Kelly Renee Sims v. Jason Pepper Sims
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 06/17/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e Reporter o f Decisions, 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 OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 2100586 K e l l y Renee Sims v. Jason Pepper Sims Appeal from Limestone C i r c u i t (DR-09-259) Court THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . K e l l y Renee Sims ("the m o t h e r " ) a p p e a l s f r o m a j u d g m e n t of t h e Limestone C i r c u i t Court d i v o r c i n g h e r from Jason Pepper Sims ("the f a t h e r " ) . F o r the reasons s e t f o r t h h e r e i n , we a f f i r m t h e judgment i n p a r t and r e v e r s e i t i n p a r t . 2100586 The p a r t i e s were m a r r i e d i n J u l y 2 0 0 0 , a n d t h e y a r e t h e parents o f two c h i l d r e n . action, t h e c h i l d r e n were ages 11 a n d 6. On May against 13, 2009, t h e mother. A t the time the father of the t r i a l filed a divorce On J u l y 1, 2009, the t r i a l hearing, entered an o r d e r awarding the p a r t i e s court, joint of the c h i l d r e n , awarding the father custody o f t h e c h i l d r e n , and awarding t h e f a t h e r of them a r i t a l residence Thereafter, t h e mother sole 18, 2009, a legal physical exclusive d u r i n g t h e pendency o f t h e filed a motion t o hold the f a t h e r i n c o n t e m p t f o r v i o l a t i n g t h e J u l y 1, 2009, On November lite after holding custody action. action The p a r t i e s e a c h s o u g h t p e n d e n t e relief. possession i n this a trial was h e l d order. i n the action. E v i d e n c e s u b m i t t e d a t t h a t t r i a l i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e mother had b e e n an o f f i c e r o f t h e p a r e n t - t e a c h e r at the elementary s u b s t i t u t e teacher 2009, while school organization at which she a l s o ("the PTO") served and t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n a t t e n d e d . serving in that role, she made as a I n March personal e x p e n d i t u r e s o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y $1,100 u s i n g a PTO c r e d i t c a r d . The i m p r o p e r c h a r g e s on t h e PTO c r e d i t c a r d i n c l u d e d p u r c h a s e s of g a s o l i n e , groceries, and c l o t h i n g . 2 The m o t h e r a l s o made 2100586 c a s h w i t h d r a w a l s w i t h t h e PTO c r e d i t c a r d . i n t o an a g r e e m e n t t o r e p a y t h e $1,100 The m o t h e r entered i n two e q u a l p a y m e n t s , w i t h one payment due M a r c h 3 1 , 2009, and t h e o t h e r payment A p r i l 30, 2009. and the The m o t h e r p a i d o n l y $200 on M a r c h 31, 2009, principal of the elementary about school contacted the sheriff's office principal also contacted t h e f a t h e r , who, the h a d h a d no k n o w l e d g e o f t h e s i t u a t i o n . m o t h e r was removed for the e n t i r e county school of the missing funds testified from the l i s t at the school. of s u b s t i t u t e The 14, mother 2009. t h a t h e r m i s u s e o f t h e c r e d i t c a r d was personal debit and teachers paid The the mother accidental and t h a t i t h a d o c c u r r e d b e c a u s e t h e PTO c r e d i t c a r d her removed of the s i t u a t i o n , system. on May The i t i s undisputed, The p r i n c i p a l He a l s o i n f o r m e d t h e b o a r d o f e d u c a t i o n the thereafter situation. the mother from t h e l i s t o f s u b s t i t u t e t e a c h e r s balance due resembled card. The f a t h e r was a p o l i c e o f f i c e r w i t h t h e C i t y o f M a d i s o n . The father Obligation submitted Income i n t o evidence a CS-41 Statement/Affidavit" form "Child-Supportthat indicated t h a t he e a r n e d $4,188 m o n t h l y f r o m h i s employment as a p o l i c e officer and and that he paid for health, 3 dental, vision 2100586 insurance shift, that covered f r o m 9:30 seeking farmed a.m. acres testified that more f o r h i s years. He typically $20,000 t o 2:00 of he He job land family i n the as the third t e s t i f i e d t h a t he a police officer, that his and that he that when he evenings income worked was s h i f t , which would i n v o l v e working s t a r t e d farming stated in a.m. He p.m. a d d i t i o n to h i s 60 children. t o 5:30 t o move t o t h e day f r o m 6:00 In p.m. the in and the grandmother so had that year to could he the so He provide for farm, earned father owned. been d o i n g went that he the four i t was approximately preceding the trial before and the from farming. The separated, a.m. and father testified that, he w o u l d a r r i v e home f r o m w o r k a l i t t l e h e l p prepare the children for school. t h a t s o m e t i m e s he w o u l d t a k e t h e sometimes the was m o t h e r w o u l d do awarded pendente them t o s c h o o l later he and testimony, lite picked the custody them up father He 6:00 testified and that He stated that, after of the c h i l d r e n , he from s c h o o l admitted that his 4 after c h i l d r e n to school so. mother e v e r y day. sisters he took In often 2100586 p i c k e d up t h e c h i l d r e n f r o m s c h o o l and t h a t one worked at the The of h i s s i s t e r s school. father stated that, on the five e v e n i n g s he worked e a c h week, he l e f t f o r w o r k a f t e r t h e c h i l d r e n had gone t o and t h a t h i s mother w o u l d s t a y w i t h He s t a t e d t h a t t h e his children c h i l d r e n u s u a l l y spent Saturday evening at father testified t h a t t h e p a r t i e s had problems d u r i n g the marriage. obtain He occasions, testified he had had t o pay t h a t he w o u l d f i n d b i l l s existed. It is undisputed that the mother father had w r i t t e n bad checks. t r u t h f u l w i t h him The savings father accounts The had knowledge c o n c e r n i n g how that that, on she both account. The He did incurred about which and that one father 5 the occasion, testified not she the had was s p e n t money. of w i t h o u t h i s k n o w l e d g e , w i t h d r e w $400 t o child's three f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t the mother testified and no t h a t , on f r o m c r e d i t o r s he debts at s e v e r a l stores he financial off several b i l l s . c r e d i t - c a r d d e b t and testified had s t a t e d t h a t the mother would c r e d i t c a r d s w i t h o u t h i s k n o w l e d g e and or f o u r not overnight. mother's house. The know the bed children the mother, $500 f r o m t h e t h a t he had d i d not older know 2100586 how t h e m o t h e r h a d s p e n t t h a t that she h a d w i t h d r a w n c h i l d ' s savings money. approximately The m o t h e r $300 from a c c o u n t and t h a t she had g i v e n testified the older t h a t money t o h e r p a r e n t s t o p a y them b a c k f o r a s u i t t h e y h a d p u r c h a s e d f o r the f a t h e r f o r h i s f a t h e r ' s f u n e r a l . She s t a t e d t h a t she t o l d t h e f a t h e r a b o u t t h e p u r p o s e o f t h e w i t h d r a w a l s a f t e r he h a d found o u t about them and t h a t he asked h e r n o t t o do i t anymore. The father participated previous testified that i n an a c c e l e r a t e d school years but that the reading older child had program f o r t h e f o u r the c h i l d was n o t p r e s e n t l y p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n i t . The f a t h e r s t a t e d t h a t t h e y o u n g e r had participated previous school i n cheerleading year but that those a c t i v i t i e s during since he children, had been after-school activities. during the she was n o t p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the present year. awarded t h e younger and t u m b l i n g child pendente that, custody of the had not p a r t i c i p a t e d child lite He a d m i t t e d i n any He t e s t i f i e d t h a t , i f he were able t o move t o t h e d a y s h i f t a t work, he h o p e d t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n w o u l d be a b l e t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n a f t e r - s c h o o l a c t i v i t i e s 6 again. 2100586 The mother custody testified o f t h e younger participate that child, i n gymnastics, i f she o b t a i n e d she would a l l o w cheerleading, physical the c h i l d to and b a s e b a l l . t e s t i f i e d t h a t i f s h e were a w a r d e d c u s t o d y o f t h e o l d e r he would program begin p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the accelerated She child, reading again. The f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t , s i n c e he h a s h a d t h e c h i l d r e n i n h i s c u s t o d y , he d e c i d e d on one o r two d a y s n o t t o g i v e t h e older for child t h e m e d i c a t i o n t h a t h a d been p r e s c r i b e d attention-deficit/hyperactivity father stated that disorder f o r him ("ADHD"). The he d i d n o t s e e a d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e c h i l d p h y s i c a l l y o r b e h a v i o r a l l y when t h e c h i l d d i d n o t r e c e i v e h i s medication. should a He t e s t i f i e d that he d i d n o t t h i n k the c h i l d be on m e d i c a t i o n f o r ADHD a n d t h a t he p l a n n e d t o s e e k second opinion from another doctor with regard to the c h i l d ' s ADHD d i a g n o s i s . He a l s o s t a t e d t h a t , s i n c e he h a d b e e n a w a r d e d p e n d e n t e lite custody dentist, of the children, which was the f i r s t he h a d t a k e n time c h i l d r e n h a d been t o t h e d e n t i s t . 7 them i n several to the years the 2100586 A l t h o u g h t h e t e s t i m o n y was n o t e n t i r e l y c l e a r , i t appears t h a t , s i n c e t h e c h i l d r e n had been i n t h e f a t h e r ' s c u s t o d y , t h e o l d e r c h i l d , who was i n t h e f i f t h g r a d e , h a d made a " C " i n h i s mathematics past. class and t h a t he h a d n e v e r The f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e y o u n g e r c h i l d , who was i n the f i r s t grade a t the time o f the t r i a l , her made a " C " i n t h e h a d made a l l " A s " on f i r s t p r o g r e s s r e p o r t b u t t h a t she h a d made " B s " a n d a " C " on t h e s e c o n d p r o g r e s s r e p o r t . The f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a d n o t s p e n t more t i m e h e l p i n g t h e c h i l d r e n w i t h homework b e f o r e t h e p a r t i e s ' s e p a r a t i o n spending h e l p i n g he the c h i l d r e n with their t h a n he was p r e s e n t l y their homework. However, a l s o t e s t i f i e d that the older c h i l d u s u a l l y completed a l l o f h i s homework b e f o r e he came home f r o m The caregiver that mother testified that she f o r the c h i l d r e n during she was c o n c e r n e d that had school. been the marriage. the older child the primary She stated had r e c e i v e d a "C," a n d she s t a t e d t h a t t h a t c h i l d r e q u i r e d t h a t someone make s u r e he c o m p l e t e d h i s homework. She s t a t e d t h a t , b e f o r e she l e f t t h e m a r i t a l home, she w o u l d s i t down w i t h t h e o l d e r child e v e r y n i g h t a n d go o v e r h i s a s s i g n m e n t s f r o m s c h o o l w i t h h i m . She s t a t e d t h a t , i f she o b t a i n e d c u s t o d y o f t h e o l d e r 8 child, 2100586 she w o u l d e n c o u r a g e him night and t h a t she t o do h i s math homework a t home w o u l d p a r t i c i p a t e w i t h him at i n studying at night. At the time of substitute testified other the teacher that trial, with she had employment. the the mother a p p r o x i m a t e l y $700 m o n t h l y , and CS-41 a Madison submitted The m o t h e r was part-time job. teacher, the that also had held she and for earned In a d d i t i o n to w o r k i n g mother had previously a part-time job fired with held from an t o b e g i n w o r k i n g more h o u r s . that she d i d not the parties had work v e r y agreed much d u r i n g that she a insurance The mother the marriage primarily as that a g e n t ; she t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h a t j o b e n d e d b e c a u s e t h e a g e n t wanted her a submitted i n t o evidence a j o b a t a v e t e r i n a r y c l i n i c ; she was She Schools applications testified form r e f l e c t i n g t h a t income. substitute City numerous she e m p l o y e d as had testified because would be a stay-at-home mother. The mother t e s t i f i e d t h a t the w i t h h e r on two he pushed her second occasions. i n t o the occasion, he had She wall of pushed 9 f a t h e r had been " p h y s i c a l " s t a t e d t h a t , on one a hallway her into and the occasion, that, door of on the their 2100586 bedroom. The occurred, father admitted that those incidents had a n d , i n a d d i t i o n , t h a t he h a d g r a b b e d t h e m o t h e r ' s w r i s t on one occasion. The child older testified i n camera during the t r i a l . H i s t e s t i m o n y c o n t r a d i c t e d much o f t h e m o t h e r ' s d e s c r i p t i o n o f her r o l e as a parent. On November 25, 2009, divorcing the p a r t i e s . awarded the p a r t i e s awarded the father court Among o t h e r joint sole the t r i a l legal entered things, an the t r i a l order court custody of the c h i l d r e n , custody of the c h i l d r e n , physical awarded t h e mother v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e c h i l d r e n , and r e q u i r e d t h e m o t h e r t o p a y c h i l d s u p p o r t i n t h e m o n t h l y amount o f $317. The m o t h e r a p p e a l e d . This court dismissed the t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment l e f t u n r e s o l v e d to hold 2090696, 2010) the father i n contempt. O c t . 29, 2010] the appeal because t h e mother's motion See Sims So. 3d , v. Sims, ( A l a . C i v . App. ( c i t i n g Meek v. Meek, 54 So. 3d 389, 392-93 App. 2010)). trial court Following entered motion. With present that the dismissal an o r d e r motion denying resolved, appeal. 10 [Ms. of that (Ala. Civ. appeal, t h e mother's t h e mother the contempt filed the 2100586 The mother contends t h a t 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 i n awarding p h y s i c a l custody of the c h i l d r e n t o the father. She a r g u e s t h a t she h a d b e e n t h e c h i l d r e n ' s primary c a r e g i v e r d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e and t h a t , by awarding c u s t o d y o f the c h i l d r e n to the f a t h e r , the t r i a l c o u r t had, i n e f f e c t , awarded c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d r e n t o t h e i r p a t e r n a l grandmother, upon whom t h e p r i m a r y r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r r a i s i n g t h e c h i l d r e n would fall. pendente l i t e She points out that, while i n the father's c u s t o d y , t h e c h i l d r e n ' s g r a d e s h a d d e c l i n e d and t h a t t h e f a t h e r h a d d e c i d e d t o " u s u r p m e d i c a l a d v i c e and make d e c i s i o n s regarding the e f f i c a c y of g i v i n g the [older his child] prescribed medication." The s t a n d a r d b y w h i c h t h i s c o u r t r e v i e w s an i n i t i a l a w a r d of custody f o l l o w i n g the p r e s e n t a t i o n of ore tenus evidence i s well settled: "'When t h i s C o u r t r e v i e w s a trial court's child-custody determination that was b a s e d upon e v i d e n c e presented ore tenus, we presume the trial court's decision is correct: "'A custody determination of the t r i a l court entered upon oral testimony is accorded a p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s on a p p e a l , and we w i l l n o t r e v e r s e u n l e s s t h e e v i d e n c e so f a i l s to support the determination that i t i s p l a i n l y and p a l p a b l y w r o n g Ex p a r t e P e r k i n s , 646 So. 2d 46, 47 ( A l a . 11 2100586 1 9 9 4 ) , q u o t i n g P h i l l i p s v. P h i l l i p s , 622 So. 2d 410, 412 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1993) (citations omitted). This presumption i s b a s e d on t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s u n i q u e p o s i t i o n to d i r e c t l y o b s e r v e t h e w i t n e s s e s and t o a s s e s s t h e i r demeanor a n d c r e d i b i l i t y . T h i s opportunity to observe witnesses is especially important in child-custody cases. "In c h i l d custody cases e s p e c i a l l y , t h e p e r c e p t i o n o f an a t t e n t i v e t r i a l j u d g e is of great importance." W i l l i a m s v. W i l l i a m s , 402 So. 2d 1029, 1032 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1981). In regard to custody d e t e r m i n a t i o n s , t h i s C o u r t has a l s o s t a t e d : " I t i s a l s o w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d that i n the absence of s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s of f a c t , a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s w i l l assume t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t made t h o s e f i n d i n g s necessary to support i t s judgment, u n l e s s such f i n d i n g s w o u l d be c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s . " Ex p a r t e B r y o w s k y , 676 So. 2d 1322, 1324 ( A l a . 1996).' "Ex p a r t e Fann, 810 So. 2d 631, 632-33 ( A l a . 2001) . " I n a d i v o r c e a c t i o n b e t w e e n two f i t p a r e n t s , where t h e r e h a s b e e n no p r i o r c u s t o d y determination and neither parent has v o l u n t a r i l y r e l i n q u i s h e d custody o f t h e c h i l d , t h e 'best i n t e r e s t ' o f the c h i l d i s c o n t r o l l i n g ; t h e p a r t i e s s t a n d on ' e q u a l f o o t i n g ' a n d no p r e s u m p t i o n i n u r e s t o e i t h e r p a r e n t . '"'The t r i a l c o u r t ' s o v e r r i d i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s t h e c h i l d r e n ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t and w e l f a r e . ' " ' S m i t h v. S m i t h , 727 So. 2d 113, 114 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1998) ( q u o t i n g C o l l i e r v. C o l l i e r , 698 So. 2d 150, 151 (Ala. C i v . App. 1 9 9 7 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n Graham v. Graham, 640 So. 2d 963, 964 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 4 ) ) . " I n c o n s i d e r i n g t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s and w e l f a r e o f t h e c h i l d , t h e c o u r t must c o n s i d e r t h e i n d i v i d u a l f a c t s o f each case: 12 2100586 "'The s e x a n d age o f t h e c h i l d r e n a r e indeed very important considerations; h o w e v e r , t h e c o u r t must go b e y o n d t h e s e t o c o n s i d e r t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a n d needs o f each c h i l d , including their emotional, s o c i a l , m o r a l , m a t e r i a l and e d u c a t i o n a l n e e d s ; t h e r e s p e c t i v e home e n v i r o n m e n t s o f f e r e d by t h e p a r t i e s ; t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h o s e s e e k i n g c u s t o d y , i n c l u d i n g age, c h a r a c t e r , s t a b i l i t y , mental and p h y s i c a l h e a l t h ; t h e c a p a c i t y and i n t e r e s t o f each parent to provide f o r the emotional, s o c i a l , m o r a l , m a t e r i a l and e d u c a t i o n a l needs o f t h e c h i l d r e n ; t h e i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between each c h i l d and each parent; the interpersonal relationship b e t w e e n t h e c h i l d r e n ; t h e e f f e c t on t h e child of disrupting or continuing an e x i s t i n g c u s t o d i a l status; the preference of each child, i f the c h i l d i s of s u f f i c i e n t age a n d m a t u r i t y ; t h e r e p o r t a n d recommendation o f any e x p e r t w i t n e s s e s o r other independent i n v e s t i g a t o r ; a v a i l a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s ; and any o t h e r r e l e v a n t m a t t e r t h e e v i d e n c e may d i s c l o s e . ' "Ex p a r t e F e l l v. F e l l , Given D e v i n e , 398 So. 2d 686, 697 ( A l a . 1 9 8 1 ) . " 869 So. 2d 486, 494-95 a l l the evidence conclude that the t r i a l offered court's ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 3 ) . at t r i a l , e v i d e n c e was c o n f l i c t i n g a t t r i a l the province weigh t h a t of the t r i a l evidence wrong. The on s e v e r a l m a t t e r s , a n d i t court, not of this a n d t o make c r e d i b i l i t y 13 cannot d e c i s i o n t o award t h e f a t h e r c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d r e n was p l a i n l y a n d p a l p a b l y is we court, to determinations. 2100586 We note evidence i n the record from which the t r i a l court c o u l d have d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r was r e c k l e s s w i t h regard t o m a n a g i n g f i n a n c e s ; t h a t she h a d , i n e f f e c t , misappropriated money f r o m t h e PTO a t h e r c h i l d r e n ' s s c h o o l , o f w h i c h she was an o f f i c e r ; and t h a t she h a d l o s t more t h a n one j o b w i t h i n t h e recent past between and the time had failed to obtain the father had been full-time employment awarded pendente lite c u s t o d y i n J u l y 1, 2009, and t h e t r i a l on November 18, 2009, holding, a instead, making o n l y We have a part-time j o b as $700 p e r month, d e s p i t e also considered substitute teacher having a college degree. the testimony of the older child, w h i c h , as n o t e d , c o n t r a d i c t e d much o f t h e m o t h e r ' s d e s c r i p t i o n o f h e r r o l e as a As p a r t parent. o f h e r argument t h a t t h e t r i a l court should not have a w a r d e d c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d r e n t o t h e f a t h e r , t h e m o t h e r a r g u e s t h a t t h e f a t h e r a d m i t t e d t o p u s h i n g t h e m o t h e r on two occasions and g r a b b i n g h e r w r i s t on one o c c a s i o n . Thus, she a r g u e s , t h e C u s t o d y and D o m e s t i c o r F a m i l y Abuse A c t , § 30-3¬ 130 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975 ("the A c t " ) , c r e a t e s a p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t i t was n o t i n t h e c h i l d r e n ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t f o r t h e t r i a l court t o a w a r d c u s t o d y o f them t o t h e f a t h e r . 14 We disagree. 2100586 Section 30-3-131 provides: " I n e v e r y p r o c e e d i n g where t h e r e i s a t i s s u e a dispute as to the custody of a child, a d e t e r m i n a t i o n by t h e c o u r t t h a t d o m e s t i c o r f a m i l y violence has occurred raises a rebuttable presumption by the c o u r t t h a t i t i s d e t r i m e n t a l t o the c h i l d and n o t i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t o f t h e c h i l d t o be p l a c e d i n s o l e c u s t o d y , j o i n t l e g a l c u s t o d y , or j o i n t p h y s i c a l custody w i t h the p e r p e t r a t o r of domestic or f a m i l y v i o l e n c e . Notwithstanding the provisions regarding rebuttable presumption, the j u d g e must a l s o t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t what, i f a n y , i m p a c t t h e d o m e s t i c v i o l e n c e h a d on t h e c h i l d . " The trial whether there court d i d n o t make an e x p r e s s d e t e r m i n a t i o n domestic or family violence was a p r e s u m p t i o n a g a i n s t children to the father. of fact had occurred as t o such that t h e award o f c u s t o d y o f t h e As p r e v i o u s l y n o t e d , i n t h e a b s e n c e f i n d i n g s by t h e t r i a l court, this court w i l l assume that the t r i a l c o u r t made t h o s e f i n d i n g s n e c e s s a r y t o s u p p o r t its See F e l l , judgment. In the present supra. case, the d e t e r m i n e d , b a s e d on t h e e v i d e n c e , which t h e mother complains trial court could have that the p h y s i c a l acts of d i d not r i s e to the l e v e l of d o m e s t i c o r f a m i l y v i o l e n c e as d e f i n e d b y t h e A c t , s e e § 30-3¬ 130, a n d , as a r e s u l t , that there was no b a s i s i n this case for the a p p l i c a t i o n of the presumption c a l l e d f o r i n the A c t . See McCormick v. E t h r i d g e , 15 So. 3d 524, 530-31 15 (Ala.C i v . 2100586 App. 2008) (holding that conclude that father's chest lose trial court was authorized f o r c e f u l shove o f mother's son i n t h e and f a t h e r ' s p u s h i n g m o t h e r and t h e r e b y c a u s i n g her balance family violence and under to fall d i d not the A c t ) . her to constitute domestic Alternatively, the or trial c o u r t c o u l d have c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e p r e s u m p t i o n c a l l e d f o r i n the Act, although applicable, was rebutted by e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the f a t h e r ' s a c t i o n s had impacted the c h i l d r e n . argument fails judgment w i t h The See i d . a t 531. to support regard mother also a reversal a lack negatively Thus, t h e m o t h e r ' s of the t r i a l court's to the custody of the c h i l d r e n . contends s u p p o r t t h e amount o f c h i l d that the evidence support the t r i a l does court t o p a y t o t h e f a t h e r , and she n o t e s t h a t t h e t r i a l did not prepare a CS-42 "Child-Support Guidelines" r e q u i r e d b y R u l e 32, A l a . R. J u d . Admin. Hayes, 949 So. 2d 150 ( A l a . C i v . App. We a g r e e . 2006), court form as I n Hayes this wrote: "The f a t h e r ' s o n l y r e m a i n i n g c o n t e n t i o n i s t h a t the t r i a l court f a i l e d to u t i l i z e the required child-support-guidelines forms in making i t s determination o f t h e amount o f p r o s p e c t i v e child s u p p o r t owed by t h e f a t h e r . T h i s c o u r t has h e l d t h a t i f t h e r e c o r d does n o t r e f l e c t c o m p l i a n c e w i t h R u l e 16 not ordered her v. of court 2100586 32(E), A l a . R. Jud. Admin. (which r e q u i r e s the filing of 'Child Support Obligation Income Statement/Affidavit' forms (Forms CS-41) and a ' C h i l d S u p p o r t G u i d e l i n e s ' f o r m (Form C S - 4 2 ) ) , and i f c h i l d s u p p o r t i s made an i s s u e on a p p e a l , this court will remand (or r e v e r s e and remand) f o r c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e r u l e . See M a r t i n v. M a r t i n , 637 So. 2d 901, 903 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 4 ) . On t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h i s c o u r t has a f f i r m e d c h i l d - s u p p o r t awards when, d e s p i t e t h e a b s e n c e o f t h e r e q u i r e d f o r m s , we c o u l d d i s c e r n f r o m t h e a p p e l l a t e r e c o r d what f i g u r e s the t r i a l c o u r t used i n computing the c h i l d - s u p p o r t obligation. See, e.g., Dunn v. Dunn, 891 So. 2d 891, 896 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 4 ) ; R i m p f v. C a m p b e l l , 853 So. 2d 957, 959 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2002); and D i s m u k e s v. D o r s e y , 686 So. 2d 298, 301 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1996). Nevertheless, without the child-support-guidelines forms, i t is sometimes i m p o s s i b l e f o r an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t t o d e t e r m i n e f r o m the r e c o r d whether the t r i a l c o u r t c o r r e c t l y a p p l i e d the guidelines i n e s t a b l i s h i n g or modifying a child-support obligation. See H o r w i t z v. Horwitz, 739 So. 2d 1118, 1120 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1999)." 949 So. In 2d a t the 154-55. present case, the p a r t i e s s u b m i t t e d CS-41 i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e f a t h e r e a r n e d $4,188 m o n t h l y and m o t h e r e a r n e d $700 m o n t h l y . the father earned r e c o r d does n o t allocation the figures of income The record from h i s also farming that indicated activities. c o n t a i n a CS-42 f o r m s e t t i n g f o r t h t h e child s u p p o r t between the contained i n the result in a child-support parties. p a r t i e s ' CS-41 award i n the 17 forms the that The proper Utilizing f o r m s does not amount o r d e r e d by the 2100586 trial court. Although child-support Admin., a trial guidelines i t i s required court contained t o make a can d e v i a t e from t h e i n R u l e 32, A l a . R. J u d . "written finding on t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the a p p l i c a t i o n of the g u i d e l i n e s would be u n j u s t or inappropriate." Rule made no s u c h w r i t t e n f i n d i n g recognize, permitted as the father t o impute income The t r i a l i n the present argues, that to a parent unemployed o r underemployed. the present 32(A). a case. trial who court We also court is i s voluntarily See R u l e 32(B) (5) . However, i n c a s e , t h e e v i d e n c e does n o t s u p p o r t t h e i m p u t a t i o n o f income t o t h e m o t h e r i n an amount n e c e s s a r y t o r e s u l t i n the amount o f c h i l d support the t r i a l court awarded i n t h i s case. Because t h e award o f c h i l d comply with Rule cannot d i s c e r n child 32, A l a . R. o f t h e judgment obligation J u d . Admin., from the r e c o r d support the t r i a l portion support i n t h i s a n d remand court the basis and because a w a r d e d , we must r e v e r s e setting the f i n a l t h e mother's t h e cause t o t h e t r i a l that child-support court f o r the In a l l other j u d g m e n t i s due t o be a f f i r m e d . 18 we f o r t h e amount o f e n t r y o f a j u d g m e n t t h a t c o m p l i e s w i t h R u l e 32. respects, case d i d not 2100586 AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED. P i t t m a n , B r y a n , Thomas, a n d Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . 19
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.
