David Mark Hodgins v. Sarah E. Hodgins

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 7/29/11 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 R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2011 2100022 David Mark Hodgins v. Sarah E. Hodgins Appeal from Montgomery C i r c u i t Court (DR-07-818.01) BRYAN, J u d g e . 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 e n t e r e d b y t h e Montgomery C i r c u i t that modified certain the f a t h e r and Sarah aspects Court from a judgment ("the t r i a l court") o f t h e judgment t h a t d i v o r c e d E. H o d g i n s ("the mother"). 2100022 Procedural The record judgment divorce into indicates divorcing the parties judgment i n c o r p o r a t e d by the regarding parties that the awarded visitation sole court 24, a settlement set forth the entered 2008. agreement parties' entered agreement the t r i a l c o u r t , i n c l u d i n g Pursuant to t h e i r legal rights. The agreement, the custody of the physical a The c h i l d born d u r i n g the marriage, a g i r l 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 trial November on a l l issues pending before c u s t o d y o f t h e one was that History custody child subject and 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 to 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 l a w s h a l l have f i n a l d e c i s i o n making 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 in Beaufort, 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 Montgomery. South Carolina, and the mother lived R e g a r d i n g v i s i t a t i o n , the agreement p r o v i d e d 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 2 child, lived in that supervised 2100022 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 the 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 [ m o t h e r ] 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 drug 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 by 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 to request t h a t the 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 award of attorney's Accountability mother's fees Act, § request, pursuant to 12-19-270, the t r i a l the Alabama A l a . Code 1975. court subsequently g u a r d i a n a d l i t e m on b e h a l f o f t h e 3 child. Litigation At the appointed a 2100022 In 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 t o 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 had 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 needed academic 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 session one feeding-therapy Montgomery and Beaufort. On one feeding-therapy with the child s e s s i o n w i t h the c h i l d in in 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 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 had transfer to a m i l i t a r y The trial base i n court conducted ordered him to California. an o r e t e n u s h e a r i n g 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 to modify regarding the d i v o r c e 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 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, and J u n e 22, an order 2010. that p e t i t i o n and custodian On J u n e 25, denied h e l d t h a t the of the c h i l d . p a r t i e s remained j o i n t modified the 2009, November 24, 2010, the t r i a l mother's court sole l e g a l custodians of the but i t 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 father have f i n a l and the r e l i g i o u s and The with the child, judgment s t a t e d : " I f the matters, physical t r i a l court further held that t o 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 t h e shall entered custody-modification f a t h e r remained the The 2009, unsupervised [mother] s h a l l court child the The [father] a u t h o r i t y o v e r m e d i c a l and e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r educational trial the p a r t i e s cannot agree, child. so final authority over matters." also modified that visitation: have she the was four weeks mother's awarded of visitation the following visitation with the 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 s p r i n g b r e a k , " e a c h Thanksgiving California mutually share the The or fall break, e a c h month, and agree upon. The one any other court further held: 5 of time p a r t i e s were c h i l d ' s Christmas break. trial weekend visitation that ordered in the parties to equally 2100022 " 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 she r e a c h e s a certain age a n d g r a d e l e v e l . 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 l o n g e r had the d i s c r e t i o n t o request a drug screen responsible The and that judgment p u r s u a n t conducting t h e mother a hearing, and the father were amend, o r v a c a t e t h e 59, A l a . R. C i v . P., the t r i a l no fees. a motion t o a l t e r , t o Rule the father t h a t t h e mother submit t o f o r t h e i r own a t t o r n e y s ' father f i l e d that court made and, after 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 ] h o u l d 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 m i l i t a r y , the p r o v i s i o n s regarding v i s i t a t i o n i n 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." 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 The f a t h e r s u b s e q u e n t l y appealed. Facts The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a d b e e n i n d i c t e d on two drug charges misdemeanor testified County test had divorced program Attorney's taken a drug f o r any d r u g s . she h a d u s e d i l l e g a l the mother's charges one office. test through The The the mother at the f a t h e r ' s 2008 and t h a t she h a d v o l u n t a r i l y j u d g m e n t was e n t e r e d . S i n c e t h a t t i m e , the mother had i n J u l y 2009; on b o t h tested positive time District she request i n October last parties i n the p r e t r i a l - d i v e r s i o n that to a drug the and one f e l o n y . participated Montgomery before submitted o c c a s i o n s , she h a d n o t mother d r u g s was s t a t e d t h a t the before the divorce A t t h e t i m e o f t h e June 2010 h e a r i n g , h a d 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. Charles ("the m a t e r n a l Locklin, the child's grandfather"), t e s t i f i e d maternal grandfather t h a t the mother had c o m p l e t e l y 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 she was drug-free, and t h a t she a c c e p t e d her 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 , and the mother's p a r e n t s 7 The helped 2100022 financially support working part time. The mother t h e mother w h i l e testified language o f the d i v o r c e that s h e was i n s c h o o l the father had and used the 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 were "null t e s t i f i e d that and d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g Furthermore, according concerning the c h i l d and, i f she o b j e c t e d objections also discussions the c h i l d . mother, a l l d e c i s i o n s father from were made b y t h e to the father's and v o i d . " the father decision, her The m a t e r n a l had kept t o the grandfather the c h i l d from t h e mother and h e r f a m i l y . When t h e c h i l d serious her medical condition t o stay breathing after was b o r n was born, f o r several her food she developed i n s e r t e d , which provided required months. an "oral the c h i l d Because For t h i s aversion." had a "g- the c h i l d ' s food d i r e c t l y t o 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 and water. she had a tubes had been i n s e r t e d i n t o t h e c h i l d A c c o r d i n g t o t h e mother and t h e f a t h e r , tube" 2004, r e l a t e d t o her heart that i n the h o s p i t a l and f e e d i n g she i n September reason, 8 the c h i l d ingesting has t o see a 2100022 specialist t o l e a r n how saw a f e e d i n g occupational The therapist while she l i v e d The i n Montgomery child and an t h e r a p i s t i n Beaufort. record objections t o chew a n d s w a l l o w f o o d . indicates that and concerns t h e 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 was 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 and t h a t t h e father had failed to communicate with 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 and 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 and t h a t she g e n e r a l l y d i d n o t c o o p e r a t e w i t h I n J a n u a r y 2009, t h e c h i l d ' s d o c t o r child needed to According t o the agree l e t any to have a father, doctor heart 9 him. determined that the catheterization the mother in unreasonably, South "flat-out Carolina performed. refused" perform to the 2100022 procedure. doctor According to the father, decided to l e t a i n South C a r o l i n a perform the procedure because was where he a n d t h e c h i l d lived. That p r o c e d u r e t h a t t h e c h i l d needed a n o t h e r h e a r t t h a t had been i n s e r t e d i n h e r h e a r t The he surgery believed that there the c h i l d c o u l d recover b e f o r e revealed a tube soon a f t e r she was b o r n . mother wanted t o d e l a y t h e s u r g e r y , c h i l d ' s doctor to replace that b u t t h e f a t h e r and t h e s h o u l d be no d e l a y school started. so t h a t That p r o c e d u r e was p e r f o r m e d i n May 2009, a n d , b y a l l a c c o u n t s , t h e s u r g e r y 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 f i v e y e a r s o l d , was u n a b l e t o " c o n n e c t t h e d o t s , " was u n a b l e t o c o l o r , a n d was unable t o w r i t e the l e t t e r "A." The f a t h e r stated that the c h i l d ' s a c a d e m i c p r o g r e s s was somewhat d e l a y e d b e c a u s e so much time The and e f f o r t child's had been s p e n t school district called on t e a c h i n g i n South Carolina Individualized provided a service to the c h i l d 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 an h e r how t o e a t . 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 she 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 10 2100022 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 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 c u r r e n t wife's name as t h e c h i l d ' s m o t h e r registration impression forms, he stated, he birth certificate that c h i l d ' s custody arrangement. listed t h e mother order the The s t e p m o t h e r "mom" however, 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 that; under 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 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 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 admitted that the c h i l d s t a r t e d the c h i l d called 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 he a l s o stated that the c h i l d , who was five y e a r s o l d , was aware t h a t t h e m o t h e r was h e r m o t h e r . Shortly before the October notified t h e mother that Beaufort t o a M a r i n e base he 2009 being the father transferred from i n San D i e g o , C a l i f o r n i a . The 11 was hearing, 2100022 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 i f t h e f a t h e r moved w i t h the c h i l d t o San 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 t h e c h i l d w o u l d be f i n e i f t h e m o t h e r was 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 d u r i n g h e r v i s i t a t i o n p e r i o d s 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 . The her child mother d i d n o t know w h e t h e r t h e f a t h e r t o o k t h e c h i l d t o c h u r c h , b u t she w a n t e d t h e c h i l d The with t o be involved i n church a c t i v i t i e s . m o t h e r s t a t e d t h a t she w o u l d her i n Montgomery f a t h e r was i f t h e r e was d e p l o y e d o r had from h i s duty s t a t i o n . The l i k e t o have t h e ever a temporary-duty time that assignment f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he 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 stepmother a and s t e p s i b l i n g s i f he was ordered to a still the lived stepmother, he began time in of the November Beaufort with 2009 hearing, the child, and h i s f o u r s t e p c h i l d r e n . The taking the child to specialist 12 thought the the soon her temporarychild. father child's father stated as the away i n h i s home w i t h d u t y a s s i g n m e n t and t h a t he saw no r e a s o n t o u p r o o t t h e At child as he that got 2100022 c u s t o d y o f h e r i n 2007, b e f o r e time, the p a r t i e s ' divorce. the c h i l d d i d not eat anything for sustenance. the c h i l d was 100% " t a b l e - f o o d b u t r e l i e d on t h e g - t u b e The f a t h e r s t a t e d t h a t , as o f November 2009, fed." The f a t h e r s t a t e d 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 and 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 . the mother vegetables child had allowed during t o regress Terri At that the c h i l d visitations, swallowing The f a t h e r s t a t e d t h a t t o eat pureed which, that he said, meat a n d caused the i n h e r p r o g r e s s o f l e a r n i n g how t o e a t . 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 a n d 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 watched 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 and 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 t h e 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 January San D i e g o , a l o n g children. 2010, t h e f a t h e r with The m o t h e r and t h e c h i l d that 13 still needed t o to eat properly. the father's stated t o make t h e c h i l d the c h i l d she was a b l e method current wife the c h i l d relocated to and h e r f o u r attended year- 2100022 round school lengthy i n San D i e g o breaks from and t h a t school the c h i l d throughout had s e v e r a l the year, 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 , including: approximately 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 , a n d approximately four weeks f o r Christmas. The father was 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 t h e mother. was t o o s h o r t a t i m e Alabama and back. n e e d e d more t i m e breaks The f a t h e r s t a t e d t h a t one week f o r the c h i l d The m o t h e r t o f l y from C a l i f o r n i a to s t a t e d t h a t she a n d t h e c h i l d together than only one-half of the c h i l d ' s from s c h o o l . In San Diego, the c h i l d was placed i n kindergarten, i n s t e a d o f p r e - k i n d e r g a r t e n , and t h e f a t h e r s t a t e d t h a t t h e r e was a possibility kindergarten again that the child at the s t a r t because of lower-than-average would be of the next performance. placed school in year The f a t h e r s e n t t h e m o t h e r a l e t t e r s t a t i n g t h a t he w o u l d l i k e h e r i n p u t when the time came to decide on w h e t h e r to allow the c h i l d to r e p e a t k i n d e r g a r t e n . 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 the child's available s c h o o l and had n o t i f i e d f o r conferences by 14 t h e s c h o o l t h a t s h e was telephone i f she was given 2100022 advanced n o t i c e . be the The m o t h e r r e q u e s t e d t h a t she be a l l o w e d i n v o l v e d i n the meetings c o n c e r n i n g the c h i l d by At the her school time of the one IEP m e e t i n g i n San had notified place. after the date that stated that the hearing, the c h i l d had had D i e g o , and t h e f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t the m e e t i n g was mother d i d not the child lEP developed f o r Diego. June 2010 mother t h a t However, t h e the i n San to IEP had receive going the take notice until The father meeting took place. been p r o v i d e d to he s p e e c h and language s e r v i c e s 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 c o u l d do t o h e l p t h e c h i l d c a t c h up s t a t e d t h e c h i l d ' s s c h o o l was and that school officials the child's progress i n The IEP would t h a t she v i s i t a t i o n with when t h e c h i l d had days of the was child she was tell catch up not father progress him what with her involved concerned about the in child's school. At the c l o s e of t r i a l , t h a t any eventually mother s t a t e d t h a t and The e v a l u a t i n g the c h i l d ' s s e r v i c e s were a v a i l a b l e t o h e l p classmates. i n school. travel. t h e g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m t h e m o t h e r i n Montgomery o c c u r at l e a s t seven days t o v i s i t , The recommended g u a r d i a n ad 15 litem also including recommended only two that 2100022 the trial court include e x p l i c i t orders and asked t h a t the regarding d a y s 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 c h i l d have a t l e a s t two visitation started school. Issues On appeal the f a t h e r r a i s e s f i v e i s s u e s f o r t h i s consideration: (1) w h e t h e r t h e trial the mother f i n a l d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g educational matters; (2) court's court e r r e d i n awarding a u t h o r i t y over r e l i g i o u s whether the trial court erred 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 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 ; (4) w h e t h e r t h e allowing the drug screen; to order trial father and court to e r r e d by request that (5) w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l t h e m o t h e r t o pay the mother provision submit court erred i n father's attorney's Standard of to a failing fees. Review "When o r e tenus 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 based on these f i n d i n g s of fact will not be d i s t u r b e d unless i t i s c l e a r l y erroneous, without s u p p o r t i n g evidence, m a n i f e s t l y u n j u s t , or a g a i n s t the g r e a t weight of the evidence. J & M B a i l Bonding Co. v. H a y e s , 748 So. 2d 198 ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) ; G a s t o n v. 16 trial visitation; removing the the in father (3) w h e t h e r t h e c o u r t e r r e d i n s e t t i n g f o r t h the mother's award of and 2100022 Ames, 514 So. 2d 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. 2d 3 7 5 , 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 . 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 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) ; League v . M c D o n a l d , 355 So. 2d 695 ( A l a . 1978). 'Questions o f law a r e n o t s u b j e c t t o t h e o r e 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 7 9 1 , 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 p r e s u m p t i o n of correctness on a p p e a l . Ex p a r t e C a s h , 624 So. 2d 576, 577 ( A l a . 1993). This c o u r t reviews t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f 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 court 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 t h e c o u r t t o c o n s i d e r , t h e [ 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. The Designation 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 17 Authority court e r r e d i n awarding a u t h o r i t y over issues r e l a t e d 2100022 to education a n d 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 n o t in i n t e r e s t of the c h i l d the best considering d i s t a n c e between t h e mother and t h e c h i l d , the record father's that t h e mother attempts reacted to discuss the i n d i c a t i o n i n unreasonably the c h i l d , the p a r t i e s ' awarded custody" joint legal i s defined divorce custody in § judgment, well. the p a r t i e s of the c h i l d . 30-3-151(2), to the and t h e e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e p a r t i e s d i d n o t communicate In the p h y s i c a l "Joint A l a . Code were 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 for 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 o f 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 designate 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 ' status only modified as j o i n t which p a r t y legal court d i d not modify custodians; was d e s i g n a t e d t h e judgment t o make t h e f i n a l 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 i n t h e e v e n t t h a t t h e p a r t i e s could not otherwise court "may d e s i g n a t e certain decisions agree. P u r s u a n t t o § 30-3-151, t h e t r i a l one p a r e n t " t o have s o l e power ( E m p h a s i s added.) 18 Thus, t o make the t r i a l 2100022 court, pursuant granted 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 m a t t e r s 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. matter 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 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 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 b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d a r e s e r v e d by t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n . ' " West v . Rambo, 786 So. 2 d 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 a proper § 30-3-152(a)(2), parties' inability 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 that the t o communicate a b o u t d e c i s i o n s c o n c e r n i n g 19 2100022 the c h i l d i s a v a l i d ground 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 particular case. T h e r e was sufficient evidence p r e s e n t e d t o support a c o n c l u s i o n by t h e t r i a l court that final the f a t h e r used h i s p o s i t i o n as t h e p a r e n t with d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g a u t h o r i t y t o e x c l u d e t h e mother from h a v i n g a voice i n the decision-making arose concerning process the c h i l d . The when a major trial court decision could have 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 s e r v e d by h a v i n g b o t h t h e m o t h e r a n d 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 a n d t h a t t h e b e s t way to accomplish t h i s was b y a l l o w i n g e a c h p a r e n t t o have decision-making child's authority over different aspects final of the life. The f a t h e r argues t h a t t h e p h y s i c a l d i s t a n c e between t h e m o t h e r a n d t h e c h i l d makes i t i m p r a c t i c a l f o r t h e mother t o 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 t r a v e l to San D i e g o t o p a r t i c i p a t e otherwise However, we assist the i n the c h i l d ' s child s e e no r e a s o n with why daily schoolwork. t h e 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 I E P m e e t i n g 20 her IEP m e e t i n g s o r t o be i n order t o p a r t i c i p a t e . 2100022 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 ( 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 awarding authority decisions, and, father's authority cannot while she the mother educational over the Diego matters in final i s t o be otherwise used agree motion, as a after last not Montgomery. for day-to-day court's order final resort meeting decision-making as e m p h a s i z e d i n t h e t r i a l postjudgment telephone) i n an l E P was is available on decision-making when t h e d i s c u s s i n g the parties matter between themselves. The award f a t h e r a l s o argues t h a t the 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 by authority 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 r e s u l t in a reversal w o u l d be of testimony of the 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 a r e i m p o r t a n t t o t h e m o t h e r , and we court's quantity determination t h a t the s e r v e d by a w a r d i n g interests the mother f i n a l 21 matters f i n d no e r r o r i n t h e best of the trial trial child decision-making 2100022 a u t h o r i t y over r e l i g i o u s The award father the also mother r e l i g i o u s matters r e l i g i o n provided Constitution. the matters. argues final that trial court's decision-making i s a violation decision authority of h i s r i g h t to over t o freedom of by t h e F i r s t Amendment t o t h e U n i t e d States 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 supporting only general 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 of 489, (holding citation l a w was that 491 (quoting ( A l a . C i v . App. argument I n c . v. S m i t h , 964 So. 2d 1, 9 ( A l a . 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 insufficient we will Plumbing & Heating, Furthermore, 1997)) f o r r e v e r s a l . " ) ; Jimmy to invoke review 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 ) , 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 2 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 not consider that of argument proposition the argument A l a . R. App. argument. Jimmy P. Day I n c . v. S m i t h , 964 So. 2d a t 9. to the extent 22 that the father argues that 2100022 the trial court's judgment mother d i d not r e q u e s t insofar as making i t provided that reversed the f a t h e r had the c h i l d , because our review argument was be because a m o d i f i c a t i o n of the d i v o r c e a u t h o r i t y over argument should not f i r s t we will of the record presented final the judgment decision- not consider that reveals this 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, 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 on cannot appeal; rather, 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 a r g u m e n t s by t h e t r i a l the educational II. The our considered court."). Accordingly, awarding consider that mother part final of the trial court's decision-making judgment authority over and r e l i g i o u s m a t t e r s i s a f f i r m e d . Visitation father D u r i n g a Temporary-Duty Assignment also argues that the t r i a l court erred in 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 f a t h e r reversionary It a s s i g n m e n t f o r 90 d a y s describes as an or longer "automatic -- a visitation clause." i s w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t the law d i s f a v o r s judgments 23 that 2100022 provide 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 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 of 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. 1990) (holding that a c u s t o d i a l r e v e r s i o n a r y 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 indicating warranting See Long (reversing of that t h e same p r i n c i p l e visitation there when be would there change a a modification of v i s i t a t i o n v. Long, a 781 judgment So. 2d that 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 p a s s a g e o f s i x m o n t h s ) . B u t s e e K o v a k a s v. K o v a k a s , 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 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 24 2100022 Korn, supra, because modification of m o d i f i c a t i o n of custody the trial visitation for o f f from opposed 90 judgment child days school. i f the or allowing extra visitation time as involved an to automatic an automatic case, the mother argues t h a t the p r o v i s i o n court's w i t h the assignment cases visitation). In the present of those 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 d a y s o r more. well determination of is left sound settled noncustodial parent's that visitation the rights 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 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 to the a determination u n l e s s the 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 w r o n g . L o n g , 781 Montgomery C n t y . Civ. App. 1992)). Dep't o f So. 2d a t 226 Human Res., 602 Furthermore, regarding 25 ( c i t i n g E.W. So. 2d 428 v. (Ala. a determination of 2100022 visitation, "[t]he court's protect and child." the best interests and welfare will Id. We enhance d i s c r e t i o n i s g u i d e d by what agree w i t h the f a t h e r t h a t the t r i a l 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 that Marine that he Corps call is called f o r 90 for an away f r o m days h i s duty station 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 o r more i s a n a l o g o u s automatic of 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. year-round that any The 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 d a y s by 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. 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 strongly 26 disfavors such a on change 2100022 without consideration of the best interests of the c h i l d at 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 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 of a c h i l d 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 t o do s o . 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 p r o m o t e s 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 . See H a l l v. H a l l , primary 577 So. 2d 469, 470 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1990) ( t h e concern visitation i n cases concerning schedule i s determining 27 a child's custody and what a r r a n g e m e n t p r o m o t e s 2100022 the best interests of the c h i l d ) . 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 insofar the mother i n a temporary-duty assignment f o r d a y s 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 c o u r t and the time the 90 serve father is r e v e r s e the judgment of 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 error trial court's 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 or that L o n g , 781 "'[t]he t r i a l 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 28 palpably note the r i g h t s of that the 2100022 parents with visitation the child's best award t h a t i s t a i l o r e d interests to fashion to the s p e c i f i c facts a and c i r c u m s t a n c e s 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 , So. 3d 570, Haddock, 586 ( A l a . C i v . App. The father argues (quoting Nauditt ( A l a . C i v . App. 882 So. 2d 364, 367 2008) 5 2003)). that the visitation provision v. is 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 d u r i n g t h e m a j o r i t y o f a l l t h e c h i l d ' s breaks f r o m s c h o o l and p r e v e n t s t h e f a t h e r f r o m e v e r spending Thanksgiving h o l i d a y s w i t h the c h i l d . T h i s case p r e s e n t s a particularly u n i q u e s e t o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s b e c a u s e t h e 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 the year. school that provides 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 , specifically 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 t o p r o v i d e m e a n i n g f u l time between the c h i l d and t h e [mother], not t o d e t r a c t 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 to maintain a s o l i d r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e c h i l d and t h e [ m o t h e r ] . " After h e a r i n g t h r e e days of t e s t i m o n y , the s i g n i f i c a n t 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 and 29 2100022 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 award t h a t a l l o w e d that a v i s i t a t i o n t h e mother t o v i s i t w i t h t h e c h i l d during the m a j o r i t y o f t h e c h i l d ' s breaks from s c h o o l served t h e b e s t interests o f t h e c h i l d because i t would a l l o w t h e mother and the t o "maintain child 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 Furthermore, t h a t t h e 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 h a d every two evening weeks a n d weekend o f t h e s c h o o l i n t h e summer a n d two weeks year i n addition to during the child's C h r i s t m a s h o l i d a y s t o spend w i t h t h e c h i l d . Accordingly, cannot i n awarding the 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 t r i a l court the c h i l d erred during the majority of the school. also argues that t h e mother's r i g h t the visitation t o have v i s i t a t i o n c h i l d during the c h i l d ' s f a l l break, or Thanksgiving is against the best we interests award, with the holidays, o f t h e c h i l d because i t i s t o o s h o r t o f a b r e a k f r o m s c h o o l a n d does n o t a l l o w any t i m e f o r the child again. fall t o recover According from t r a v e l i n g b e f o r e she s t a r t s t o the child's school calendar, break, i n c l u d i n g school the 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 30 2100022 from school. Other than the father's testimony that he 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 t o Montgomery f o r the c h i l d had ever attempted a v i s i t 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 short her time. to v i s i t t h e mother Accordingly, f o r only 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 failing father the c h i l d during also argues to specifically court's visitation with judgment According breaks, the c h i l d ' s Monday), 2010, and h e r f i r s t 27, 2010. is unclear fall that court erred by F o r example, t h e t h e mother "for the e n t i r e t y April i s awarded of every spring of the c h i l d ' s school s p r i n g b r e a k b e g a n on A p r i l until break. i n i t s j u d g m e n t when t h e to the calendar and c o n t i n u e d However, t h e c h i l d ' s the t r i a l b e g i n and end. states the c h i l d break." that set forth mother's v i s i t a t i o n p e r i o d s trial the child's 26, l a s t day o f s c h o o l day back t o s c h o o l 2010 4, 2010 (a (a T u e s d a y ) . was F r i d a y , A p r i 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 court's 1, April judgment as t o w h e t h e r t h e m o t h e r g e t s v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e 31 2100022 child starting first on h e r l a s t d a y o f s c h o o l day o f h e r s p r i n g break (April ( A p r i l 1 s t ) o r on t h e 4th) . 3 The f a t h e r also argues t h a t t h e 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 agree t h a t , i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r that travel plans will before school resumed. We case, because o f t h e l i k e l i h o o d be made s e v e r a l weeks o r months i n a d v a n c e o f a s c h e d u l e d v i s i t a t i o n , i t was e r r o r f o r t h e t r i a l court not include allowed the c h i l d school resumed. insofar a more s p e c i f i c some a t home Accordingly, as i t f a i l e d schedule i n California the t r i a l to enter schedule, i s reversed. to the t r i a l time visitation 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 judgment 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 t o request that court erred i n 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 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 t h e 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. 3 32 2100022 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 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 o f i t s d i s c r e t i o n by r e m o v i n g t h e d r u g - s c r e e n Because the support to anything h i s argument consider i t . See Rule Heating, I n c . v. Smith, father 28(a) (10); has failed and cite any appeal, on to 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 t h e sound d i s c r e t i o n o f the 33 2100022 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 r e v e r s e d . 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 he litigation, and, where appropriate, the trial and court's knowledge 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 6¬ 188, 191 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 3 ) . ' " 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 ordered father t o pay several was throughout additional being he on the extend the attorney's supported mortgage forced custody-modification unnecessarily mother should 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" mother argues by the former c o n t r i b u t e d o n l y $100 defend a c t i o n ; the proceedings he, parents; marital he was a month t o t h e still support the operated to and paying the of the to incur m o t h e r , was residence; for mother's a c t i o n s of c a u s e d him u n l i k e the fees the below a c t i o n , which fees; his to been not the mother child. 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 a c t i o n b a s e d on an allegation that the child 34 appeared "emaciated" after 2100022 s e v e r a l months o f b e i n g father. i n the Woosley t e s t i f i e d s o l e p h y s i c a l custody of that, the child had experienced with the child had "rolls" child, 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 that the appearance. Although c h i l d ' s w e i g h t l o s s was (defining 4 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 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 the 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 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. 4 35 2100022 the conclusion the mother of t r i a l . was r e q u i r e d The r e c o r d further indicates t o p a y $2,310 that t o the guardian ad 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 r e q u i r e d 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 t h e mother's custody-modification d e n i e d , t h e 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, petition Considering we c a n n o t exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n is Accordingly, that aspect of the t r i a l conclude i n failing to o r d e r t h e mother t o pay p a r t o r a l l o f t h e f a t h e r ' s fees. was f a r g r e a t e r , and the c h i l d . supra, fees. 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 p a r t and 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. court The f e e s on a p p e a l i s denied. AFFIRMED I N 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 Moore, without w r i t i n g s . 36 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.