Robert Terwilliger v. Katherine Terwilliger

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/28/2011 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 2100722 Robert T e r w i l l i g e r v. Katherine T e r w i l l i g e r Appeal from Madison C i r c u i t (DR-10-307) Court THOMAS, J u d g e . Robert T e r w i l l i g e r of t h e Madison dismissing, Circuit ("the f a t h e r " ) a p p e a l s Court i n i t s entirety, ("the A l a b a m a the father's f r o m an o r d e r trial court") divorce action, which i n c l u d e d a c l a i m seeking custody o f the c h i l d r e n born o f 2100722 the marriage ("the between mother"). the father and Katherine Terwilliger P u r s u a n t t o § 30-3B-207, A l a . Code 1975, the Alabama t r i a l c o u r t d e c l i n e d t o e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n over the a c t i o n , b a s e d on the "home state" appropriate custody The forum dispute. The i t s determination of i n which We 1 f a t h e r and the children, to of the Texas litigate the Alabama i s is the parties' more child- affirm. t h e m o t h e r were m a r r i e d p a r t i e s moved t o A l a b a m a born that, although marriage. On i n 2005. September i n F e b r u a r y 2004. Three 9, c h i l d r e n were 2009, the parties separated, and t h e m o t h e r , a l o n g w i t h t h e p a r t i e s ' t h r e e m i n o r children, went mother's f a m i l y . to San Antonio, Texas, to stay with the 2 A l t h o u g h t h e f a t h e r r e q u e s t s t h a t we r e v e r s e t h e A l a b a m a t r i a l c o u r t ' s o r d e r d i s m i s s i n g h i s d i v o r c e a c t i o n , on a p p e a l he a d d r e s s e s o n l y t h e A l a b a m a t r i a l court's d e c i s i o n to d e c l i n e to e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n over the p a r t i e s ' c h i l d custody d i s p u t e p u r s u a n t t o § 30-3B-207. Therefore, we a d d r e s s o n l y t h a t i s s u e on a p p e a l , and we e x p r e s s no o p i n i o n as t o w h e t h e r t h e A l a b a m a t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n d i s m i s s i n g t h e father's divorce action i n i t s entirety. 1 T h e m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t she f l e d t o T e x a s t o g e t away f r o m t h e f a t h e r ' s h a r a s s m e n t . The m o t h e r h a d f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r an ex p a r t e p r o t e c t i o n - f r o m - a b u s e order i n Madison County b e f o r e t r a v e l i n g t o T e x a s ; however, t h a t p r o t e c t i o n - f r o m - a b u s e p r o c e e d i n g was l a t e r d i s m i s s e d . 2 2 2100722 The m o t h e r f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t trial f o r a d i v o r c e i n t h e Alabama c o u r t i n October 2 0 0 9 ; however, t h e mother dismissed filed that divorce action. a divorce 3 subsequently On M a r c h 12, 2010, t h e f a t h e r a c t i o n i n t h e Alabama trial court, claiming i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y o f temperament and an i r r e t r i e v a b l e of the marriage. Alabama trial children. The A d d i t i o n a l l y , the f a t h e r requested court award record indicates that with the f a t h e r ' s complaint M a r c h 22, 2010. action i n Texas, March "motion custody of the parties' t h e m o t h e r was f o r a d i v o r c e by c e r t i f i e d i n w h i c h she r e q u e s t e d 12, children. 2010, s t a n d i n g pendente l i t e a him that the served m a i l on On M a r c h 31, 2010, t h e m o t h e r f i l e d a d i v o r c e custody of the p a r t i e s ' On breakdown f o r pendente she be awarded 4 t h e Alabama order. that trial court entered The f a t h e r s u b s e q u e n t l y lite relief," requesting The mother t e s t i f i e d t h a t she d i s m i s s e d t h a t a c t i o n b e c a u s e she i n t e n d e d t o i m m e d i a t e l y i n i t i a t e d i v o r c e a c t i o n i n Texas. 3 that a filed the divorce another The mother t e s t i f i e d t h a t she h a d a l r e a d y s i g n e d t h e d i v o r c e c o m p l a i n t , w h i c h was f i l e d i n T e x a s on M a r c h 31, 2010, b e f o r e she was s e r v e d w i t h t h e f a t h e r ' s d i v o r c e c o m p l a i n t on M a r c h 22, 2010. She f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t she h a d assumed t h a t h e r a t t o r n e y i n T e x a s h a d f i l e d t h e d i v o r c e c o m p l a i n t on t h e same d a y she s i g n e d t h e c o m p l a i n t . 4 3 2100722 Alabama returned trial court t o Alabama require that the p a r t i e s ' immediately, that pendente l i t e s o l e p h y s i c a l and l e g a l and c h i l d r e n be the court award h i m custody of the c h i l d r e n , t h a t t h e c o u r t award him pendente l i t e c h i l d support. On A p r i l 2 1 , 2010, t h e A l a b a m a t r i a l c o u r t c o n d u c t e d an e m e r g e n c y hearing regarding the father's request r e l i e f and h e a r d o r e t e n u s t e s t i m o n y hearing, t h e mother failed f o r pendente from the p a r t i e s . lite At the t o mention t h a t she had f i l e d s e p a r a t e d i v o r c e and c h i l d - c u s t o d y a c t i o n i n Texas. a Following t h e h e a r i n g , t h e p a r t i e s , among o t h e r t h i n g s , a g r e e d t o a l l o w the father summer visitation with the c h i l d r e n , and t h e A l a b a m a t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d an "Amendment t o S t a n d i n g P e n d e n t e L i t e O r d e r " on A p r i l the Alabama t r i a l 22, 2010. court I n i t s A p r i l 22, 2010, o r d e r , stated: " T h i s C o u r t l o o k s w i t h d i s f a v o r on a p a r e n t r e m o v i n g children from the j u r i s d i c t i o n of this Court, p e n d i n g e n t r y o f an o r d e r a l l o w i n g s u c h a move. However, t h e M o t h e r a n d t h e p a r t i e s ' m i n o r c h i l d r e n have b e e n r e l o c a t e d t o S a n A n t o n i o , T e x a s , s i n c e S e p t e m b e r 9, 2009; a n d t h i s C o u r t h a s b e e n made aware o f t h e i s s u a n c e o f an E x p a r t e P r o t e c t i o n F r o m A b u s e O r d e r i n an a c t i o n f i l e d b y t h e M o t h e r a g a i n s t the F a t h e r i n t h e C i r c u i t Court o f Madison County, A l a b a m a , b e i n g C i v i l A c t i o n Number DR2009-3851(LWH). The p a r t i e s i n d i c a t e d d u r i n g s a i d e m e r g e n c y h e a r i n g , however, that t h e Mother intended t o seek a d i s m i s s a l of t h a t case, which would t h e r e a f t e r v o i d the Ex p a r t e P r o t e c t i o n Order e n t e r e d by Judge 4 2100722 H a m i l t o n o f t h i s C o u r t on A u g u s t 18, 2009. E v e n though t h e F a t h e r has r e q u e s t e d a f i n a l h e a r i n g i n t h a t c a s e , i t h a s n o t y e t b e e n h e l d , a n d was p r e v i o u s l y c o n t i n u e d on m o t i o n o f t h e M o t h e r when p r e v i o u s l y s e t . T h i s C o u r t has n o t been p r o v i d e d with any c r e d i b l e evidence that either party p r e s e n t s a t h r e a t f o r p h y s i c a l harm o r abuse t o w a r d s the o t h e r , nor t o t h e p a r t i e s ' minor c h i l d r e n . Both p a r t i e s a r e f i n a n c i a l l y l i m i t e d and earn s m a l l incomes. T h i s C o u r t has d e t e r m i n e d t h a t i t i s n o t i n the b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e p a r t i e s ' minor c h i l d r e n f o r t h i s C o u r t t o e n t e r t h a t t h e i r r e s i d e n c e be r e l o c a t e d t o M a d i s o n C o u n t y , A l a b a m a , on a p e n d e n t e lite basis. Rather, this Court reserves that decision f o r a f i n a l hearing, a f t e r both p a r t i e s have b e e n g i v e n a f u l l a n d f a i r o p p o r t u n i t y t o p r e s e n t a l l e v i d e n c e and w i t n e s s e s t h e y d e s i r e , w i t h o u t time c o n s t r a i n t s , and t h i s Court i s a b l e t o make a b e t t e r d e c i s i o n on t h e c u s t o d y d e t e r m i n a t i o n t o be made b y t h i s C o u r t f o r t h e p a r t i e s ' m i n o r children." Upon r e a l i z i n g t h a t t h e r e was a d i v o r c e a n d c h i l d - c u s t o d y a c t i o n also pending i n Texas, t h e judge o f t h e Alabama trial court communicated w i t h Judge V i c t o r Negron o f t h e D i s t r i c t Court of Bexar County, Texas ("the T e x a s trial court"), r e g a r d i n g t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l i s s u e s a r i s i n g under t h e U n i f o r m C h i l d C u s t o d y J u r i s d i c t i o n a n d E n f o r c e m e n t A c t ("the U C C J E A " ) , which has been adopted by b o t h Alabama, see s e q . , A l a . Code 1975, a n d T e x a s , 105.101 e t s e q . Pursuant § 30-3B-101 e t s e e Tex. F a m i l y Code Ann. § t o § 30-3B-110, t h e A l a b a m a trial c o u r t e n t e r e d a " N o t i c e o f C o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h Court i n Texas" 5 2100722 on January 24, 2 0 1 1 . In the "Notice C o u r t i n Texas," t h e Alabama t r i a l [wa]s no d i s p u t e state' pending that the State o f t h e p a r t i e s ' minor i n t h e [Alabama [father]." Further, of Conversation court stated "that o f Alabama c h i l d r e n when trial court] t h e Alabama t r i a l with was there was t h e 'home the action filed now by the court c l a r i f i e d that " [ t ] h e i s s u e t o be r e s o l v e d b y [ t h e A l a b a m a t r i a l c o u r t ] i s whether o r n o t [ t h e Alabama t r i a l c o u r t ] , b e i n g t h e c o u r t o f t h e home s t a t e o f t h e [ c h i l d r e n ] , should decline to exercise j u r i s d i c t i o n on t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e [ T e x a s t r i a l c o u r t ] i s t h e 'more a p p r o p r i a t e f o r u m ' t o make a n d d e c i d e t h e i n i t i a l child custody determinations ... r e g a r d i n g t h e p a r t i e s ' minor c h i l d r e n . " On M a r c h 18, 2 0 1 1 , t h e A l a b a m a t r i a l evidentiary hearing regarding whether c o u r t c o n d u c t e d an i t should decline to e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n over the p a r t i e s ' c h i l d - c u s t o d y d i s p u t e p u r s u a n t t o § 30-3B-207. On M a r c h 2 1 , 2 0 1 1 , t h e A l a b a m a trial c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r d e c l i n i n g t o e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r the action, finding convenient custody The forum dispute, t h a t T e x a s was t h e more a p p r o p r i a t e a n d i n which to litigate and d i s m i s s i n g the p a r t i e s ' the action with father timely appealed t o t h i s child- prejudice. court. I n Ramsey v . Ramsey, 995 So. 2d 881, 886 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008), this court stated that 6 a trial court's decision to 2100722 decline purely to exercise j u r i s d i c t i o n discretionary. (providing exercise that an See § 30-3B-207(a), Alabama trial i t s jurisdiction"). court concluded court's court under as § to whether 30-3B-207 [the determination court's] demonstrates t h a t the t r i a l appeal, decline the father So. i t should 2d a t 886 the child-custody a more a p p r o p r i a t e wrong and was This argues trial excercise court ("[W]e must affirm unless that thereby f o r u m , was an abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n . c o u r t has this the appellant c o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n . " ) . dispute, T e x a s was to trial the Alabama court's d e c i s i o n d e c l i n i n g to e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n parties' 1975 i n Ramsey, i s whether 995 On Code "may Accordingly, abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n . trial Ala. t h a t the s t a n d a r d of review a p p l i e d t o a determination jurisdiction p u r s u a n t t o § 30-3B-207 i s over acknowledging plainly We and the that palpably disagree. stated: "A c o u r t h a v i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n t o make a c h i l d - c u s t o d y d e t e r m i n a t i o n may n e v e r t h e l e s s d e c l i n e t o e x e r c i s e t h a t j u r i s d i c t i o n ' i f i t d e t e r m i n e s t h a t i t i s an i n c o n v e n i e n t f o r u m u n d e r t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s and t h a t a c o u r t o f a n o t h e r s t a t e i s a more a p p r o p r i a t e f o r u m . ' § 3 0 - 3 B - 2 0 7 ( a ) . The d e t e r m i n a t i o n w h e t h e r i t i s an i n c o n v e n i e n t f o r u m u n d e r t h e UCCJEA r e q u i r e s a trial court to consider several enumerated f a c t o r s , which are o u t l i n e d i n § 30-3B-207(b)." 7 trial 2100722 Ramsey, 995 Section So. 2d a t 884. 30-3B-207(b)provides: "(b) Before determining whether i t is an inconvenient forum, a court of t h i s state shall c o n s i d e r whether i t i s a p p r o p r i a t e f o r a c o u r t of another s t a t e to e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n . For this purpose, the c o u r t s h a l l a l l o w the p a r t i e s to submit i n f o r m a t i o n and s h a l l c o n s i d e r a l l r e l e v a n t f a c t o r s , including: "(1) W h e t h e r d o m e s t i c v i o l e n c e has o c c u r r e d and i s l i k e l y t o c o n t i n u e i n t h e f u t u r e and w h i c h s t a t e c o u l d b e s t p r o t e c t t h e p a r t i e s and t h e c h i l d ; "(2) The l e n g t h o f t i m e t h e c h i l d resided outside this s t a t e ; has "(3) The d i s t a n c e b e t w e e n t h e c o u r t i n t h i s s t a t e and t h e c o u r t i n t h e s t a t e t h a t w o u l d assume j u r i s d i c t i o n ; "(4) The relative circumstances of the p a r t i e s ; financial "(5) Any a g r e e m e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s as t o w h i c h s t a t e s h o u l d assume j u r i s d i c t i o n ; "(6) The n a t u r e and l o c a t i o n o f t h e evidence r e q u i r e d to r e s o l v e the pending litigation, i n c l u d i n g testimony of the child; "(7) The a b i l i t y o f t h e c o u r t o f e a c h s t a t e t o d e c i d e t h e i s s u e e x p e d i t i o u s l y and the procedures necessary to present the e v i d e n c e ; and 8 2100722 "(8) The f a m i l i a r i t y o f t h e c o u r t o f each s t a t e w i t h t h e f a c t s and i s s u e s i n t h e pending l i t i g a t i o n . " In h i s b r i e f to t h i s court, the father discusses only the r e l a t i v e f i n a n c i a l circumstances that t h e mother i s more able associated with defending in Alabama, the b e c a u s e , he s a y s , he does. of the p a r t i e s . t o absorb a divorce undisputed home He c o n t e n d s the t r a v e l and c h i l d - c u s t o d y state of costs action the c h i l d r e n , t h e m o t h e r makes $2,000 more p e r y e a r That c o n t e n t i o n than i s u n s u p p o r t e d by t h e r e c o r d . A t t h e e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g , t h e m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t she works at a Marriott hotel $9.75 p e r h o u r . of hours call center, making a salary of However, she d i d n o t t e s t i f y as t o t h e number she works o r as t o h e r a n n u a l salary. She d i d t e s t i f y t h a t she r e c e i v e s b e n e f i t s , i n c l u d i n g i n s u r a n c e , vacation, that and p a i d s i c k leave. she r e c e i v e s g o v e r n m e n t a s s i s t a n c e f o o d stamps a n d M e d i c a i d , low. The m o t h e r f u r t h e r testified from Texas, s u c h as b e c a u s e , she s a i d , h e r income i s so The f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d Education paid t h a t he i s e m p l o y e d as a S p e c i a l I n s t r u c t i o n a l A s s i s t a n t i n the Madison C i t y School S y s t e m and t h a t he makes an a n n u a l s a l a r y o f $ 1 6 , 1 7 7 . Thus, there i s no evidence i n the record 9 e s t a b l i s h i n g that the 2100722 mother has a h i g h e r income argues i n h i s b r i e f . the father, as t h e f a t h e r However, t h e p a r t i e s ' t e s t i m o n y c l e a r , as t h e A l a b a m a t r i a l are than makes court noted, that "[b]oth p a r t i e s f i n a n c i a l l y l i m i t e d and e a r n s m a l l incomes." Although circumstances parties the r e l a t i v e financial one a f a c t o r a c o u r t whether, under t h e UCCJEA, should consider i t should in exercise of the determining jurisdiction over a c h i l d - c u s t o d y d i s p u t e , the e x i s t e n c e or nonexistence one s i n g l e f a c t o r l i s t e d i n § 30-3B-207(b) i s n o t d i s p o s i t i v e . Instead, t h e s t a t u t e makes c l e a r t h a t a trial court c o n s i d e r a l l r e l e v a n t f a c t o r s . " § 30-3B-207(b). because the r e l a t i v e f i n a n c i a l circumstances only of one factor t o be considered "shall Accordingly, of the p a r t i e s i s and because the evidence i n d i c a t e s that both p a r t i e s are f i n a n c i a l l y l i m i t e d , without i n d i c a t i n g w h i c h p a r t y h a s a h i g h e r i n c o m e , we c a n n o t c o n c l u d e that the declining Alabama to trial exercise p a r t i e s ' testimony court abused jurisdiction regarding their i t s discretion in based financial solely on the circumstances. Moreover, i n t h i s case, t h e Alabama t r i a l c o u r t conducted an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g r e g a r d i n g w h e t h e r i t s h o u l d d e c l i n e t o exercise jurisdiction and d e f e r 10 to the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the 2100722 Texas t r i a l c o u r t , and, a t t h a t h e a r i n g , t h e mother presented e v i d e n c e r e g a r d i n g many o f t h e f a c t o r s e n u m e r a t e d i n § 30-3B207(b). to S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t she h a d gone Texas with temporary school visit but that, and day care decided intending after enrolling i t t o be a the c h i l d r e n i n a n d l o c a t i n g employment i n Texas, she t o make t h e move p e r m a n e n t . The mother kindergarten School the p a r t i e s ' c h i l d r e n testified and t h a t that the he a t t e n d s i n San A n t o n i o , Texas. oldest Northen child Hills She t e s t i f i e d is in Elementary that t h e two younger c h i l d r e n a t t e n d P l a y h o u s e C h i l d Care, which i s a d a y care the center i n San A n t o n i o . c h i l d r e n see d o c t o r s The m o t h e r a l s o t e s t i f i e d with whom t h e y that are comfortable in Texas and t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n a t t e n d S t . Mark's C a t h o l i c C h u r c h in Texas. children Additionally, visit their t h e mother maternal testified grandfather l i v i n g i n San A n t o n i o a t l e a s t once a week. father testified Alabama o t h e r that that and o t h e r the family I n contrast, the t h e c h i l d r e n have no f a m i l y l i v i n g i n than himself. Moreover, t h e mother the c h i l d r e n had never attended Alabama. that From t h i s t e s t i m o n y , day care or schools i n t h e Alabama t r i a l 11 testified court could 2100722 have r e a s o n a b l y c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e m a j o r i t y o f t h e " e v i d e n c e required Texas. to resolve the pending l i t i g a t i o n " was located i n § 30-3B-207(b)(6). Additionally, t h e Alabama trial court f o u n d t h e Texas t r i a l court handle § 30-3B-207(b)(7). the case. See j u d g e o f t h e Alabama t r i a l stated that i t t o be w e l l e q u i p p e d and a b l e court Specifically, to the stated: " I have no d o u b t -- l e t me j u s t s a y I have no d o u b t , f r o m my c o n v e r s a t i o n s w i t h t h e j u d g e i n T e x a s , J u d g e N e g r o n , t h a t he c a n a d e q u a t e l y h a n d l e t h i s c a s e , t h a t he knows what h e ' s d o i n g a n d t h a t he w i l l g i v e i t t h e e m p h a s i s and i m p o r t a n c e t h a t i t needs i n h i s job. So t h e l a c k o f a g o o d j u d g e t o be a b l e t o a d e q u a t e l y a d d r e s s i t i s n o t an i s s u e i n t h i s c a s e . " Thus, the evidence Alabama trial regarding court's this factor also determination to decline supports to the exercise j u r i s d i c t i o n over the a c t i o n . It was been l i v i n g 2011, had only undisputed that the p a r t i e s ' resided outside Alabama had c h i l d r e n had l e f t since a year The m o t h e r a l s o t e s t i f i e d Texas t o v i s i t moving Thus, t h e c h i l d r e n f o r approximately See § 30-3B-207(b) (2) . once children i n T e x a s f r o m S e p t e m b e r 9, 2009, u n t i l M a r c h 18, the date of the e v i d e n t i a r y hearing. half. the also to 12 Texas their in and a that f a t h e r i n Alabama September 2009. 2100722 A d d i t i o n a l l y , the mother t e s t i f i e d t h a t the t r i p between Texas and Alabama was long, c o m p l e t e d i n one day but, she of d r i v i n g . said, The the trip could be father t e s t i f i e d that he had t r a v e l e d t o T e x a s a p p r o x i m a t e l y s e v e n o r e i g h t t i m e s s i n c e M a r c h 2010, and he t e s t i f i e d t h a t i t was not a p r o b l e m f o r to drive that distance, a l t h o u g h he t r a v e l was § 30-3B-207(b)(3). an i s s u e . See stated that the him cost Accordingly, of the Alabama t r i a l c o u r t h e a r d t e s t i m o n y r e g a r d i n g several factors enumerated i t in § 30-3B-207(b) from r e a s o n a b l y c o n c l u d e d t h a t T e x a s and appropriate were trial the other i n a p p l i c a b l e to court credible n o t A l a b a m a was stated evidence minor c h i l d r e n . " should have the more dispute. f a c t o r s enumerated i n § this that that case. i t had either See never entered "not party assume j u r i s d i c t i o n presents 207 (b) (5) . 13 nor a Alabama with any threat for t o the p a r t i e s ' A d d i t i o n a l l y , the a g r e e m e n t s as over the the been p r o v i d e d § 30-3B-207(b)(1). i n t o any 30-3B-207(b) Specifically, p h y s i c a l harm o r abuse t o w a r d s t h e o t h e r , parties could and c o n v e n i e n t f o r u m t o e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r the p a r t i e s ' c h i l d - c u s t o d y Many o f which to which litigation. See state § 30-3B- 2100722 In Ramsey, this court affirmed a decision of a trial c o u r t d e c l i n i n g t o e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n t t o § 30-3B207, a l t h o u g h s e v e r a l o f t h e § 30-3B-207(b) "in t h e Alabama favor affirming of the t r i a l forum." court's f a c t o r s weighed 995 So. 2d at decision, this court 887. explained that the presence of s e v e r a l of the f a c t o r s i n favor home s t a t e Alabama trial case." I d . trial Alabama court's Unlike "d[id] In of the not n e c e s s a r i l y r e q u i r e the retention of jurisdiction Ramsey, i n t h e p r e s e n t c o u r t d i d n o t h e a r any t e s t i m o n y over the case, t h e Alabama i n d i c a t i n g t h a t even a s i n g l e f a c t o r e n u m e r a t e d i n § 30-3B-207(b) w e i g h e d i n f a v o r o f A l a b a m a as t h e more a p p r o p r i a t e forum t o e x e r c i s e over the p a r t i e s ' c h i l d - c u s t o d y Accordingly, because Alabama t r i a l court 207, with coupled cannot agree with of dispute. the discretion i n making a d e t e r m i n a t i o n the evidence the f a t h e r presented that afforded i n this t h e Alabama over the p a r t i e s ' c h i l d - c u s t o d y d i s p u t e . order o f the Alabama jurisdiction trial court over the p a r t i e s ' c h i l d 14 the u n d e r § 30-3B- a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n by d e c l i n i n g t o e x e r c i s e the jurisdiction case, trial we court jurisdiction Therefore, we a f f i r m d e c l i n i n g to exercise custody dispute. 2100722 AFFIRMED. Thompson, P . J . , and Pittman, concur. 15 Bryan, and Moore, J J . ,

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.