David Mark Hodgins v. Sarah E. Hodgins

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/28/11 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 R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , 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, 2011-2012 2100022 David Mark Hodgins v. Sarah E. Hodgins Appeal from Montgomery C i r c u i t (DR-07-818.01) Court On A p p l i c a t i o n f o r R e h e a r i n g BRYAN, J u d g e . The opinion of July 29, 2 0 1 1 , i s w i t h d r a w n , and the following i s substituted therefor. D a v i d Mark H o d g i n s ("the f a t h e r " ) a p p e a l s from a judgment 2100022 entered by the that modified the Montgomery C i r c u i t c e r t a i n aspects of f a t h e r and S a r a h E. Hodgins Procedural The record judgment divorce into indicates divorcing parties judgment i n c o r p o r a t e d by the regarding parties i n S e p t e m b e r 2004. were a w a r d e d j o i n t awarded visitation that the ("the sole rights. ("the court") judgment t h a t divorced mother"). the court November on trial 24, a settlement set trial History forth a l l issues pending before c u s t o d y o f t h e one was the that Court the entered 2008. agreement The entered p a r t i e s ' agreement the t r i a l c o u r t , i n c l u d i n g c h i l d born d u r i n g the marriage, a g i r l Pursuant to t h e i r legal The agreement, the custody of the physical custody a c h i l d and subject to agreement s p e c i f i c a l l y parties the the born father mother's provided: "The [ f a t h e r ] s h a l l c o n s u l t w i t h t h e [ m o t h e r ] on a l l major d e c i s i o n s i n v o l v i n g the h e a l t h , e d u c a t i o n , and r e l i g i o n o f t h e ... c h i l d , i n an e f f o r t to r e s o l v e t h e s e i s s u e s by a g r e e m e n t . However, i n t h e event the p a r t i e s are unable t o agree, the p a r t i e s u n d e r s t a n d and a c k n o w l e d g e t h a t t h e [ f a t h e r ] by law s h a l l have f i n a l d e c i s i o n m a k i n g a u t h o r i t y w i t h r e g a r d t o t h o s e m a j o r d e c i s i o n s . M a j o r d e c i s i o n s do n o t i n c l u d e day t o day d e c i s i o n s . " A t t h e t i m e t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t was who was entered, the father, i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s M a r i n e C o r p s , and t h e c h i l d 2 lived 2100022 in Beaufort, Montgomery. South Carolina, and the mother lived in R e g a r d i n g v i s i t a t i o n , t h e agreement p r o v i d e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r was t o have v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e c h i l d , supervised b y h e r p a r e n t s , once a month, f r o m T u e s d a y a f t e r n o o n u n t i l t h e f o l l o w i n g Sunday afternoon. The m o t h e r was responsible for the cost of t r a n s p o r t a t i o n for t h a t r e a s o n , the p a r t i e s agreed t o d e v i a t e from the Rule 32, A l a . R. J u d . Admin., f o r her v i s i t a t i o n p e r i o d s , and, c h i l d - s u p p o r t g u i d e l i n e s by setting t h e m o t h e r ' s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n a t $100 a month. Finally, p u r s u a n t t o t h e agreement 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 , t h e f a t h e r was " e n t i t l e d t o r e q u e s t t h a t t h e [mother] submit to a ten panel hair more t h a n once e v e r y t h r e e The follicle (3) months underlying proceeding from screen which this appeal The mother r e l i e f , t h a t she be awarded l i b e r a l 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 c h i l d . filed an answer a s s e r t i n g was 13, 2009, when she custody of the c h i l d . a l s o r e q u e s t e d , as a f o r m o f a l t e r n a t i v e father no " t a k e n was i n i t i a t e d b y t h e m o t h e r on A p r i l f i l e d a p e t i t i o n to modify drug t h a t the mother's The custody- m o d i f i c a t i o n p e t i t i o n was f r i v o l o u s , a n d he r e q u e s t e d an a w a r d of attorney's fees pursuant to 3 the Alabama Litigation 2100022 Accountability Act, § trial Ala. mother's request, guardian a d l i t e m on b e h a l f o f t h e In the 12-19-270, court Code 1975. subsequently At the appointed a child. S e p t e m b e r 2009, t h e g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m and the f a t h e r f i l e d separate motions to suspend the mother's v i s i t a t i o n w i t h the child pending the final hearing. As grounds, they a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e c h i l d h a d begun a p r e - k i n d e r g a r t e n p r o g r a m and that v i s i t a t i o n best interest order to with because improve her the the m o t h e r was child academic needed not i n the t o be child's i n school performance. The in mother o b j e c t e d , and t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r t h a t m a i n t a i n e d the mother's v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s but t h a t o r d e r e d the mother t o attend one feeding-therapy Montgomery and Beaufort. On one session feeding-therapy with the child in s e s s i o n w i t h the c h i l d i n 1 October 8, 2009, the father filed a counterclaim r e q u e s t i n g , among o t h e r r e l i e f n o t p e r t i n e n t t o t h i s appeal, t h a t t h e m o t h e r ' s v i s i t a t i o n a w a r d be m o d i f i e d i n l i g h t o f t h e fact t h a t the U n i t e d S t a t e s M a r i n e Corps had ordered him to As e x p l a i n e d i n d e t a i l i n f r a , t h e c h i l d d e v e l o p e d an o r a l a v e r s i o n s h o r t l y a f t e r h e r b i r t h , and she a t t e n d e d t h e r a p y t o l e a r n how t o chew and s w a l l o w f o o d . 1 4 2100022 t r a n s f e r to a m i l i t a r y The trial base i n California. c o u r t c o n d u c t e d an o r e t e n u s h e a r i n g regarding t h e m o t h e r ' s and t h e f a t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n s t o m o d i f y t h e divorce j u d g m e n t o v e r t h r e e d a y s : O c t o b e r 26, 2009, November 24, and J u n e 22, an order petition 2010. that and On J u n e 25, denied the h e l d t h a t the c u s t o d i a n of the c h i l d . p a r t i e s remained j o i n t 2010, the t r i a l mother's court entered custody-modification f a t h e r remained the The 2009, sole physical t r i a l court further held that l e g a l custodians of the child, the but i t m o d i f i e d t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t i n s o f a r as i t a l l o w e d t h e f a t h e r t o have f i n a l decision-making judgment s t a t e d : " I f the shall have f i n a l matters, and the r e l i g i o u s and The with the a u t h o r i t y over medical [mother] s h a l l court child unsupervised p a r t i e s cannot agree, educational trial a u t h o r i t y over the so California or fall [father] and e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r final modified that she the was authority four weeks break, e a c h month, and one any 5 mother's awarded of c h i l d e a c h summer, t h e " e n t i r e t y o f e v e r y Thanksgiving the The over matters." also visitation: have child. the following visitation with the s p r i n g b r e a k , " each weekend other visitation time of visitation that the in parties 2100022 mutually agree upon. The p a r t i e s were ordered to equally share the c h i l d ' s Christmas break. The trial court further held: " S h o u l d , t h e [ f a t h e r ] be p l a c e d on any 'TDY' p e r i o d o f more t h a n t h i r t y (30) d a y s , t h e [mother] s h a l l be p r o v i d e d t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o have t h e c h i l d s t a y w i t h h e r i n A l a b a m a d u r i n g s a i d 'TDY' p e r i o d . I f s a i d 'TDY' p e r i o d i s t h i r t y (30) d a y s o r l e s s , t h e n t h e [mother] may have v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e c h i l d d u r i n g s a i d p e r i o d i n C a l i f o r n i a . The c o u r t i s aware t h a t t h i s p r o v i s i o n may n e e d m o d i f i c a t i o n t o a d h e r e t o t h e c h i l d ' s s c h o o l s c h e d u l e once s h e r e a c h e s a certain age a n d g r a d e level. The p a r t i e s a r e e n c o u r a g e d t o w o r k t o g e t h e r on t h i s i s s u e a n d come up w i t h a s o l u t i o n t h a t w i l l b e n e f i t t h e c h i l d . " [2] Finally, the t r i a l court ordered that the father no l o n g e r had t h e d i s c r e t i o n t o r e q u e s t t h a t t h e mother submit t o a drug screen responsible The and that f o r t h e i r own a t t o r n e y s ' father f i l e d judgment p u r s u a n t conducting t h e mother a 59, A l a . R. the t r i a l the father were fees. a motion t o a l t e r , to Rule hearing, and court amend, o r v a c a t e t h e C i v . P., made and, a f t e r the f o l l o w i n g p e r t i n e n t m o d i f i c a t i o n t o i t s judgment: "[S]hould military, t h e [ f a t h e r ] be p l a c e d on 'TDY' w i t h t h e the provisions regarding v i s i t a t i o n i n A c c o r d i n g t o t h e r e c o r d , "TDY" r e f e r s t o a t e m p o r a r y - d u t y assignment through the Marine Corps t h a t r e q u i r e s the f a t h e r t o be away f r o m h i s d u t y s t a t i o n . 2 6 2100022 A l a b a m a f o r t h e [mother] s h a l l n o t b e g i n u n l e s s s a i d TDY p e r i o d i s n i n e t y (90) d a y s o r l o n g e r . S h o u l d t h e TDY p e r i o d be t h i r t y (30) d a y s o r l e s s , t h e [mother] s h a l l have t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o v i s i t t h e c h i l d i n C a l i f o r n i a during that period." The father subsequently appealed. Facts The two r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t the mother had been i n d i c t e d drug charges m i s d e m e a n o r and participated Montgomery testified one County that a drug time she j u d g m e n t was had program Attorney's taken one a drug office. test The the mother father's 2008 and t h a t she had v o l u n t a r i l y submitted drugs. used i l l e g a l entered. the mother's charges The at through had the f o r any had divorced S i n c e t h a t time, the mother i n J u l y 2009; on b o t h tested positive last parties pretrial-diversion District she test the felony. i n the request i n October to before on o c c a s i o n s , she mother d r u g s was had not stated that the before the A t t h e t i m e o f t h e June 2010 divorce hearing, had been n o l p r o s s e d . At the time of the October 2009 h e a r i n g , t h e m o t h e r was g o i n g t o s c h o o l a t V i r g i n i a C o l l e g e , s t u d y i n g t o be a s u r g i c a l nurse. ("the Charles maternal Locklin, the child's grandfather"), t e s t i f i e d 7 maternal grandfather t h a t the mother had 2100022 completely c h a n g e d s i n c e t h e t i m e o f t h e d i v o r c e , t h a t s h e was drug-free, and t h a t she a c c e p t e d h e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . mother l i v e d w i t h h e r p a r e n t s , financially support working part The and t h e mother's p a r e n t s h e l p e d time. The mother t h e mother w h i l e testified that s h e was i n s c h o o l the father and had used the l a n g u a g e o f t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t , i n s o f a r as i t gave h i m f i n a l decision-making a u t h o r i t y over d e c i s i o n s concerning the c h i l d , to exclude t h e mother situations regarding discussions the c h i l d . mother, a l l d e c i s i o n s father from were "null Furthermore, according concerning the c h i l d and, i f she o b j e c t e d objections and d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g were made b y t h e to the father's and v o i d . " to the decision, her The m a t e r n a l grandfather t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r had " c l o s e d o u t " t h e c h i l d from t h e m o t h e r , t h a t t h e f a t h e r h a d t h e a t t i t u d e t h a t he was t h e s o l e parent of the c h i l d , and t h a t the f a t h e r had t h e a t t i t u d e the mother s h o u l d n o t have a n y t h i n g When t h e c h i l d was b o r n t o do w i t h i n September her t o stay breathing i n the h o s p i t a l and f e e d i n g f o r several the c h i l d . 2004, serious medical condition r e l a t e d t o her heart that she had a that required months. Because tubes h a d been i n s e r t e d i n t o t h e c h i l d 8 2100022 after she was born, she developed an "oral aversion." According t o the mother and t h e f a t h e r , t h e c h i l d had had a "g-tube" inserted, which had provided the child's food d i r e c t l y t o her d i g e s t i v e system i n s t e a d of the c h i l d ' s o r a l l y ingesting see and w a t e r . a specialist child and food t o l e a r n how saw a f e e d i n g an o c c u p a t i o n a l The record objections and For t h i s reason, t h e c h i l d has t o t o chew a n d s w a l l o w f o o d . therapist while she l i v e d The i n Montgomery therapist i n Beaufort. indicates that concerns the mother b e l i e v e d regarding the that child's c o n d i t i o n s were n o t p r o p e r l y p r e s e n t e d t o t h e c h i l d ' s b y t h e f a t h e r , and, a c c o r d i n g her medical doctors t o the mother, the f a t h e r d i d not ask her o p i n i o n b e f o r e making m e d i c a l d e c i s i o n s concerning t h e c h i l d . The m o t h e r s t a t e d t h a t she l e a r n e d t h a t t h e c h i l d ' s g - t u b e h a d been removed a f t e r i t h a d a l r e a d y h a p p e n e d a n d t h a t the f a t h e r had f a i l e d t o communicate w i t h her regarding the c h i l d ' s e a t i n g h a b i t s . The f a t h e r s t a t e d t h a t he d i d n o t know t h a t t h e c h i l d ' s g - t u b e was g o i n g t o be removed b e f o r e h a n d a n d that he always notified the mother before major medical d e c i s i o n s were made. The f a t h e r a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r was u s u a l l y d i f f i c u l t t o t a l k t o , t h a t she a c t e d 9 unreasonably, 2100022 and t h a t she In child g e n e r a l l y d i d not cooperate January needed 2009, t h e to According to agree let to procedure. doctor was have the a heart doctor According to catheterization mother South in the "flat-out Carolina f a t h e r , he i n South C a r o l i n a perform where he and the him. c h i l d ' s doctor determined f a t h e r , the any with child the performed. refused" perform decided the procedure lived. that to the let a because That p r o c e d u r e to that revealed t h a t the c h i l d needed another h e a r t s u r g e r y t o r e p l a c e a tube t h a t h a d b e e n i n s e r t e d i n h e r h e a r t soon a f t e r she was born. The m o t h e r w a n t e d t o d e l a y t h e s u r g e r y , b u t t h e f a t h e r and the c h i l d ' s d o c t o r b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e r e s h o u l d be no d e l a y so t h a t the c h i l d c o u l d recover b e f o r e s c h o o l s t a r t e d . was p e r f o r m e d i n May 2009, and, That by a l l a c c o u n t s , the procedure surgery was s u c c e s s f u l . The m o t h e r s t a t e d t h a t t h e c h i l d , who was unable t o "connect unable t o w r i t e the t h e d o t s , " was letter "A." c h i l d ' s a c a d e m i c p r o g r e s s was time The and effort child's had school f i v e years o l d , u n a b l e t o c o l o r , and The was father stated that the somewhat d e l a y e d b e c a u s e so much been spent district was in 10 on t e a c h i n g her South how to eat. Carolina provided a 2100022 service to the c h i l d c a l l e d an Program ("lEP"). anything a b o u t t h e c h i l d ' s i n v o l v e m e n t i n an l E P a n d t h a t she The m o t h e r Individualized stated that d i d n o t know t h a t t h e c h i l d was a t t e n d i n g served with Educational she d i d n o t know s c h o o l u n t i l s h e was the f a t h e r ' s motion t o suspend her v i s i t a t i o n i n l i g h t of the c h i l d ' s school schedule. The m o t h e r a l s o a l l e g e d t h a t the f a t h e r had i d e n t i f i e d h i s c u r r e n t w i f e , stepmother, as registration the c h i l d ' s forms. The mother mother on the c h i l d ' s the c h i l d ' s testified that school- the child e i t h e r c a l l s h e r " S a r a h " o r "my o t h e r mommy." The wife's f a t h e r a d m i t t e d t h a t he h a d i n i t i a l l y p u t h i s name as t h e c h i l d ' s m o t h e r registration impression forms, he stated, he under the birth The f a t h e r s t a t e d t h a t he gave t h e s c h o o l t h e certificate that listed c h i l d ' s m o t h e r as w e l l as t h e c o u r t c h i l d ' s custody arrangement. t h e mother order The s t e p m o t h e r "mom" father as t h e that s e t f o r t h the The f a t h e r s t a t e d t h a t he a d d e d the mother's i n f o r m a t i o n t o t h e forms b e f o r e school. was school- t h a t t h e s c h o o l w a n t e d t o know who was t h e c h i l d ' s " l o c a l mother." child's but, on t h e c h i l d ' s current admitted that the c h i l d s t a r t e d the c h i l d c a l l e d her a n d t h a t he d i d n o t c o r r e c t h e r when she s a i d 11 2100022 that; h o w e v e r , he y e a r s o l d , was Shortly also the Beaufort to the mother a that the c h i l d , aware t h a t t h e m o t h e r was before notified stated October 2009 her who was mother. hearing, the father that Marine five he was being transferred base i n San Diego, from California. The m o t h e r s t a t e d t h a t she was a f r a i d t h a t she w o u l d n e v e r see t h e child Diego. The m o t h e r s t a t e d t h a t she b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r t h o u g h t that the i f t h e f a t h e r moved w i t h c h i l d w o u l d be f i n e the c h i l d i f t h e m o t h e r was t o San not i n v o l v e d i n her life. The m o t h e r s t a t e d t h a t t h e c h i l d a t t e n d s c h u r c h w i t h during her v i s i t a t i o n periods and t h a t she h a d t a k e n t h e t o a v a c a t i o n B i b l e s c h o o l d u r i n g one v i s i t a t i o n . d i d n o t know w h e t h e r The her child mother the f a t h e r took the c h i l d to church, but she w a n t e d t h e c h i l d t o be i n v o l v e d i n c h u r c h a c t i v i t i e s . The m o t h e r s t a t e d t h a t she w o u l d l i k e t o have t h e with her f a t h e r was i n Montgomery i f there was ever a time child that d e p l o y e d or had a t e m p o r a r y - d u t y assignment from h i s duty s t a t i o n . The f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he 12 away thought i t w o u l d be b e s t f o r t h e c h i l d t o r e m a i n i n h i s home w i t h s t e p m o t h e r and s t e p s i b l i n g s i f he was the her ordered to a temporary- 2100022 d u t y a s s i g n m e n t a n d t h a t he saw no r e a s o n t o u p r o o t t h e c h i l d . At still the time lived o f t h e November in Beaufort hearing, the with 2009 child, the the father child's s t e p m o t h e r , a n d h i s f o u r s t e p c h i l d r e n . The f a t h e r s t a t e d he began taking the c h i l d to s p e c i a l i s t c u s t o d y o f h e r i n 2007, b e f o r e time, sustenance. the c h i l d was soon as he the p a r t i e s ' divorce. the c h i l d d i d not eat anything for as 100% " t a b l e - f o o d vegetables had allowed during c h i l d to regress fed." the child The f a t h e r s t a t e d visitations, during offered the c h i l d solid which, he the t o e a t . The b u t she a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t food to feed as w e l l during she knew how that the mother a t t e n d e d a f e e d i n g - t h e r a p y i n Beaufort, and caused said, meat the c h i l d to eat pureed that child swallowing eat pureed i n h e r p r o g r e s s o f l e a r n i n g how visitation, the c h i l d . as o r d e r e d , b u t t h e r e The she h a d visitation record session and indicates with the i s no i n d i c a t i o n i n the r e c o r d t h a t the mother a t t e n d e d a f e e d i n g - t h e r a p y 13 that The f a t h e r s t a t e d t h a t to m o t h e r a d m i t t e d t h a t she h a d a l l o w e d food At that The f a t h e r s t a t e d t h a t , as o f November 2009, a n d t h a t she s t i l l n e e d e d i n s t r u c t i o n . mother got b u t r e l i e d on t h e g - t u b e the c h i l d i s n o t t o t a l l y p r o f i c i e n t a t chewing and the that session 2100022 w i t h t h e c h i l d i n Montgomery, September 2009 Terri as r e q u i r e d by t h e t r i a l court's order. Woosley, a pediatric occupational therapist, t e s t i f i e d t h a t she h a d s e e n t h e c h i l d f o r 67 t h e r a p y b e t w e e n M a r c h 2005 and J u l y 2007. sessions W o o s l e y s t a t e d t h a t she h a d w a t c h e d t h e c h i l d e a t t h e day b e f o r e t h e November 2009 hearing a n d t h a t t h e c h i l d h a d made t r e m e n d o u s p r o g r e s s s i n c e h e r l a s t visit i n J u l y 2007. Woosley s t a t e d t h a t the mother's of feeding the c h i l d pureed food d i d nothing progress. Woosley t e s t i f i e d t h a t make p r o g r e s s b e f o r e In J a n u a r y 2010, San D i e g o , a l o n g children. round lengthy she was the father with school i n San breaks from stated Diego and t h e c h i l d that and school still needed t o to eat properly. the father's The m o t h e r t o make t h e c h i l d the c h i l d able method relocated to current wife the c h i l d that throughout the and h e r attended child the year, had four year- several including: a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h r e e weeks f o r s p r i n g b r e a k , a p p r o x i m a t e l y s i x weeks f o r summer, a p p r o x i m a t e l y one week f o r f a l l b r e a k , and approximately was four weeks f o r Christmas. The father w i l l i n g t o e q u a l l y share the c h i l d ' s school breaks, except the f a l l break, w i t h the mother. The f a t h e r s t a t e d t h a t one week 14 2100022 was t o o s h o r t a t i m e f o r t h e c h i l d Alabama and back. The m o t h e r n e e d e d more t i m e t o g e t h e r breaks from Diego, stated that than only to she a n d t h e c h i l d one-half of the child's school. In t o f l y from C a l i f o r n i a San the c h i l d instead of pre-kindergarten, was a possibility kindergarten again that was placed in and t h e f a t h e r s t a t e d t h a t the child at the start would the time repeat the came t o decide kindergarten. child's available school be the there placed school in year The f a t h e r sent t h a t he w o u l d l i k e h e r i n p u t when on w h e t h e r to allow the c h i l d to The m o t h e r s t a t e d t h a t she h a d c o n t a c t e d and had n o t i f i e d f o r conferences advanced n o t i c e . be of the next because of lower-than-average performance. the mother a l e t t e r s t a t i n g kindergarten, by the school telephone t h a t s h e was i f s h e was given The m o t h e r r e q u e s t e d t h a t s h e be a l l o w e d t o i n v o l v e d i n the meetings concerning the lEP developed f o r c h i l d by her school At i n San D i e g o . t h e t i m e o f t h e June 2010 h e a r i n g , the c h i l d had had one I E P m e e t i n g i n San D i e g o , a n d t h e f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had notified place. t h e mother t h a t t h e m e e t i n g was g o i n g However, t h e m o t h e r d i d n o t r e c e i v e 15 t o take the notice until 2100022 a f t e r t h e IEP m e e t i n g had t a k e n p l a c e . the child had been provided The speech and father stated that language services t h r o u g h h e r s c h o o l and t h a t he d i d n o t know what e l s e he do the to help the child c h i l d ' s school catch was up i n school. evaluating the The father could stated c h i l d ' s progress and t h a t s c h o o l o f f i c i a l s w o u l d e v e n t u a l l y t e l l him what s e r v i c e s were a v a i l a b l e t o h e l p t h e c h i l d c a t c h up w i t h h e r The and m o t h e r s t a t e d t h a t she was that she was concerned classmates. n o t i n v o l v e d i n t h e c h i l d ' s IEP about the c h i l d ' s progress in school. At the c l o s e of t r i a l , t h a t any v i s i t a t i o n with when t h e c h i l d h a d days o f travel. trial court and t h e m o t h e r i n Montgomery o c c u r a t l e a s t seven days t o v i s i t , The the t h e g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m recommended asked t h a t the g u a r d i a n ad litem also include e x p l i c i t orders including recommended regarding two that visitation days i n San Diego a f t e r v i s i t a t i o n i n Montgomery t o r e a d j u s t h e r s c h e d u l e before she started c h i l d have a t l e a s t two only school. Issues On appeal the consideration: father raises five (1) w h e t h e r t h e 16 trial issues for this court court's e r r e d i n awarding 2100022 the mother f i n a l d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g educational matters; a u t h o r i t y over r e l i g i o u s and (2) w h e t h e r the t r i a l court erred i n g r a n t i n g t h e m o t h e r v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e c h i l d when t h e f a t h e r was p l a c e d on TDY f o r 90 d a y s o r l o n g e r ; (3) w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n s e t t i n g f o r t h t h e mother's award o f v i s i t a t i o n ; (4) w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l allowing order e r r e d by removing t h e p r o v i s i o n the father t o request drug screen; to court that a n d (5) w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l t h e mother submit court erred i n f a i l i n g t h e mother t o pay t h e f a t h e r ' s a t t o r n e y ' s fees. Standard o f Review "When o r e t e n u s evidence i s presented, 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 e x i s t s as t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s on i s s u e s o f f a c t ; i t s j u d g m e n t b a s e d on t h e s e findings of fact will n o t be disturbed unless i t i s c l e a r l y erroneous, without supporting evidence, m a n i f e s t l y unjust, or against the g r e a t weight o f t h e evidence. J & M B a i l Bonding Co. v. Hayes, 748 So. 2d 198 ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) ; G a s t o n v . Ames, 514 So. 2 d 877 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) . When t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n a n o n j u r y case e n t e r s a judgment w i t h o u t making s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s o f f a c t , t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t ' w i l l assume t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e made t h o s e findings necessary t o support t h e judgment.' T r a n s a m e r i c a C o m m e r c i a l F i n . C o r p . v . AmSouth Bank, 608 So. 2 d 375, 378 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) . M o r e o v e r , ' [ u ] n d e r the o r e tenus r u l e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment and a l l i m p l i c i t f i n d i n g s necessary t o support i t c a r r y 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 . ' T r a n s a m e r i c a , 608 So. 2d a t 378. However, when t h e t r i a l c o u r t i m p r o p e r l y applies the law t o f a c t s , no p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s e x i s t s as t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t . A l l s t a t e I n s . Co. v. S k e l t o n , 675 So. 2d 377 ( A l a . 17 to a 2100022 1 9 9 6 ) ; M a r v i n ' s , I n c . v. R o b e r t s o n , 608 So. 2d 391 (Ala. 1 9 9 2 ) ; G a s t o n , 514 So. 2d a t 878; S m i t h v. S t y l e A d v e r t i s i n g , I n c . , 470 So. 2d 1194 (Ala. 1 9 8 5 ) ; League v. M c D o n a l d , 355 So. 2d 695 (Ala. 1978). 'Questions of law are not s u b j e c t t o the ore t e n u s s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w . ' Reed v. B o a r d o f T r u s t e e s f o r A l a b a m a S t a t e U n i v . , 778 So. 2d 791, 793 n. 2 (Ala. 2 0 0 0 ) . A t r i a l c o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n s on l e g a l issues c a r r y no presumption of correctness on a p p e a l . Ex p a r t e C a s h , 624 So. 2d 576, 577 (Ala. 1993). T h i s c o u r t r e v i e w s the a p p l i c a t i o n of law t o f a c t s de novo. A l l s t a t e , 675 So. 2d a t 379 ('[W]here the f a c t s before the t r i a l c o u r t are e s s e n t i a l l y u n d i s p u t e d and t h e c o n t r o v e r s y i n v o l v e s q u e s t i o n s o f law f o r the c o u r t t o c o n s i d e r , the [ t r i a l ] c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t c a r r i e s no p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s . ' ) . " C i t y o f P r a t t v i l l e v. P o s t , App. 831 So. 2d 622, 627-28 ( A l a . C i v . 2002). Discussion I. Designation The of F i n a l Decision-Making f a t h e r argues t h a t the t r i a l the mother f i n a l d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g Authority court e r r e d i n awarding a u t h o r i t y over i s s u e s r e l a t e d to education and r e l i g i o n b e c a u s e s u c h a m o d i f i c a t i o n was in the interest best of the child d i s t a n c e b e t w e e n t h e m o t h e r and the record father's that attempts the the child, the mother reacted to discuss the i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the p a r t i e s d i d not In considering parties' divorce 18 the the physical indication unreasonably child, and communicate judgment, the not the to in the evidence well. parties were 2100022 awarded joint custody" legal i s defined custody of the c h i l d . i n § 30-3-151(2), "Joint A l a . Code legal 1975, as follows: " B o t h p a r e n t s have e q u a l r i g h t s a n d r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s f o r major d e c i s i o n s concerning the c h i l d , i n c l u d i n g , but not l i m i t e d t o , the education of the c h i l d , h e a l t h c a r e , a n d r e l i g i o u s t r a i n i n g . The c o u r t may d e s i g n a t e one p a r e n t t o have s o l e power t o make c e r t a i n d e c i s i o n s while both parents r e t a i n equal r i g h t s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s f o r o t h e r d e c i s i o n s . " I n i t s June 2010 j u d g m e n t , t h e t r i a l the p a r t i e s ' s t a t u s as j o i n t l e g a l only m o d i f i e d which c o u l d not otherwise agree. "may d e s i g n a t e certain court, decisions pursuant granted c u s t o d i a n s ; t h e judgment p a r t y was d e s i g n a t e d d e c i s i o n s as t o c e r t a i n m a t t e r s court court d i d not modify " i n the event t h a t t h e p a r t i e s Pursuant one p a r e n t t o make t h e f i n a l t o § 30-3-151, t h e t r i a l t o have s o l e power ( E m p h a s i s added.) Thus, t o make the t r i a l t o § 30-3-151, e x e r c i s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n and t h e mother final decision-making authority over e d u c a t i o n a l and r e l i g i o u s matters and g r a n t e d t h e f a t h e r f i n a l decision-making matters. authority over medical and extracurricular T h i s c o u r t w i l l n o t r e v e r s e a judgment c o n c e r n i n g a matter l e f t t o t h e sound d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l the t r i a l court unless c o u r t exceeds i t s d i s c r e t i o n o r u n l e s s t h e judgment 19 2100022 i s p l a i n l y o r p a l p a b l y wrong. See Romano v. Romano, 703 So. 2d 374, 375 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 7 ) . court's judgment modified To t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e t r i a l the legal-custody arrangement between t h e p a r t i e s , t h i s c o u r t has h e l d t h a t , i n o r d e r modify l e g a l custody, the t r i a l "'[t]o c o u r t need o n l y f i n d t h a t t h e best i n t e r e s t s of the c h i l d are served by the m o d i f i c a t i o n . ' " West v . Rambo, 786 So. 2d 1138, 1141 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2000) ( q u o t i n g H a r r i s v . H a r r i s , 775 So. 2d 2 1 3 , 215 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1999)). Although the p a r t i e s ' ability t o cooperate with one a n o t h e r t o make d e c i s i o n s a b o u t t h e c h i l d t o g e t h e r i s a f a c t o r to consider i n determining § 30-3-152(a)(2), parties' a p r o p e r j o i n t - c u s t o d y award, see A l a . Code 1975, we c a n n o t c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e i n a b i l i t y t o communicate about d e c i s i o n s concerning the c h i l d i s a v a l i d g r o u n d f o r r e v e r s i n g t h e judgment o f t h e trial court i n this evidence presented that particular t o support case. T h e r e was a c o n c l u s i o n by the t r i a l t h e f a t h e r u s e d h i s p o s i t i o n as t h e p a r e n t decision-making a u t h o r i t y t o exclude voice i n the decision-making arose concerning sufficient process the c h i l d . The 20 with court final t h e mother from h a v i n g a when a m a j o r trial court decision could have 2100022 c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d w o u l d be served b y h a v i n g b o t h t h e m o t h e r and t h e f a t h e r m e a n i n g f u l l y i n v o l v e d i n m a j o r d e c i s i o n s c o n c e r n i n g t h e c h i l d and t h a t t h e b e s t to accomplish t h i s was decision-making child's by a l l o w i n g e a c h p a r e n t t o have authority over different aspects way final of the life. The f a t h e r argues m o t h e r and the t h a t the p h y s i c a l d i s t a n c e between the c h i l d makes i t i m p r a c t i c a l f o r the mother to have f i n a l d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g a u t h o r i t y o v e r e d u c a t i o n a l m a t t e r s b e c a u s e i t i s u n l i k e l y t h a t t h e m o t h e r w i l l be a b l e t o to San Diego t o p a r t i c i p a t e otherwise assist However, we see the no i n the child reason with why the child's her lEP meetings daily ( s u c h as t h e s p e a k e r p h o n e f u n c t i o n o f a t h a t would a l l o w the mother t o p a r t i c i p a t e conducted in Furthermore, San Diego awarding authority over decisions, and, while she the mother educational matters be final is available telephone) i n an IEP was not as e m p h a s i z e d i n t h e t r i a l 21 to i n order to p a r t i c i p a t e . I t i s n o t d i f f i c u l t t o c o n c e i v e o f ways o f u t i l i z i n g technology or schoolwork. m o t h e r w o u l d have p h y s i c a l l y p r e s e n t a t an l E P m e e t i n g travel in meeting Montgomery. decision-making for day-to-day court's order on 2100022 the father's authority cannot postjudgment i s t o be u s e d otherwise agree motion, as a l a s t after final resort decision-making when t h e p a r t i e s d i s c u s s i n g the matter between themselves. The award f a t h e r a l s o argues t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n t o the religious mother matters final decision-making i s unsupported authority by the evidence. over Although t h e r e was v e r y l i t t l e t e s t i m o n y r e g a r d i n g r e l i g i o n i n g e n e r a l , we cannot regarding conclude religion c o u r t ' s judgment. that the small should result quantity i n a reversal of testimony of the t r i a l The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t r e l i g i o u s matters a r e i m p o r t a n t t o t h e m o t h e r , a n d we f i n d no e r r o r i n t h e t r i a l court's determination that the best w o u l d be s e r v e d b y a w a r d i n g a u t h o r i t y over r e l i g i o u s The award mother r e l i g i o u s matters final t h e mother f i n a l of the c h i l d decision-making matters. f a t h e r a l s o argues the interests that trial court's decision to decision-making i s a violation authority of h i s r i g h t over t o freedom o f r e l i g i o n p r o v i d e d b y t h e F i r s t Amendment t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Constitution. the However, as t h e m o t h e r p o i n t s o u t i n h e r b r i e f , father's citation to authority 22 supporting only general 2100022 p r o p o s i t i o n s of law i s i n s u f f i c i e n t t o support r e v e r s a l of the t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment. Alabaster, v. Geisenhoff, 693 So. supporting 2 of (holding citation l a w was that 491 (quoting ( A l a . C i v . App. argument for reversal."); the appellant's three-sentence t o one c a s e i n s u p p o r t o f a g e n e r a l to invoke review of r a i s e d by t h e a p p e l l a n t ) ; and R u l e 2 8 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) , we will Plumbing & Heating, Furthermore, the trial court's making not consider that proposition the argument A l a . R. App. argument. Jimmy to the extent judgment that should the father be reversed over that the father argues Day the c h i l d , we will not f i r s t that because the had f i n a l argument b e c a u s e o u r r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d argument was P. I n c . v. S m i t h , 964 So. 2d a t 9. as i t p r o v i d e d authority Jimmy argument mother d i d not r e q u e s t a m o d i f i c a t i o n of the d i v o r c e insofar 1997)) I n c . v. S m i t h , 964 So. 2d 1, 9 ( A l a . insufficient Accordingly, Geisenhoff o n l y ' g e n e r a l p r o p o s i t i o n s o f l a w ' does Day P l u m b i n g & H e a t i n g , and 489, constitute a sufficient 2007) P r o p s . , LLP v. C i t y o f 901 So. 2d 703, 708 ( A l a . 2004) ("Authority not See B e a c h c r o f t judgment decision- not consider that reveals this presented to the t r i a l that court for i t s c o n s i d e r a t i o n . See Andrews v. M e r r i t t O i l Co., 612 So. 2d 409, 23 2100022 410 ( A l a . 1992) arguments review ("[An appellate r a i s e d f o r the f i r s t c]ourt time cannot on a p p e a l ; rather, our i s r e s t r i c t e d t o t h e e v i d e n c e and arguments by t h e t r i a l that t h e mother educational II. part final of the t r i a l court's decision-making father judgment authority and r e l i g i o u s matters i s a f f i r m e d . Visitation The considered court."). Accordingly, awarding consider over 3 D u r i n g a Temporary-Duty Assignment also argues that the t r i a l court erred i n a w a r d i n g t h e m o t h e r v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e c h i l d when t h e f a t h e r has a temporary-duty provision the father reversionary a s s i g n m e n t f o r 90 d a y s describes or longer as an " a u t o m a t i c visitation clause." I t i s w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t t h e law d i s f a v o r s judgments provide -- a that f o r t h e a u t o m a t i c change o f p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y upon t h e The f a t h e r r a i s e s f o r t h e f i r s t time i n h i s a p p l i c a t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g s e v e r a l arguments r e g a r d i n g t h e p r o p r i e t y o f t h e trial court's judgment d e s i g n a t i n g final decision-making a u t h o r i t y over e d u c a t i o n a l and r e l i g i o u s matters t o t h e m o t h e r . B e c a u s e t h e f a t h e r d i d n o t make t h o s e a r g u m e n t s i n h i s o r i g i n a l s u b m i s s i o n t o t h i s c o u r t , we c a n n o t c o n s i d e r them on r e h e a r i n g . See W a t e r Works & Sewer Bd. o f Selma v . R a n d o l p h , 833 So. 2d 604, 608 ( A l a . 2002) ( o p i n i o n on rehearing) ( r e f u s i n g t o c o n s i d e r a r g u m e n t s made on r e h e a r i n g when t h e p e t i t i o n e r f a i l e d t o make t h e a r g u m e n t , a n d i n c l u d e s u p p o r t i n g a u t h o r i t y f o r t h e a r g u m e n t , i n i t s i n i t i a l b r i e f on a p p e a l ) . 3 24 2100022 occurrence o f some f u t u r e event because such p r o v i s i o n s are " p r e m i s e d on mere s p e c u l a t i o n o f what t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d r e n may be a t a f u t u r e d a t e . " H o v a t e r v. H o v a t e r , 577 So. 2d 461, 463 ( A l a . C i v . App. custodial reversionary 1990) (holding that a c l a u s e b a s e d on t h e m o t h e r ' s r e m a i n i n g i n a c e r t a i n s c h o o l d i s t r i c t was o f no e f f e c t ) . See a l s o K o r n v. K o r n , 867 So. 2d 338, 345 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003) (reversing a j u d g m e n t t h a t s e t f o r t h an a u t o m a t i c r e v e r s i o n o f c u s t o d y t o the former husband i f t h e former w i f e l e f t t h e U n i t e d This court has a p p l i e d modification of t h e same p r i n c i p l e visitation be change that warranting a modification of v i s i t a t i o n Long v. (reversing Long, a 781 judgment would there indicating See there when So. 2d that a 225 t o an was no States). automatic evidence i n circumstances a t some f u t u r e time. ( A l a . C i v . App. 2000) automatically removed r e s t r i c t i o n r e q u i r i n g t h e m o t h e r ' s v i s i t a t i o n t o be the supervised a f t e r t h e passage o f s i x months). B u t see Kovakas v. Kovakas, 12 So. 3d 693, 698 n.5 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) (indicating that an a u t o m a t i c m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e f a t h e r ' s v i s i t a t i o n when t h e c h i l d began k i n d e r g a r t e n Korn, supra, because was d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m H o v a t e r a n d those cases 25 involved an automatic 2100022 modification of m o d i f i c a t i o n of custody the trial w i t h the assignment for 90 judgment child days school. i f the or allowing extra visitation o f f from to an automatic case, the mother argues t h a t the p r o v i s i o n court's visitation time opposed visitation). In the present of as more that allows f a t h e r has her to have a temporary-duty i s more a k i n to a judgment i n t h e e v e n t o f an e x t r a h o l i d a y o r The mother m a i n t a i n s that the trial c o u r t a c t e d w i t h i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n by a l l o w i n g h e r t o e x e r c i s e extended father visitation with i s unavailable been o r d e r e d It is to the child in care f o r the the event child that the b e c a u s e he has away f r o m h i s d u t y s t a t i o n f o r 90 days o r more. well determination settled noncustodial parent's that visitation the rights i s left d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t and t h a t a c o u r t ' s to the of a sound determination o f v i s i t a t i o n w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d on a p p e a l u n l e s s t h e trial c o u r t exceeds i t d i s c r e t i o n or u n l e s s the judgment i s p l a i n l y o r p a l p a b l y wrong. L o n g , 781 Montgomery C n t y . Civ. App. 1992)). visitation, Dep't o f So. 2d a t 226 Human Res., 602 Furthermore, regarding ( c i t i n g E.W. So. 428 (Ala. a determination "[t]he court's d i s c r e t i o n i s guided 26 2d by what v. of will 2100022 protect and child." Id. We enhance the best interests and agree w i t h the f a t h e r t h a t the t r i a l that Marine that he Corps call is called f o r 90 for an station o r more i s a n a l o g o u s automatic modification to of cannot possibly take into account i n the by the judgments custody v i s i t a t i o n upon t h e o c c u r r e n c e o f some f u t u r e e v e n t . provision the judgment the c h i l d away f r o m h i s d u t y days of court's a l l o w i n g t h e m o t h e r t o have v i s i t a t i o n w i t h event welfare what or Such the a best i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d w i l l be a t t h e p o i n t i n t h e f u t u r e when the f a t h e r i s o r d e r e d away f r o m h i s d u t y s t a t i o n o r more. The year-round that any record school school i n d i c a t e s that the c h i l d i n San Diego, i n Montgomery and there follows a f o r 90 days i s enrolled in i s no indication similar schedule. Thus, i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , i f t h e f a t h e r i s c a l l e d away f r o m his duty s t a t i o n f o r more t h a n 90 days b y t h e M a r i n e t h e c h i l d w o u l d be a u t o m a t i c a l l y removed f r o m h e r i n San D i e g o and p l a c e d consideration the child. without Corps, environment i n Montgomery w i t h t h e m o t h e r w i t h o u t o f t h e e f f e c t t h a t s u c h a change w o u l d have Our caselaw consideration strongly disfavors of the best i n t e r e s t s 27 such a on change of the c h i l d at 2100022 t h e t i m e t h a t t h e p r o p o s e d change w o u l d t a k e p l a c e . See K o r n , 867 So. 2d a t 344-45 104 ( A l a . 1999), ( d i s c u s s i n g Ex p a r t e Monroe, 727 So. 2d i n which custody of a c h i l d b a s e d on t h e c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t ' s was modified, move f r o m A l a b a m a t o M i c h i g a n , a f t e r an o r e t e n u s h e a r i n g was c o n d u c t e d , a n d r e c o g n i z i n g the judgment child's what i n Monroe current h i s best best "was based interests, interests on evidence n o t upon might be at as t o t h e speculation some that point as t o i n the future"). Our learning d e c i s i o n i n no way a f f e c t s t h e m o t h e r ' s r i g h t , that the father i s required t o spend a significant p e r i o d away f r o m h i s d u t y s t a t i o n , t o p e t i t i o n t h e t r i a l for court some f o r m o f v i s i t a t i o n o r c u s t o d y t h a t w o u l d a l l o w h e r t o care At upon f o r the c h i l d while that time, the t r i a l c h i l d ' s circumstances, the father i s unavailable c o u r t w o u l d be a b l e primary the best i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d . See 577 So. 2d 469, 470 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1990) ( t h e concern visitation to evaluate the as t h e y e x i s t a t t h a t t i m e , a n d t o make a d e c i s i o n t h a t promotes t h e b e s t H a l l v. H a l l , t o do s o . i n cases concerning schedule i s determining i n t e r e s t s of the c h i l d ) . 28 a c h i l d ' s custody and what a r r a n g e m e n t p r o m o t e s 2100022 A c c o r d i n g l y , because the t r i a l as i t automatically places event t h a t the f a t h e r has the c o u r t ' s judgment, c h i l d with the insofar mother i n a temporary-duty assignment f o r days o r more, f a i l s t o a c c o u n t f o r what a r r a n g e m e n t w i l l the best interests of the c h i l d at the r e q u i r e d t o l e a v e h i s d u t y s t a t i o n , we the t r i a l trial the time the 90 serve father is r e v e r s e the judgment of c o u r t and remand t h e c a u s e w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s to the c o u r t t o e n t e r a judgment c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s o p i n i o n . III. Visitation The f a t h e r next argues t h a t the visitation to the mother was trial court's e r r o r because award i t awarded of the mother v i s i t a t i o n d u r i n g s u b s t a n t i a l l y a l l the c h i l d ' s b r e a k s from school. As parent's and noted above, the determination visitation is left this court will t o the not trial reverse of a noncustodial court's the discretion, trial court's d e t e r m i n a t i o n u n l e s s i t i s shown 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 its discretion w r o n g . See that L o n g , 781 "'[t]he t r i a l parents or with So. i t s judgment 2d a t 226. i s p l a i n l y or M o r e o v e r , we court i s entrusted to balance the child's best 29 palpably note that the r i g h t s of interests to fashion the a 2100022 visitation award t h a t i s t a i l o r e d circumstances So. f a c t s and o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l c a s e . ' " R a t l i f f v. R a t l i f f , 5 3d 570, 586 Haddock, to the s p e c i f i c ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) ( q u o t i n g N a u d i t t v. 882 So. 2d 364, 367 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 3 ) ) . The father argues that the v i s i t a t i o n provision i s c o n t r a r y t o t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d b e c a u s e i t awards the mother v i s i t a t i o n breaks during the majority of a l l the child's from s c h o o l and prevents t h e f a t h e r from ever This case spending Thanksgiving holidays with the c h i l d . presents a particularly unique s e t o f circumstances because the c h i l d and t h e m o t h e r l i v e on o p p o s i t e s i d e s o f t h e c o u n t r y a n d t h e c h i l d is enrolled i n year-round breaks throughout specifically school that provides the year. several long The t r i a l c o u r t , i n i t s j u d g m e n t , stated: "The c o u r t ' s i n t e n t i n m o d i f y i n g t h e v i s i t a t i o n i s to p r o v i d e m e a n i n g f u l time between t h e c h i l d and t h e [mother], not t o detract from the [father]'s r e l a t i o n s h i p o r t i m e w i t h t h e c h i l d . The c o u r t i s aware t h a t t h e [ f a t h e r ] w i l l m i s s i m p o r t a n t p e r i o d s of v a c a t i o n t i m e [ ; ] however, t h e c o u r t f e e l s t h i s i s necessary i n order t o maintain a s o l i d r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e c h i l d and t h e [mother]." After hearing the s i g n i f i c a n t three days o f t e s t i m o n y , and c o n s i d e r i n g p h y s i c a l d i s t a n c e b e t w e e n t h e c h i l d ' s home a n d t h e m o t h e r ' s home, t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t a v i s i t a t i o n 30 2100022 award t h a t a l l o w e d the mother t o v i s i t w i t h the child during the m a j o r i t y of the c h i l d ' s breaks from s c h o o l served the interests of the the to child best c h i l d because i t would a l l o w the mother "maintain a solid relationship." t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o u l d have c o n c l u d e d and Furthermore, t h a t the f a t h e r s t i l l had a s i g n i f i c a n t amount o f t i m e w i t h t h e c h i l d c o n s i d e r i n g he had every two evening weeks in and weekend of the the summer and school two weeks Christmas h o l i d a y s to spend w i t h the cannot conclude that mother v i s i t a t i o n with c h i l d ' s breaks from The father specifically the the court child during child. the argues that mother's r i g h t a g a i n s t the best interests the the m a j o r i t y of the the visitation t o have v i s i t a t i o n of the s h o r t o f a b r e a k f r o m s c h o o l and the c h i l d to recover again. fall from According Other award, with the holidays, c h i l d because i t i s too does n o t from t r a v e l i n g b e f o r e a l l o w any she time f o r starts to the c h i l d ' s school calendar, break, i n c l u d i n g school. we i n awarding c h i l d d u r i n g the c h i l d ' s f a l l break, or Thanksgiving is child's Accordingly, erred during i n a d d i t i o n to school. also the trial year the school child's weekends, c o n s i s t s o f a n i n e - d a y b r e a k than the 31 father's testimony that he 2100022 t h o u g h t t h a t one week was n o t enough t i m e f o r t h e c h i l d t o f l y t o Montgomery a n d b a c k t o San D i e g o , t h e r e was no i n d i c a t i o n that the c h i l d had ever attempted a v i s i t t o Montgomery f o r o n l y one week o r t h a t t h e c h i l d ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t s w o u l d n o t be served by relatively allowing her short time. to visit t h e mother f o r only A c c o r d i n g l y , we c a n n o t c o n c l u d e a that the t r i a l c o u r t exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n by awarding t h e mother v i s i t a t i o n with the c h i l d during the c h i l d ' s The failing father also argues to specifically that set forth mother's v i s i t a t i o n p e r i o d s begin trial court's visitation with judgment the c h i l d break." According breaks, the c h i l d ' s Monday), and h e r f i r s t 27, 2010. is unclear and end. that court April i s awarded spring of the c h i l d ' s school 26, 2010 4, 2010 (a (a T u e s d a y ) . d a y o f s c h o o l was F r i d a y , A p r i l d a y b a c k t o s c h o o l was Wednesday, The f a t h e r a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l as t o w h e t h e r t h e m o t h e r g e t s c h i l d s t a r t i n g on h e r l a s t d a y o f s c h o o l 32 by of every s p r i n g b r e a k b e g a n on A p r i l last erred F o r example, t h e t h e mother " f o r the e n t i r e t y until break. i n i t s j u d g m e n t when t h e to the calendar and continued However, t h e c h i l d ' s 2010, states the t r i a l fall court's 1, April judgment v i s i t a t i o n with the ( A p r i l 1 s t ) o r on t h e 2100022 first day o f h e r s p r i n g break (April 4th). The f a t h e r 4 also argues t h a t the t r i a l court f a i l e d t o a l l o w the c h i l d a t l e a s t two days a t home i n C a l i f o r n i a before school resumed. We agree t h a t , i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r case, because o f t h e l i k e l i h o o d that travel plans will be made s e v e r a l advance o f a s c h e d u l e d v i s i t a t i o n , court not include allowed the c h i l d school resumed. insofar schedule i n California the t r i a l to enter schedule, i s reversed. visitation a t home Accordingly, as i t f a i l e d to the t r i a l time o r months i n i t was e r r o r f o r t h e t r i a l a more s p e c i f i c some weeks a more court's specific that before judgment, visitation We remand t h e c a u s e w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s c o u r t t o amend i t s j u d g m e n t c o n s i s t e n t w i t h this opinion. IV. Next, the father removing h i s a b i l i t y drug screen. parte The Drug S c r e e n s argues that the t r i a l court erred i n t o r e q u e s t t h a t t h e mother submit t o a I n s u p p o r t o f h i s a r g u m e n t , t h e f a t h e r c i t e s Ex McLendon, 455 So. 2d 863 ( A l a . 1984), f o r the p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e m o t h e r f a i l e d t o p r o v e a " m a t e r i a l change The f a t h e r makes t h e same a r g u m e n t r e g a r d i n g t h e ambiguity of the start and end dates o f the mother's v i s i t a t i o n with the c h i l d during the c h i l d ' s f a l l break. 4 33 2100022 warranting nothing that change i n the drug i n Ex p a r t e required circumstances i n order divorce requirement." However, McLendon s u p p o r t s t h e f a t h e r ' s t h e m o t h e r was the test t o prove a material argument change i n t o remove t h e d r u g - s c r e e n p r o v i s i o n o f i n Ex parte McLendon t o s u p p o r t t h e f a t h e r ' s argument t h a t t h e t r i a l court acted judgment, outside provision. authority nor i s there i t s d i s c r e t i o n by Because support to the removing h i s argument consider i t . See Rule Heating, I n c . v. S m i t h , father 28(a)(10); anything has drug-screen failed to cite any appeal, on and the we will not Jimmy Plumbing & Accordingly, that p a r t o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment removing t h e f a t h e r ' s right to request that the 964 So. 2d a t 9. Day mother submit to a drug screen is affirmed. V. The F a t h e r ' s Finally, failing to attorney's Attorney's Fees the f a t h e r argues t h a t the t r i a l order fees, approximately the mother which, to according pay to a l l or the court erred i n part of h i s father, totaled $20,000. "'Whether t o a w a r d 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 the 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 a b u s e 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 r e v e r s e d . 34 2100022 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 c i r c u m s t a n c e s 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. 1993).'" L a c k e y v. Lackey, 18 So. 3d ( q u o t i n g G l o v e r v. G l o v e r , 393, 402 678 So. that the ( A l a . C i v . App. 2d 174, 176 2009) (Ala. Civ. App. 1996)). The father o r d e r e d t o pay several mother he throughout additional extend on forced by the should $100 defend a c t i o n ; the proceedings the a c t i o n , which fees; his former contributed only to the attorney's supported mortgage was custody-modification unnecessarily mother he, unlike parents; marital he was a month t o t h e allegation that the s e v e r a l months o f b e i n g child i n the 35 of the operated to still incur and not paying the support of the appeared to m o t h e r , was residence; for mother's actions c a u s e d him the been fees the below The m o t h e r f i l e d t h e c u s t o d y - m o d i f i c a t i o n an have at l e a s t a p o r t i o n of h i s a t t o r n e y ' s reasons: "frivolous" being argues the mother child. a c t i o n b a s e d on "emaciated" after s o l e p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y of the 2100022 father. Woosley t e s t i f i e d that, the c h i l d had experienced with the child "rolls" had c h i l d , i t was about the indication anything of considering eating, and s k i n when t h e the considering mother l a s t n o t u n r e a s o n a b l e f o r t h e m o t h e r t o be child's that the appearance. Although c h i l d ' s w e i g h t l o s s was (defining 5 Black's " f r i v o l o u s " as Moreover, in Law visitation The that same i n the r i g h t s , w h i c h was was no petition ( 8 t h ed. legal basis petition, 2004) or the was legal mother form of m o d i f i c a t i o n g r a n t e d by the trial of court. r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t the mother e a r n e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y $995 a month w o r k i n g p a r t t h a t she concerned a t t r i b u t a b l e to D i c t i o n a r y 692 "[l]acking a requested a l t e r n a t i v e r e l i e f her the o t h e r t h a n a g r o w t h s p u r t , t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o u l d have f r i v o l o u s . See merit"). that saw there concluded t h a t the mother's c u s t o d y - m o d i f i c a t i o n not difficulty time while she was r e l i e d on s u p p o r t f r o m h e r p a r e n t s . i n school The record and does n o t i n c l u d e t h e amount o f t h e f a t h e r ' s g r o s s m o n t h l y income a t the conclusion of trial. The record further indicates that On a p p e a l , t h e f a t h e r has n o t a r g u e d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t s h o u l d have a w a r d e d him attorney's fees pursuant to the A l a b a m a L i t i g a t i o n A c c o u n t a b i l i t y A c t , § 12-19-270, A l a . Code 1975. 5 36 2100022 the mother was required t o pay $2,310 to the guardian l i t e m , a n d t h e r e i s no i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e f a t h e r was required t o c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e payment o f t h e g u a r d i a n a d l i t e m ' s Although the mother's custody-modification d e n i e d , the mother d i d succeed i n o b t a i n i n g unsupervised, v i s i t a t i o n the factors that set forth the t r i a l court rights with i n Lackey, supra, is Accordingly, was f a r greater, we cannot exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n that aspect of the t r i a l and Considering conclude in failing o r d e r t h e mother t o pay p a r t or a l l o f t h e f a t h e r ' s fees. fees. petition the c h i l d . ad to attorney's court's judgment affirmed. Conclusion The j u d g m e n t o f t h e t r i a l reversed for court i s affirmed i n part i n p a r t , a n d t h e c a s e i s remanded t o t h e t r i a l further proceedings consistent with this f a t h e r ' s r e q u e s t f o r an a w a r d o f a t t o r n e y ' s opinion. and court The f e e s on a p p e a l i s denied. APPLICATION OVERRULED; OPINION OF JULY 29, 2011, WITHDRAWN; OPINION SUBSTITUTED; AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. P i t t m a n a n d Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . Thompson, P . J . , a n d without writings. Moore, 37 J . , concur i n the result,

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.