e r n a t i n g weekends. c u r r e n t husband. door t o her been However, a f t e r r e l o c a t e d t o L u c e d a l e , M i s s i s s i p p i , where she w i t h her who i s s u e had had The her County when the objected to her 2091108 relocation allowed to Mississippi; h e r t o use t h e i r she residence custodial or v i s i t a t i o n periods. and the c h i l d custodial slept said periods the Smiths t o t h e m o t h e r , she bed during the mother's and t h e mother's h u s b a n d s l e p t on t h e c o u c h i n t h e C h i c k a s a w h o u s e . litigation, allowing t h e mother o b j e c t e d the c h i l d periods. As to the father's to sleep with him d u r i n g below, the father noted doctor the that the father had not taken even a f t e r t h e d i v o r c e father explained that available the office. that period this The m o t h e r a l s o to the t o and from New t o take her t o t h e mother h a d no real parenting. f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t the c h i l d had s l e p t i n h i s bed w i t h h i m when he h a d c u s t o d y o f h e r . discontinued that his custodial a n d t h a t he was n o t from day care Otherwise, c o m p l a i n t s about t h e f a t h e r ' s The p r a c t i c e of a n d h a d r e l i e d on h e r t o do s o ; t o p i c k up t h e c h i l d doctor's During the the c h i l d he d r o v e a t r u c k O r l e a n s t w i c e p e r day d u r i n g current discontinued p r a c t i c e when t h e m o t h e r made an i s s u e o f i t . complained had i n Chickasaw during her According i n t h e same or v i s i t a t i o n that that practice, He e x p l a i n e d t h a t he h a d p r a c t i c e when t h e m o t h e r h a d o b j e c t e d citing i t s "inappropriateness." 4 The to father 2091108 d e n i e d t h a t h a v i n g t h e d a u g h t e r , who was s i x a t t h e t i m e o f trial, sleep i n h i s b e d was i n a p p r o p r i a t e . According to the father, the c h i l d enjoyed being with both of her parents; the f a t h e r s a i d t h a t he w o u l d have e x p e c t e d t h e c h i l d t o f e e l this way. The f a t h e r a l s o s a i d t h a t he f e l t t h a t t h e m o t h e r was s e l f i s h a n d t h a t she c o u l d be a b e t t e r m o t h e r i f she w o u l d p u t the needs of the c h i l d mother's i n a d v e r t e n t her parenting first. The father focused o v e r d o s i n g o f t h e c h i l d as e v i d e n c e the c h i l d during h a d h a d an a l l e r g i c the time she was respiratory infection. taking reaction an a n t i b i o t i c o f some duty p r e s c r i b e d kind f o r an u p p e r a f t e r t h e mother had a d m i n i s t e r e d dose o f t h e o v e r - t h e - c o u n t e r m e d i c a t i o n B e n a d r y l , took the c h i l d testified When t h e h i v e s t h e c h i l d s u f f e r e d f r o m did not resolve overnight she that s k i l l s were l a c k l u s t e r . R e g a r d i n g t h e o v e r d o s i n g i n c i d e n t , t h e mother that on t h e a t h e mother t o t h e emergency room, where t h e p h y s i c i a n on a s t e r o i d medication. The m o t h e r said that i n a d v e r t e n t l y g a v e t h e c h i l d t h e s t e r o i d m e d i c a t i o n on t h e antibiotic d o s i n g s c h e d u l e ; t h a t i s , she g a v e t h e c h i l d a d o s e o f t h e s t e r o i d e a c h t i m e t h e c h i l d was t o r e c e i v e the a n t i b i o t i c , a dose o f w h i c h was more f r e q u e n t l y t h a n t h e dose o f t h e 5 2091108 s t e r o i d was t o be m i s t a k e , she once. s a i d she Once t h e c h i l d was When t h e m o t h e r r e a l i z e d h e r t o o k t h e c h i l d t o t h e e m e r g e n c y room a t child was seen at the f o u n d t o have s u f f e r e d no m o t h e r s a i d she severe administered. was reaction t o l d t h a t the to the mother a l s o s a i d t h a t was adverse reaction as told explained the entire improperly well. administering m o t h e r s a i d t h a t she that to keep the monitor her child i n c i d e n t but The t h a t the a father f a t h e r had of said that she her part in to the a father. from the few extra concern The father days regarding to the agreed. the days. child had been However, mother the had father thus f o r c i n g her improperly s a i d t h a t t h e m o t h e r had the off to extra that not The attempted few testified for mother's not. child including custody d e n i e d the mother's r e q u e s t , the mother requested permission the had a more t h e i n c i d e n t f r o m t h e f a t h e r by r e q u e s t i n g t o k e e p conceal child of The i t a t once c o u l d c a u s e the m e d i c a t i o n , i n her because she t o wean t h e The situation, had the c h i l d c o u l d have had the s t e r o i d m e d i c a t i o n because s t o p p i n g an room, effects. severe i l l overdose but she emergency administered a l s o overdosed the 6 s a i d , he had to reveal that medication. He c h i l d on the day 2091108 she returned the c h i l d t o him by h a v i n g g i v e n her a dose o f t h e m e d i c a t i o n b e f o r e administered. regular t h e second d o s e was due t o be The f a t h e r s a i d t h a t he t o o k t h e c h i l d t o h e r pediatrician, who told him that overdosing m e d i c a t i o n was v e r y d a n g e r o u s t o t h e c h i l d a n d who him t o take her o f f o f the medication The second mother s u f f e r s from instructed immediately. f i b r o m y a l g i a a n d i s on s e v e r a l medications because o f her c o n d i t i o n . She t a k e s D a r v o c e t , a n a r c o t i c p a i n r e l i e v e r , as n e e d e d f o r t h e p a i n r e s u l t i n g her condition, Trazodone. and the a n d she a l s o takes from N e u r o n t i n , P r o z a c , and The m o t h e r a d m i t t e d t h a t , a t t i m e s , h e r c o n d i t i o n her medication have made h e r s l e e p d u r i n g t h e d a y ; she s a i d t h a t , a f t e r h e r m e d i c a t i o n was a d j u s t e d a n d a f t e r she was p r e s c r i b e d T r a z o d o n e t o h e l p h e r s l e e p a t n i g h t , she h a d h a d fewer episodes of s l e e p i n g during the day. The m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t she c h o s e n o t t o w o r k a f t e r she t o o k a l e a v e o f a b s e n c e t o c a r e f o r h e r c u r r e n t h u s b a n d when he The s u f f e r e d adverse consequences a f t e r an e l e c t i v e surgery. mother s a i d t h a t h e r c u r r e n t husband needed c o n s t a n t care a f t e r t h e s u r g e r y b u t t h a t he was now much b e t t e r a t m a n a g i n g most d a i l y tasks. She s a i d that, 7 w i t h h i s income, she was 2091108 a b l e t o e l e c t t o be a homemaker s o t h a t she c o u l d s t a y home t o rear her c h i l d r e n . The 1 father admitted t h a t he h a d t h o u g h t a b o u t c o m m i t t i n g s u i c i d e on a t l e a s t one o c c a s i o n . her of first The m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d ex-husband, R i c h a r d Middlebrooks, the f a t h e r ' s , had i n t e r v e n e d that who was a f r i e n d the father from committing s u i c i d e s h o r t l y a f t e r the p a r t i e s ' d i v o r c e . The father explained situational passing actual plans The he depression. thoughts counseling that about had He suffered, said committing t o commit s u i c i d e . forhis situational trial court into evidence a t t r i a l . that at he his suicide differently than He s a i d t h a t he h a d s o u g h t a custody Dr. D a v i s ' s evaluation t o be r e p o r t was entered Dr. D a v i s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e pendente t h e mother e x e r c i s e d v i s i t a t i o n custody of the from Thursday t o S u n d a y on a l t e r n a t i n g weekends s h o u l d be c o n t i n u e d point i n the future when " o t h e r down a n d become s t e a d y . " 1 The from considered arrangement whereby t h e f a t h e r had s o l e c h i l d while times, depression. ordered p e r f o r m e d by Dr. John D a v i s . lite to prevent living u n t i l some arrangements settle A l t h o u g h Dr. D a v i s d i d i n d i c a t e t h a t m o t h e r h a s an o l d e r c h i l d f r o m a p r e v i o u s 8 marriage. 2091108 the pendente because i t lite custody appeared environment f o r the the joint-custody to arrangement provide c h i l d , Dr. a should steady be and continued consistent Davis noted i n h i s report a r r a n g e m e n t e n j o y e d by the parties t h e m o t h e r r e l o c a t e d had w o r k e d s a t i s f a c t o r i l y f o r t h e B a s e d on h i s t e s t i n g o f and mother, the mother's interviews with husband, and the the also for i n both parents' noted that the child m o t h e r and her father preference to l i v e w i t h her environments. had expressed equally but the Dr. judgment i n w h i c h i t r e a f f i r m e d the parties' pertinent divorce Davis's that she properly she had report loved indicated a the judgment. the t r i a l court entered a joint-custody provisions That judgment s t a t e d , part: "1. T h a t t h e M o t i o n f o r C o n t e m p t f i l e d by the [ f a t h e r ] was w i t h d r a w n , and t h e M o t i o n f o r T e m p o r a r y C u s t o d y f i l e d by t h e [ f a t h e r ] i s now moot. "2. That the C o u r t f i n d s t h a t the r e s i d e s i n M o b i l e C o u n t y when t h e m i n o r w i t h her. "3. material her mother. A f t e r t h e November 2008 t r i a l , of that family. however, child, Dr. before father, D a v i s i n d i c a t e d i n h i s r e p o r t t h a t t h e c h i l d w o u l d be cared that That the C o u r t f i n d s t h a t change i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s 9 [mother] child is t h e r e i s not a sufficient to in 2091108 modify custody; t h e r e f o r e both Custody are hereby denied. "4. That t h e v i s i t a t i o n order s e v e n , e i g h t , and previously entered The father appealed Motions to Modify C o u r t r e a f f i r m s t h e c u s t o d y and as s e t o u t i n p a r a g r a p h s s i x , n i n e o f t h e Judgment o f D i v o r c e by t h i s C o u r t . " that j u d g m e n t , and this court reversed, b a s i n g o u r r e v e r s a l on t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f a i l u r e t o a p p l y t h e provisions of the p e t i t i o n s based resided Act i n Mobile App. 2009). j u d g m e n t , we the on t h e t r i a l County p e r i o d s w i t h the c h i l d . Civ. to In parties' respective custody c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t the mother when she exercised her M a r s h v. S m i t h , 37 So. our analysis noted t h a t the of the custodial 3d 174 trial (Ala. court's judgment " d i d not r e q u i r e the mother t o c o n t i n u e t o e x e r c i s e her v i s i t a t i o n or c u s t o d i a l r i g h t s i n M o b i l e County as a c o n d i t i o n o f m a i n t a i n i n g j o i n t c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d , n o r d i d i t o t h e r w i s e p l a c e any r e s t r i c t i o n s on i t s r e a f f i r m a t i o n o f t h e c u s t o d y and v i s i t a t i o n provisions of the parties' divorce judgment. Because n o t h i n g i n the t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment would p r e v e n t the mother from e x e r c i s i n g her c u s t o d i a l p e r i o d s w i t h t h e c h i l d i n M i s s i s s i p p i , we cannot conclude that the trial c o u r t ' s judgment was responsive to the p l e a d i n g s or f a i t h f u l to the concerns u n d e r l y i n g the passage of the A c t . " M a r s h , 37 So. On 2010, 3d a t 178. remand, t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t on May 14, i n which i t s t a t e d t h a t " [ t ] h e Court r e a f f i r m s the p r i o r 10 2091108 order concerning the custody and v i s i t a t i o n p r o v i s i o n s o f p a r t i e s . The mother's custody are conditioned hereby residence her i n Mobile custody denied filed and a the mother, he after remand, had Lucedale, motion entry of the begun t a k i n g t h e Mississippi, to child to further The May father 14, 2010, comply w i t h by t h e to 14, of evidence allege that 2010, the this the judgment on m o t h e r ' s home i n to s t a y d u r i n g the mother's c u s t o d i a l periods, i n contravention father's motion was May place i s to e x e r c i s e the motion however, judgment not supported amended h i s a parties." i t failed t h a t i t was later the The challenging grounds t h a t the maintaining rights." " r e q u e s t [ s ] of c o u r t ' s mandate and presented; her C o u n t y , A l a b a m a where she postjudgment j u d g m e n t on upon visitation a l l other and v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s , the denied of the by judgment operation on of remand. law. The He then appealed. On appeal, the father f i r s t argues t h a t the d i s r e g a r d e d t h i s c o u r t ' s mandate on remand. trial He trial says t h a t c o u r t e r r e d on remand by f a i l i n g t o f o l l o w t h i s remand i n s t r u c t i o n s , w h i c h were t o custody-modification petitions 11 "adjudicate court the the court's parties' i n l i g h t of the p r o v i s i o n s of 2091108 t h e A c t and i n l i g h t of the evidence a l r e a d y p r e s e n t e d c o u r t -- i n c l u d i n g t h e u n d i s p u t e d to Lucedale, residence residences) The n e c e s s a r i l y one c a s e , " w h i c h , as we 3d 204, 208 comply w i t h of the to a d i f f e r e n t s t a t e . " father relies, i n p a r t , on child's M a r s h , 37 two So. of principal 3d a t "law 179. the e x p l a i n e d i n G i a r d i n a v. G i a r d i n a , 39 So. remand the p r i n c i p l e principal of ( A l a . C i v . App. the the e v i d e n c e t h a t , by r e l o c a t i n g M i s s i s s i p p i , t h e m o t h e r has c h a n g e d h e r (and to 2009), r e q u i r e s a t r i a l i n s t r u c t i o n s given by the court to reviewing court. "'"The i s s u e s d e c i d e d by an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t become t h e l a w o f t h e c a s e on remand t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t , and t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s n o t f r e e t o r e c o n s i d e r t h o s e i s s u e s . " Ex p a r t e S.T.S., 806 So. 2d 336, 341 ( A l a . 2001) ( c i t i n g M u r p h r e e v. M u r p h r e e , 600 So. 2d 301 (Ala. C i v . App. 1 9 9 2 ) ) . M o r e o v e r , on remand, " ' t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d u t y i s t o comply w i t h the a p p e l l a t e mandate " a c c o r d i n g t o i t s t r u e i n t e n t and m e a n i n g , as d e t e r m i n e d by the d i r e c t i o n s given by the reviewing c o u r t E x p a r t e J o n e s , 774 So. 2d 607, 608 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2000) (quoting Walker v. C a r o l i n a M i l l s Lumber Co., 441 So. 2d 980, 982 ( A l a . Civ. App. 1 9 8 3 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n Ex p a r t e A l a b a m a Power Co., 431 So. 2d 151, 155 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) ) . ' " G i a r d i n a , 39 So. 139, 141 We 3d a t 208 ( A l a . C i v . App. do not agree w i t h ( q u o t i n g Brown v. Brown, 20 So. 3d 2009)). the f a t h e r t h a t the trial court's j u d g m e n t on remand f a i l e d t o c o m p l y w i t h t h i s c o u r t ' s mandate. 12 2091108 We ordered the t r i a l c o u r t to c o n s i d e r the competing modification petitions in light c o u r t a p p e a r s t o have done. specifically new o u t l i n e the Although process by which the the t r i a l custodial allowed rights, r e j e c t e d the Mississippi. 1324 fact, ( A l a . 1996) appellate made t h o s e See mother's request Ex imposing residence parte t h a t she of the Bryowsky, her be child to So. 2d 676 ("[I]n the absence of s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s courts will f i n d i n g s necessary s u c h f i n d i n g s w o u l d be not which i t a r r i v e d at i t s on t h e m o t h e r ' s e x e r c i s e o f to r e l o c a t e the p r i n c i p a l Lucedale, 1322, restriction trial court d i d j u d g m e n t , i t i s a p p a r e n t t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t , by the g e o g r a p h i c a l of of the A c t , custody- assume t h a t to support the trial court i t s judgment, unless c l e a r l y erroneous."). Thus, t h e trial c o u r t ' s judgment r e q u i r i n g t h a t the mother's c u s t o d i a l p e r i o d s be e x e r c i s e d i n M o b i l e C o u n t y i s t a n t a m o u n t t o a d e n i a l o f r e q u e s t t o be p e r m i t t e d t o r e l o c a t e w i t h t h e c h i l d . court also father's mandate. trial considered petitions We to and denied modify trial both the mother's and the custody, as required by our t h e r e f o r e cannot agree w i t h the c o u r t f a i l e d t o f o l l o w our 13 The her father that i n s t r u c t i o n s on remand. the 2091108 We n e x t t u r n t o t h e f a t h e r ' s m u l t i p a r t argument t h a t t h e trial court e r r e d by denying h i s p e t i t i o n t o modify We n o t e a t t h e o u t s e t custody. t h a t , because t h e p a r e n t s shared joint c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d , t h e f a t h e r was r e q u i r e d t o p r o v e t h a t a material change of circumstances had occurred and t h a t change o f c u s t o d y w o u l d be i n t h e c h i l d ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t . parte C o u c h , 521 So. 2d 987, 989 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) . the t r i a l court's a Ex Our r e v i e w o f c u s t o d y judgment i s l i m i t e d . "When e v i d e n c e i n a c h i l d c u s t o d y c a s e h a s b e e n p r e s e n t e d ore tenus t o the t r i a l court, t h a t court's f i n d i n g s o f f a c t 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 be 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 - - i t h e a r s the e v i d e n c e and observes t h e w i t n e s s e s . Appellate c o u r t s do n o t s i t i n j u d g m e n t o f d i s p u t e d e v i d e n c e t h a t was p r e s e n t e d o r e t e n u s b e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t in a custody hearing." Ex p a r t e B r y o w s k y , 676 So. 2d a t 1324. As n o t e d a b o v e , i n t h e absence o f s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s o f f a c t , t h i s c o u r t presumes t h a t the trial court made t h o s e judgment, p r o v i d e d that evidence at t r i a l . findings such that findings would support i t s a r e supported by the Id. The f a t h e r makes s e v e r a l s e p a r a t e a r g u m e n t s i n s u p p o r t o f his contention supports a that t h e overwhelming conclusion that weight a modification 14 of the evidence of custody was 2091108 warranted. B e c a u s e we complied with applying the relocate our Act the Mississippi, mandate and child's we court determined do have not by on denying agree that remand principal with the by the i n the c h i l d ' s best mother's residence to the f a t h e r t h a t arguing that a material § 30-3-169.4, t h a t interest. trial The court considering t h a t t h e m o t h e r had overcome t h e s t a t e d i n A l a . Code 1975, not concluded father and request to Lucedale, the trial presumption relocation was i s correct i n change o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s d i d o c c u r -¬ we s t a t e d i n M a r s h t h a t t h e m o t h e r ' s r e l o c a t i o n was a material change i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s , M a r s h , 37 So. however, a trial court i s not r e q u i r e d t o modify a change o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s has 3d a t 178; custody merely because occurred. "In cases i n which a p a r e n t seeks a m o d i f i c a t i o n of a j o i n t - c u s t o d y a r r a n g e m e n t , t h e p a r e n t must p r o v e '"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 o f t h e p a r t i e s since the prior [judgment] which change of c i r c u m s t a n c e s i s s u c h as t o a f f e c t t h e w e l f a r e and best i n t e r e s t of the c h i l d or c h i l d r e n i n v o l v e d . " ' W a t t e r s v. W a t t e r s , 918 So. 2d 913, 916 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005) ( q u o t i n g P o n d e r v. P o n d e r , 50 A l a . App. 27, 30, 276 So. 2d 613, 615 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 7 3 ) ) . I n c a s e s i n w h i c h n e i t h e r p a r e n t has p r e v i o u s l y b e e n awarded p r i m a r y p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y , i n c l u d i n g cases i n which the p a r t i e s ' agreement t o share physical c u s t o d y was i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t , '"'the best i n t e r e s t s of the child' standard a p p l i e s . " ' New v. M c C u l l a r , 955 So. 2d [431] 435 15 2091108 [ ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 6 ) ] ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e 673 So. 2d 410, 413 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) ) . " M o r g a n v . Morgan, Thus, the t r i a l 964 So. 2d 24, 34 court was r e q u i r e d Johnson, ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 7 ) . t o determine whether a m o d i f i c a t i o n o f c u s t o d y w o u l d be i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t o f t h e child. The father argues that the t r i a l recommendation o f the c o u r t - a p p o i n t e d and t h e "unspoken" that The recommendation custody of the c h i l d should f a t h e r admits t h a t the t r i a l court ignored p s y c h o l o g i s t , Dr. D a v i s , of the guardian ad l i t e m be a w a r d e d t o t h e f a t h e r . ("[A] trial follow, parte court may c o n s i d e r , 2 c o u r t w o u l d n o t be b o u n d b y the o p i n i o n o f e i t h e r Dr. D a v i s o r t h e g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m . C . J . L . v. M.W.B., 879 So. 2d 1169, the See 1181 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003) although i t i s n o t bound t o a r e c o m m e n d a t i o n made b y a g u a r d i a n a d l i t e m . " ) ; Ex R.D.N., 918 So. 2d 100, 105 ( A l a . 2005) case d i s a p p r o v i n g (noting, ina o f ex p a r t e communication between a g u a r d i a n The g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m o f f e r e d t o g i v e h e r recommendation a t t r i a l ; however, t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t r e q u e s t t h a t t h e g u a r d i a n a d l i t e m s t a t e h e r r e c o m m e n d a t i o n on t h e r e c o r d . The mother i n d i c a t e d i n h e r t e s t i m o n y t h a t t h e g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m appeared t o favor the f a t h e r , and the f a t h e r a s s e r t s t h a t , b a s e d on t h a t t e s t i m o n y , we may " g l e a n " t h a t t h e g u a r d i a n a d l i t e m w o u l d have recommended a m o d i f i c a t i o n o f c u s t o d y t o t h e father. 2 16 2091108 ad litem and discretion the to trial court, "disagree[] that with court-appointed professional issue"). although Thus, recommendations from which change o f c u s t o d y t o t h e interest, The of father his by evaluating trial court i t could the of its modification [a] had have f a t h e r w o u l d be overdose. the disputed; has recommendation custody evidence concluded i n the no means r e q u i r e d t o so for court and that mother the The conclude. trial court's ignores evidence attempted mother i n s i s t e d to that at hide she the denial evidence trial the had a c h i l d ' s best the mother's e n d a n g e r i n g the l i f e of the c h i l d medication whether trial f u r t h e r argues t h a t the petition regarding a i t was the in the a with regarding incident was been c a n d i d with the f a t h e r . I n a d d i t i o n , as t h e m o t h e r a r g u e s i n h e r b r i e f on appeal, mother t e s t i f i e d the d e e p l y upset her once she to t h a t she had r e a l i z e d her p o i n t s out, risk and at t r i a l grave no Indeed, t h e m e d i c a t i o n o v e r d o s e was the child's health; i l l effects as result as the discovered, 17 incident and the had quickly father d a n g e r o u s and p o s e d a however, a the acted prudently error. r e s p o n s i b l y once t h e m i s t a k e was suffered that of mother acted and t h e c h i l d the has inadvertent 2091108 overdose. court's We cannot agree with the father that the trial d e c i s i o n n o t t o m o d i f y c u s t o d y on t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a d a c c i d e n t a l l y o v e r d o s e d t h e c h i l d on a m e d i c a t i o n i s reversible error. Overall, the mother remarried Mississippi, for the testimony at t r i a l chose the joint-custody the family. arrangement, and to Both p a r t i e s t e s t i f i e d t h a t the pendente lite pursuant to which t h e mother exercised i n C h i c k a s a w , was w o r k i n g w e l l the j o i n t - c u s t o d y arrangement t h e m o t h e r n o t moved t o L u c e d a l e , M i s s i s s i p p i . joint "frequent c u s t o d y , when a p p r o p r i a t e , and c o n t i n u i n g ability contact to a c t i n the best Ala. Code 1975, § 30-3-150. that the parents divorce. which Thus, i t could the t r i a l as a means t o f o s t e r i n t e r e s t of t h e i r The e v i d e n c e a t t r i a l court concluded Our s t a t e w i t h p a r e n t s who have shown had demonstrated have her The f a t h e r a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t he w o u l d have h a d no p r o b l e m c o n t i n u i n g favors Lucedale, well at the time of t r i a l . the relocate until a r r a n g e m e n t was w o r k i n g v i s i t a t i o n or c u s t o d i a l periods had to established that, this ability children." indicated since had abundant e v i d e n c e that a continuation the from of the j o i n t - c u s t o d y a r r a n g e m e n t w o u l d be i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t o f t h e 18 2091108 child, provided the m o t h e r was p r i n c i p a l residence not of the c h i l d . permitted The Mobile child's County, accomplishes principal residence both in change t r i a l court's which r e q u i r e s t h a t the mother e x e r c i s e her in to a judgment, custodial maintenance Mobile County periods of f a m i l y s i n c e the d i v o r c e . Thus, we the and c o n t i n u a t i o n o f t h e j o i n t - c u s t o d y a r r a n g e m e n t t h a t has w e l l f o r the the a worked cannot agree t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n denying the f a t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n modify custody. The father next argues that the trial court erred by f a i l i n g t o g r a n t h i s amended p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , t o w h i c h attached the a letter mother did e x e r c i s e her t h a t the the from the mother's a t t o r n e y not intend c h i l d was attending court by trial vacate to custodial periods erred accept that l e t t e r to to its remain other in to The reopen judgment continuing t o e n t e r a new A l t h o u g h we that mother's from the 19 the to times that evidence and in to failing joint-custody judgment a w a r d i n g c u s t o d y of the c h i l d to the f a t h e r . letter those the that County f a t h e r argues from the mother's a t t o r n e y arrangement i n order the Mobile than during school. failing indicating he agree w i t h the counsel father indicates the 2091108 mother's intent exercise o f h e r c u s t o d i a l p e r i o d s , we c a n n o t trial to to disobey the r e s t r i c t i o n p l a c e d upon t h e agree that the c o u r t e r r e d by n o t reopening t h e evidence o r by f a i l i n g v a c a t e i t s May 14, 2010, j u d g m e n t . The f a t h e r ' s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n s o u g h t t o have t h e t r i a l c o u r t a l t e r , amend, o r v a c a t e t h e May 14, 2010, j u d g m e n t u n d e r Rule 59, A l a . R. motion, C i v . P. the father In order was r e q u i r e d to prevail t o submit newly on s u c h discovered evidence that warranted the reopening of the evidence. v. S t a t e , 503 So. 2d 856, 858 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1987) t h a t motions newly seeking r e l i e f discovered evidence evidence trial"). comes i n t o As barred when trials would this being court i t i s based have a Bates (stating f r o m a j u d g m e n t on t h e g r o u n d o f are not granted following the p o t e n t i a l the new the conclusion of the explained i n Bates, on t h i s "when type "[r]elief i s of evidence t o become because never-ending." B a t e s , 503 So. 2d a t 858 ( c i t i n g Moody v. S t a t e ex r e l . Payne, 344 So. 2d 160, 163 ( A l a . 1977) ("There c a n be no ... relief for e v i d e n c e w h i c h h a s come i n t o e x i s t e n c e a f t e r t h e t r i a l i s over s i m p l y because such perpetual l i f e . " ) ) . a procedure would allow a l l t r i a l s The f a t h e r s u b m i t t e d new e v i d e n c e 20 that 2091108 i s , evidence o f t h e mother's i n t e n t t o ignore t h e requirements o f t h e May 14, 2 0 1 0 , j u d g m e n t when t h e c h i l d was n o t r e q u i r e d to attend school i n M o b i l e C o u n t y -- w h i c h was made a f t e r t h e e n t r y o f t h e judgment r e q u i r i n g h e r t o e x e r c i s e h e r c u s t o d i a l periods i n M o b i l e County. T h i s new e v i d e n c e does n o t s u p p o r t the reopening o f t h e evidence o r t h e v a c a t i o n because i t does not a s s a i l j u d g m e n t was b a s e d . Instead, o f t h e judgment the evidence upon which the s u c h new e v i d e n c e p r o p e r l y forms the b a s i s o f a contempt a c t i o n o r a m o d i f i c a t i o n a c t i o n . Estrada v . R e d f o r d , 855 So. 2d 551, 554 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003) ( s t a t i n g t h a t " [ a ] change i n t h e m o t h e r ' s income t h a t after the t r i a l i s 'new See evidence' not 'newly occurred discovered e v i d e n c e , ' " and might e n t i t l e t h e mother t o a m o d i f i c a t i o n o f her child-support err in failing Finally, refusing admits discretion Thus, t h e t r i a l court d i d not t o grant the f a t h e r ' s postjudgment motion. the f a t h e r argues t h a t the t r i a l t o grant that obligation). the father an a t t o r n e y t h e award o f such of the t r i a l court, fee. a fee rests the father court e r r e d by A l t h o u g h he entirely argues i nthe that the m o t h e r ' s d e c i s i o n t o move t o M i s s i s s i p p i p r o m p t e d h i s n e e d t o f i l e h i s o b j e c t i o n t o h e r r e l o c a t i o n and t o seek s o l e c u s t o d y . 21 2091108 In addition, litigation, the he notes that other i n c l u d i n g the mother's issues arose during r e f u s a l t o pay f o r h a l f o f c h i l d ' s d a y - c a r e e x p e n s e s and t h e n e e d t o f i l e m o t i o n s t o compel when t h e m o t h e r f a i l e d t o t i m e l y r e s p o n d t o requests. to, the and Because had no t h e m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t she d i d n o t intention to, return because of the adequacy to g a i n f u l needs, the f a t h e r argues t h a t funds which she attorney need employment o f h e r h u s b a n d ' s d i s a b i l i t y income t o meet t h e i r from discovery could pay at least she has sufficient a portion of h i s fees. "Whether t o award an a t t o r n e y f e e i n a d o m e s t i c r e l a t i o n s case i s w i t h i n t h e sound d i s c r e t i o n o f the t r i a l c o u r t and, a b s e n t an abuse o f t h a t d i s c r e t i o n , i t s r u l i n g on t h a t q u e s t i o n w i l l n o t be reversed. Thompson v. Thompson, 650 So. 2d 928 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 4 ) . ' F a c t o r s t o be c o n s i d e r e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t when a w a r d i n g such fees include the financial circumstances of the p a r t i e s , the p a r t i e s ' conduct, the results of the litigation, and, where appropriate, the trial court's knowledge and e x p e r i e n c e as t o t h e v a l u e o f t h e s e r v i c e s p e r f o r m e d by t h e a t t o r n e y . ' F i g u r e s v. F i g u r e s , 624 So. 2d 188, 191 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 3 ) . " G l o v e r v. G l o v e r , 678 So. 2d 174, 176 ( A l a . C i v . App. A l t h o u g h the f a t h e r i s c o r r e c t t h a t the mother 1996). testified t h a t h e r s i t u a t i o n i s s u c h t h a t she i s f i n a n c i a l l y a b l e t o be a homemaker, t h e m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e r c u r r e n t 22 husband's 2091108 disability income was their sole support. In addition, a l t h o u g h t h e m o t h e r a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t she h a d s o l d h e r home i n M o b i l e C o u n t y , she s a i d t h a t she h a d s p e n t a l l b u t a b o u t $5,000 o f t h e p r o c e e d s f r o m t h a t financial circumstances are sale. not so Thus, positive the mother's that equity demands t h a t she f u n d a p o r t i o n o f t h e f a t h e r ' s a t t o r n e y Nor does t h e outcome conclusion that of the l i t i g a t i o n the mother father's attorney entirely resolved resolved s o l e l y i n favor that the t r i a l attorney fee; should although i n the mother's court's in this bear the decision case compel a cost litigation favor, of the f a t h e r . the fees. i t was Thus, we of was not also not conclude n o t t o award t h e f a t h e r f e e was n o t an abuse o f i t s d i s c r e t i o n . AFFIRMED. Thompson, P . J . , and P i t t m a n and Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . Bryan, J . , concurs i n the r e s u l t , without w r i t i n g . 23 the an
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.
