Daniel L. Bates v. Tiffany Bates

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: August 31, 2012 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 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 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, 2012 2110001 D a n i e l L. Bates v. T i f f a n y Bates Appeal from Lauderdale C i r c u i t (DR-11-231.01) PITTMAN, Judge. D a n i e l L. B a t e s the Lauderdale mother") Court ("the f a t h e r " ) a p p e a l s f r o m a j u d g m e n t o f Circuit permission Court granting to relocate from Tiffany B a t e s ("the Killen, Alabama, t o 2110001 Chandler, A r i z o n a , w i t h t h e p a r t i e s ' two minor c h i l d r e n . We affirm. F a c t u a l and The Procedural p a r t i e s were m a r r i e d Background i n 1994. The f a t h e r i s i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s Marine C o r p s ; d u r i n g the marriage, the p a r t i e s l i v e d t o g e t h e r a t M a r i n e b a s e s i n Oklahoma, F l o r i d a , and Carolina. In were l i v i n g i n North Iraq, a Florida complaint (the February of C a r o l i n a and attorney i n the place 2006, w h i l e Circuit the the filed Court father's the on m o t h e r and f a t h e r was the legal deployed a settlement agreement stated construction, The agreement that Florida interpretation, settlement agreement residence at law executed parenting agreement designated residential parent" and governed effect incorporated agreement" by the the the the children according to 2 of a a Florida that time), The the parties separate mother father validity, i t s provisions. parties. r e s i d e n t i a l p a r e n t " w i t h r i g h t s of "access with" to resolving a l l i s s u e s ; that and parenting behalf County, s e e k i n g a d i s s o l u t i o n of the p a r t i e s ' marriage. reached children father's of Opaloosa North as as "shared- The the shared"primary the "secondary t o and timesharing a standard schedule, or as 2110001 o t h e r w i s e a g r e e d upon by t h e p a r t i e s by addendum. executed an timesharing they not conducive could schedule. addendum not reside w i t h i n 100 to agree, Further, their "to set schedules" agreeing to be parties visitation or, and i n the b o u n d by the event standard the p a r t i e s agreed t h a t , because they d i d i n the miles agreeing The same g e o g r a p h i c a l area (defined as being of each o t h e r ) , they would share e q u a l l y "in the t r a n s p o r t a t i o n or t r a n s p o r t a t i o n expenses a s s o c i a t e d [with the] round Summer and December H o l i d a y timesharing, or two t r i p s p e r y e a r , " and t h a t t h e f a t h e r w o u l d be r e s p o n s i b l e "for the t r a n s p o r t a t i o n or t r a n s p o r t a t i o n expenses a s s o c i a t e d with all also other timesharing." provided that written notice "[e]ach at wife father ("the his D.C., tour of until Alabama, her (90) the days other Iraq, The the he A f t e r the was m o t h e r and children's 3 stationed divorce. father in His of this completed Washington, c h i l d r e n moved t o maternal any area." at the time of the t r i a l child. parent i n advance of s i x months a f t e r t h e first in 2011. where give t h e p a r t i e s ' same g e o g r a p h i c remarried duty shall ninety s t e p m o t h e r " ) was, case, expecting s h a r e d - p a r e n t i n g agreement parent least relocation outside The The grandmother Killen, and a 2110001 maternal uncle f a t h e r , who live. The remarried in 2009. The had p u r c h a s e d a two-bedroom, o n e - b a t h r o o m h o u s e i n Florence, Alabama, usually 1 exercise his v i s i t a t i o n I n F e b r u a r y 2011, accepted a job with Arizona, mother a suburb or flew to Alabama to w i t h the c h i l d r e n . t h e m o t h e r ' s h u s b a n d ("the Intel of drove Corporation Phoenix. On ("Intel") February stepfather") i n Chandler, 21, 2011, the m o t h e r s e n t t h e f a t h e r a c e r t i f i e d l e t t e r s t a t i n g t h a t she and the the stepfather intended c h i l d r e n ; t h a t the April 4, stepfather 2011; as to relocate to s t e p f a t h e r would begin that soon as she and their that the with job there children would house in Killen had join been the mother a c e r t i f i e d sold; a d d r e s s as soon as On M a r c h 1, 2011, letter on the m o b i l e t e l e p h o n e numbers f o r h e r t h e c h i l d r e n r e m a i n e d t h e same. sent a new the t h a t she w o u l d i n f o r m t h e f a t h e r o f h e r new p o s s i b l e ; and Chandler the and father s t a t i n g that, i n order to be n e a r t h e c h i l d r e n , he had a c c e p t e d a m i l i t a r y a s s i g n m e n t t o F l o r e n c e , K i l l e n , and R o g e r s v i l l e ( r e f e r e n c e d i n f r a ) a r e c i t i e s i n L a u d e r d a l e County. F l o r e n c e and K i l l e n a r e l e s s t h a n 10 m i l e s a p a r t ; R o g e r s v i l l e i s 15 m i l e s f r o m K i l l e n and 24 m i l e s f r o m F l o r e n c e . 1 4 2110001 t h e M a r i n e C o r p s b a s e i n A l b a n y , G e o r g i a , a n d w o u l d be m o v i n g on J u n e 1, 2 0 1 1 . On A p r i l 13, 2 0 1 1 , t h e f a t h e r filed i n the Lauderdale C i r c u i t C o u r t a p e t i t i o n t o r e g i s t e r and e n f o r c e t h e p a r t i e s ' F l o r i d a j u d g m e n t o f d i s s o l u t i o n , an o b j e c t i o n proposed father relocation, t o t h e mother's and a p e t i t i o n t o m o d i f y c u s t o d y . a l s o moved f o r a t e m p o r a r y r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r , The seeking to p r e v e n t t h e mother from r e l o c a t i n g t h e c h i l d r e n d u r i n g t h e pendency of the a c t i o n . The m o t h e r answered the father's p e t i t i o n a n d f i l e d an u n v e r i f i e d c o u n t e r p e t i t i o n to relocate, attaching an offer of t h e mother filed an a letter from Intel employment to the stepfather. unverified amendment that adding the Following a requiring the Later, to her children's hearing, children counterpetition proposed the extended trial new address court to relocate, in entered Arizona. an order t o remain i n Alabama p e n d i n g a final hearing. Before the t r i a l of t h i s case p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t e d that the substantive to the issues before the t r i a l court, verification o f h e r two p r i o r 5 on July 18, 2011, t h e law of F l o r i d a applied and t h e mother f i l e d a unverified pleadings. Three 2110001 witnesses t e s t i f i e d at t r i a l : the father. telephonic t h e m o t h e r , t h e s t e p f a t h e r , and The t e s t i m o n y o f t h e s t e p m o t h e r was deposition s e v e r a l days later. The m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d a t t r i a l the primary caregiver that she h a d a l w a y s The e v i d e n c e was been f o r the p a r t i e s ' c h i l d r e n , a daughter who was t h e n s i x y e a r s o l d and a s o n who was old. t a k e n by a in conflict with then nine respect t o how years often the f a t h e r had e x e r c 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 r e n between 2006 and 2011. The m o t h e r s a i d t h a t t h e f a t h e r h a d come t o A l a b a m a f o r weekend v i s i t s w i t h t h e c h i l d r e n e v e r y f o u r t o s i x weeks. The f a t h e r c l a i m e d two o r t h r e e weeks. to Arizona was t o have v i s i t e d t h e c h i l d r e n e v e r y The m o t h e r d e n i e d t h a t t h e p r o p o s e d move f o r the purpose of interfering father's r e l a t i o n s h i p with the c h i l d r e n . with the She t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a l t h o u g h t h e judgment o f d i s s o l u t i o n had o r d e r e d t h e f a t h e r t o p a y $130 p e r month t o w a r d h e r h e a l t h - i n s u r a n c e foregone that support " t r a v e l money." so that Each p a r t y the father c o s t s , she h a d could agreed that the other have more was a good p a r e n t who l o v e d t h e c h i l d r e n and h a d a good r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h them and t h a t t h e s t e p p a r e n t s the c h i l d r e n . a l s o h a d good r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h The m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t C h a n d l e r has a 6 year- 2110001 round school system, fall, i n December, a n d i n t h e s p r i n g -- a n d a s i x - w e e k b r e a k i n t h e summer. with t h r e e two-week b r e a k s She a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t none o f t h e p a r e n t s o r s t e p p a r e n t s h a s any r e l a t i v e s i n A r i z o n a . and the stepfather each had -- i n t h e one parent She s a i d t h a t she and siblings i n L a u d e r d a l e County; t h a t t h e f a t h e r had a b r o t h e r i n Birmingham and parents Killen; i n Benton, and California. that the Tennessee, a stepmother's four-hour drive relatives lived from in The m o t h e r r e s p o n d e d a f f i r m a t i v e l y t o a q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r she w o u l d " a g r e e t o m o d i f y t h e v i s i t a t i o n s c h e d u l e a n d the cost of the t r a n s p o r t a t i o n i n response t o [ h e r ] proposed move t o A r i z o n a . " The proposed his father acknowledged t o move t o A r i z o n a , work schedule that, that divorce, would and t r a v e l p l a n s and had had accommodated fostered h i s The f a t h e r s t a t e d t h a t , a f t e r he h a d r e q u e s t e d b a s e facilitate t h e mother she h a d w i l l i n g l y r e l a t i o n s h i p with the c h i l d r e n . the until assignments his visitation with to locations t h e c h i l d r e n . He s a i d t h a t he h a d t u r n e d down a c a r e e r - e n h a n c i n g a s s i g n m e n t i n Turkey because children. i t would He e x p l a i n e d have p r e v e n t e d h i m f r o m that, after returning 7 seeing the f r o m I r a q , he 2110001 h a d h a d two c o n s e c u t i v e assignments to the Washington, D.C., a r e a and t h a t , a l t h o u g h he c o u l d have r e q u e s t e d a d u t y s t a t i o n in North Carolina for the second assignment, he had i n t e n t i o n a l l y chosen t o remain i n the Washington, D.C., area b e c a u s e , he s a i d , he c o u l d a r r a n g e d i r e c t a i r l i n e flights to H u n t s v i l l e f r o m one o f t h r e e a i r p o r t s i n t h e W a s h i n g t o n , D.C., a r e a , whereas the a i r p o r t c l o s e s t t o the N o r t h C a r o l i n a duty s t a t i o n o f f e r e d no d i r e c t flights s t a t e d t h a t he w o u l d r e t i r e 2014 and that he had to Huntsville. from the Marine Corps r e q u e s t e d an assignment The father i n January to the Marine C o r p s b a s e i n A l b a n y , G e o r g i a , as h i s l a s t d u t y s t a t i o n b e f o r e retirement so that he could be close t o the children. He s t a t e d t h a t t h e r e was a M a r i n e C o r p s b a s e i n A r i z o n a b u t t h a t , by t h e t i m e he h a d l e a r n e d o f t h e m o t h e r ' s p r o p o s e d to Arizona, Albany. i t had b e e n t o o l a t e t o change h i s a s s i g n m e n t After stepmother children. purchased relocation h i s retirement, planned To to that live end, a three-bedroom, the father and the near the stepmother had three-and-one-half-bathroom lake i n Lauderdale the father and said, he County h o u s e i n R o g e r s v i l l e , A l a b a m a , f o r $447,000 i n S e p t e m b e r The father stated that, to a l t h o u g h he 8 had previously 2010. owned a 2110001 smaller house i n F l o r e n c e , he t h o u g h t t h a t , as grew o l d e r , t h e y w o u l d n e e d s e p a r a t e The father t e s t i f i e d t o buy the t h a t , when he rooms and had C o u n t y , and had he planned stated that to the t h e y m o v e d , i t w o u l d n o t be purchased the lake telephone conversation in Arizona. t h a t he was had any move away m o t h e r had t h a t the replied mother acknowledged t h a t that he The mother i n f o r m e d him he a considering m o t h e r , the in a father stated the stepmother on t h e l a k e house f o r retirement causing the informed her t h a t he was c o u l d , he able a p r o b l e m f o r them." f a t h e r had t h e same t e l e p h o n e c o n v e r s a t i o n so that, i f t h r e e months a f t e r s t e p f a t h e r was to the savings t h a t was and Lauderdale c u r r e n t h o u s i n g m a r k e t , " t h e y were n o t i t ... , and Georgia from o p p o s e d t o t h e move b e c a u s e he and and, w i t h the to whether f a r t h e r than H u n t s v i l l e . h o u s e , the According spent t h e i r l i f e sell a l a r g e r yard. been d e c i d i n g f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t i n December 2 0 1 0 , job children t h e l a k e h o u s e , he had a s k e d t h e m o t h e r w h e t h e r she stepfather had the to The during g o i n g t o be m o v i n g t h o u g h t , be close to the children. The for stepfather Intel testified i n Chandler for that four 9 he had previously years but that he had worked left 2110001 Arizona in 2005 education. and returned to Alabama to continue A f t e r r e c e i v i n g a d e g r e e i n management his technology f r o m A t h e n s S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , he b e g a n w o r k i n g f o r a c a m e r a systems c o n t r a c t o r at the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Paper ("IP") p l a n t i n Courtland. recently His been stepfather, days. other The employer's renewed the for 3-year 1 r e n e w a l was year, contract subject employment as since not 2008 b e c a u s e being secure. had to the to being s t e p f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he employment IP according and, with had canceled in 60 been l o o k i n g f o r he viewed He said his that current he had o r i g i n a l l y t h o u g h t t h a t he w o u l d f i n d w o r k a t R e d s t o n e A r s e n a l i n H u n t s v i l l e , but a f t e r s e e i n g t h a t candidates with master's d e g r e e s had b e e n u n s u c c e s s f u l i n o b t a i n i n g employment a t facility, he his submitted documentary evidence d e m o n s t r a t i n g h i s e f f o r t s obtain had employment broadened i n north search. Alabama, which The that stepfather efforts to had been accepted the job at Intel unsuccessful. The s t e p f a t h e r s a i d t h a t he had b e c a u s e t h e s a l a r y and b e n e f i t s were b e t t e r t h a n t h o s e he had i n h i s c u r r e n t p o s i t i o n , he knew t h e w o r k i n g c o n d i t i o n s were good, and he t h o u g h t C h a n d l e r w o u l d be 10 a good p l a c e for the 2110001 m o t h e r and c h i l d r e n t o l i v e . The s t e p f a t h e r s a i d t h a t he the mother had purchased a house Chandler. h o u s e has a swimming p o o l , The i n a nice payment i s l o w e r t h a n t h e amount he paying that, on their house in Killen. a f t e r c o n s u l t i n g an and The neighborhood and rated more favorably B e c a u s e t h e m o t h e r has the stepfather in mortgage the mother had been explained elementary-school r a t i n g s i t e t h e I n t e r n e t , he h a d d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e s c h o o l s were and than those on i n Chandler i n Lauderdale County. a degree i n elementary e d u c a t i o n , the s t e p f a t h e r had a l s o checked w i t h t h e C h a n d l e r U n i f i e d S c h o o l District and discovered that there were teaching positions a v a i l a b l e . The comparison of the crime i n Chandler only i n Lauderdale city rates County elementary-school s t e p f a t h e r h a d a l s o done a that was and F l o r e n c e included c o m p a r i s o n ) ; he d e t e r m i n e d t h a t C h a n d l e r h a d a h i g h e r property crime but a lower rate of testified that he violent (the in the rate of crime than Florence. The living stepfather i n C h a n d l e r was L a u d e r d a l e County. salary no h i g h e r thought than the cost the cost of of l i v i n g in He s a i d t h a t he h a d b e e n e a r n i n g an a n n u a l o f $54,374 i n A l a b a m a . The 11 stepfather's b a s e pay in 2110001 Arizona i s $56,400. health insurance be eligible and a r e t i r e m e n t - s a v i n g s f o r bonuses, s t o c k o p t i o n s , sabbatical concluded I n a d d i t i o n , he s a i d , I n t e l o f f e r e d good a f t e r seven years that of stepfather's cost-of-living evidence 25.3% higher The that is she w o u l d c a r e the house from A l b a n y testified because a wanted the c h i l d she was nurse. custody a matter of law," 2 She of the t h e week a t would drive She the r e l o c a t i o n expecting t o have a siblings. At the c l o s e of a l l the evidence, as County. on t h e w e e k e n d s . opposed the i n Chandler i s i n Lauderdale awarded annual documentary i n R o g e r s v i l l e , and t h e f a t h e r r e l a t i o n s h i p with h i s or her h a l f judgment with f o r the c h i l d r e n during she a n d t h e f a t h e r to countered pediatric-trauma were stepfather amounted of l i v i n g to Rogersville to v i s i t that they the cost The father testimony i f the father children lake The than the cost of l i v i n g stepmother testified package $75,000. i n d i c a t i n g that a n d a two-month p a i d o f employment. h i s employment compensation p l a n , a n d he w o u l d t h e f a t h e r moved f o r " a arguing that the mother's B e c a u s e t h i s a c t i o n was t r i e d b e f o r e t h e c o u r t w i t h o u t a j u r y , t h e m o t i o n i s p r o p e r l y c o n s i d e r e d one f o r a j u d g m e n t on p a r t i a l f i n d i n g s , p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 2 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. 2 12 2110001 c o u n t e r p e t i t i o n and amended c o u n t e r p e t i t i o n t o r e l o c a t e were i n s u f f i c i e n t u n d e r F l o r i d a l a w b e c a u s e t h e y were n o t as r e q u i r e d by § 6 1 . 1 3 0 0 1 ( 3 ) ( a ) , F l a . S t a t . Ann. mother f i l e d a response i n o p p o s i t i o n t o the arguing that the father had waived verified, (2009). 3 The father's motion, the verification r e q u i r e m e n t o f § 6 1 . 1 3 0 0 1 ( 3 ) ( a ) by f a i l i n g t o r a i s e i t , either in at a responsive close of her pleading to her counterpetition evidentiary presentation at trial. or The the trial c o u r t d e n i e d the f a t h e r ' s motion w i t h o u t s t a t i n g the b a s i s f o r its decision. See L o g g i n s 1999) . v. Robinson, 738 So. 2d 1268 (Ala. Civ. App. As discussed infra, the s u b s t a n t i v e law o f F l o r i d a a p p l i e s i n t h i s case. Moreover, the p a r t i e s agree t h a t the s u b s t a n t i v e law o f F l o r i d a , s p e c i f i c a l l y § 61.13001, F l a . S t a t . Ann., t h e F l o r i d a p a r e n t a l - r e l o c a t i o n s t a t u t e , a p p l i e s i n t h i s case. I n t h e i r b r i e f s , t h e p a r t i e s have c i t e d and quoted the c u r r e n t v e r s i o n o f § 61.13001, w h i c h became e f f e c t i v e on O c t o b e r 1, 2009, and w h i c h s p e c i f i c a l l y p r o v i d e s i n § 6 1 . 1 3 0 0 1 ( 1 1 ) ( a ) 1 . t h a t " [ t ] h i s s e c t i o n ... a p p l i e s [ t ] o o r d e r s e n t e r e d b e f o r e O c t o b e r 1, 2009, i f t h e e x i s t i n g o r d e r d e f i n i n g custody, p r i m a r y r e s i d e n c e , the p a r e n t i n g p l a n , t i m e ¬ s h a r i n g , o r a c c e s s t o o r w i t h t h e c h i l d does n o t e x p r e s s l y g o v e r n t h e r e l o c a t i o n o f t h e c h i l d . " See A.F. v. R.P.B., [No. 2D10-4211, Nov. 4, 2011] So. 3d ( F l a . D i s t . C t . App. 2011) ( h o l d i n g t h a t c u r r e n t v e r s i o n o f § 61.13001 a p p l i e d i n a c t i o n i n i t i a t e d by p e t i t i o n r e g a r d i n g r e l o c a t i o n f i l e d on November 10, 2 0 0 9 ) . See a l s o n o t e 5, i n f r a . 3 13 2110001 On August denying the determining with 15, 2011, father's (a) a l l the that the trial court petition the notice to m o t h e r had entered modify a judgment custody s u b s t a n t i a l l y complied requirements regarding the r e l o c a t i o n o f t h e m i n o r c h i l d r e n ; (b) t h a t i t was proposed i n the i n t e r e s t of the minor c h i l d r e n t h a t the mother c o n t i n u e primary residential parent and be children to Chandler, A r i z o n a ; (c) children w o u l d be as and allowed that a g r e e d upon by the relocate to as the visitation the best with p a r t i e s or, in e v e n t t h a t t h e p a r t i e s c o u l d n o t a g r e e as t o v i s i t a t i o n , the parties would abide by parenting agreement i n c l u d e d and that the (d) " a l l other provisions of the the that shared- i n the judgment of d i s s o l u t i o n ; terms of the final judgment d i s s o l u t i o n o f m a r r i a g e ... t h a t a r e n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y h e r e i n s h a l l remain i n f u l l the f o r c e and effect." of modified Following the d e n i a l of h i s postjudgment motion, the f a t h e r t i m e l y appealed. Standard of As we note herein, j u d g m e n t i s g o v e r n e d by Alabama. procedural However, our the review of substantive standards i n n a t u r e and Review of law trial of appellate t h e law o f t h e 14 the court's Florida, not review are forum c o n t r o l s . See, 2110001 e.g., 438 G a s p e r i n i v. C e n t e r f o r H u m a n i t i e s , I n c . , 518 U.S. 415, (1996) district (holding court protecting must against Olson, in a apply from that f e d e r a l standard 486 P.2d 48, 52-53 diversity the an e x c e s s i v e damages, b u t a p p e a l traditional that state jury a federal substantive award decision Accord 1970); rule o f compensatory i s governed of review). (Alaska case by t h e M a x w e l l v. Schlessinger v. H o l l a n d A m e r i c a , N.V., 120 C a l . App. 4 t h 552, 558 n.3, 16 C a l . R p t r . 3d 5, 10 n.3 ( 2 0 0 4 ) ; a n d M i l s t e a d v. Diamond M O f f s h o r e , I n c . , 676 So. 2d 89, 96 ( L a . 1996) . (Second) of C o n f l i c t o f Laws (listing "proceedings on review by § appeal [a] j u d g m e n t " as p r o c e d u r a l See g e n e r a l l y R e s t a t e m e n t 127, Comment and o t h e r a.9. (1971) proceedings to matters t h a t are governed t h e law o f the forum). F l o r i d a s u b s t a n t i v e law concerning p a r e n t a l r e l o c a t i o n i s f o u n d i n § 61.13001, F l a . S t a t . A n n . ( 2 0 0 6 ) , and t h e F l o r i d a decisions interpreting that statute. "In t h e case of a contested r e l o c a t i o n , the [Florida] Legislature has stated that '[n]o presumption shall arise in favor of or against a request t o r e l o c a t e with the child when a p r i m a r y r e s i d e n t i a l p a r e n t s e e k s t o move t h e c h i l d a n d t h e move will materially affect the current schedule of contact, access, and time-sharing with the nonrelocating parent or 15 2110001 other person.' § 61.13001(7), F l a . S t a t . I n s t e a d , s e c t i o n 61.13001(8) s t a t e s : (2006). "' The i n i t i a l b u r d e n i s on t h e p a r e n t o r p e r s o n w i s h i n g t o r e l o c a t e t o p r o v e by a preponderance of the evidence that r e l o c a t i o n i s i n the b e s t i n t e r e s t of the child. I f t h a t b u r d e n o f p r o o f i s met, the burden s h i f t s to the n o n r e l o c a t i n g p a r e n t o r o t h e r p e r s o n t o show by a p r e p o n d e r a n c e of the evidence that the proposed r e l o c a t i o n i s not i n the b e s t i n t e r e s t of the c h i l d . ' " I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e b u r d e n t h a t t h e p a r t i e s must meet, [§ 61.13001(7)(a)-(k)] outlines several f a c t o r s a t r i a l c o u r t must c o n s i d e r b e f o r e reaching a d e c i s i o n on a p a r e n t ' s r e q u e s t f o r p e r m a n e n t relocation." Arthur v. A r t h u r , 54 So. 3d 454, 456 ( F l a . 2010). "[Alabama's Parent-Child Relationship P r o t e c t i o n ] A c t does n o t r e q u i r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o make s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s o f f a c t i n i t s j u d g m e n t , see C l e m e n t s v. C l e m e n t s , 906 So. 2d 952, 957 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 5 ) , and, i n t h e a b s e n c e o f s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s o f f a c t , ' " t h i s c o u r t must assume t h a t t h e trial 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 i t s j u d g m e n t . " ' I d . ( q u o t i n g S t e e d v. S t e e d , 877 So. 2d 602, 603 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003))." P e p p e r v. Pepper, A c c o r d C e c e m s k i v. Dist. that Ct. the 65 So. 3d 421, 426 ( A l a . C i v . App. 954 So. 2d Cecemski, App. 2007) (holding that trial court considered the the record statutory c o n s i d e r i n g a request f o r r e l o c a t i o n but 16 1227, 2010) . 1228-29 must (Fla. reflect factors t h a t the t r i a l when court 2110001 is not required to make specific findings regarding the factors). "[W]here a t r i a l c o u r t r e c e i v e s ore tenus e v i d e n c e , i t s judgment b a s e d on t h a t e v i d e n c e i s e n t i t l e d t o a presumption of correctness. See Scholl v. P a r s o n s , [655 So. 2d 1060 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1995)]. 'The p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s i s b a s e d i n p a r t on the t r i a l c o u r t ' s unique a b i l i t y to observe the p a r t i e s and t h e w i t n e s s e s and t o e v a l u a t e their c r e d i b i l i t y and demeanor.' L i t t l e t o n v. L i t t l e t o n , 741 So. 2d 1083, 1085 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 9 ) . This c o u r t i s n o t p e r m i t t e d t o r e w e i g h t h e e v i d e n c e on a p p e a l and t o s u b s t i t u t e i t s judgment f o r t h a t o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t . Somers v. McCoy, 777 So. 2d 141 (Ala. C i v . App. 2 0 0 0 ) ; see a l s o Ex p a r t e P e r k i n s , 646 So. 2d 46 ( A l a . 1994) C l e m e n t s v. C l e m e n t s , 906 So. 952, A c c o r d W r a i g h t v. W r a i g h t , 71 So. App. 2011) reweigh (stating the that evidence a 959 ( A l a . C i v . App. 3d 139, 142 ( F l a . D i s t . Ct. Florida appellate considered by the 2005) . court trial "cannot court. [A r e v i e w i n g c o u r t ] can o n l y d e c i d e w h e t h e r s u b s t a n t i a l c o m p e t e n t evidence e x i s t s to support the trial court's decision."). Discussion I. Citing Raulerson D i s t . C t . App. erred in v. 2011), the permitting the Wright, 60 So. 3d 487, f a t h e r argues t h a t the mother's relocation 490 (Fla. trial court because c o u n t e r p e t i t i o n and amended c o u n t e r p e t i t i o n were n o t 17 her verified 2110001 at the time of f i l i n g , with the threshold Ann.,] court." of properly Section thereby, requirement filing he s a y s , [of § a sworn 61.13001 p r o v i d e s , "fail[ing] 61.13001, petition t o comply F l a . Stat. with the t r i a l i n pertinent part: "(3) P e t i t i o n t o r e l o c a t e . - - U n l e s s an a g r e e m e n t has b e e n e n t e r e d as d e s c r i b e d i n s u b s e c t i o n ( 2 ) , a p a r e n t o r o t h e r p e r s o n s e e k i n g r e l o c a t i o n must f i l e a p e t i t i o n t o r e l o c a t e a n d s e r v e i t upon t h e o t h e r p a r e n t , and e v e r y o t h e r p e r s o n e n t i t l e d t o access t o o r t i m e - s h a r i n g w i t h t h e c h i l d . The p l e a d i n g s must be i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h i s s e c t i o n : "(a) The p e t i t i o n t o r e l o c a t e must be s i g n e d under oath o r a f f i r m a t i o n under p e n a l t y o f p e r j u r y and i n c l u d e : "1. A d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e location of the intended new residence, i n c l u d i n g the state, city, and specific physical a d d r e s s , i f known. "2. The m a i l i n g a d d r e s s o f t h e i n t e n d e d new r e s i d e n c e , i f not t h e same as t h e p h y s i c a l a d d r e s s , i f known. "3. The home telephone number of the intended new r e s i d e n c e , i f known. "4. The d a t e o f t h e i n t e n d e d move o r p r o p o s e d r e l o c a t i o n . "5. A d e t a i l e d s t a t e m e n t o f the specific reasons f o r the p r o p o s e d r e l o c a t i o n . I f one o f t h e r e a s o n s i s b a s e d upon a j o b 18 2110001 o f f e r t h a t has b e e n r e d u c e d t o w r i t i n g , the w r i t t e n job o f f e r must be a t t a c h e d t o t h e p e t i t i o n . "6. A proposal f o r the r e v i s e d p o s t r e l o c a t i o n schedule for access and time-sharing together with a proposal f o rthe postrelocation transportation arrangements necessary to effectuate time-sharing with the c h i l d . Absent the e x i s t e n c e of a current, valid order abating, terminating, or restricting access or time-sharing or other good cause predating the p e t i t i o n , f a i l u r e t o comply w i t h this provision renders the petition to relocate legally insufficient. "7. Substantially the following statement, in a l l c a p i t a l l e t t e r s a n d i n t h e same s i z e t y p e , o r l a r g e r , as t h e t y p e i n the remainder of the p e t i t i o n : "'A RESPONSE TO THE PETITION OBJECTING TO RELOCATION MUST BE MADE IN WRITING, F I L E D WITH THE COURT, AND SERVED ON THE PARENT OR OTHER PERSON SEEKING TO RELOCATE WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER SERVICE OF THIS PETITION TO RELOCATE. I F YOU F A I L TO TIMELY O B JE C T TO THE RELOCATION, THE RELOCATION WILL BE ALLOWED, UNLESS IT I S 19 2110001 NOT IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD, WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE AND WI T H O U T A HEARING.'" (Emphasis added.) In R a u l e r s o n , t h e p a r t i e s were s c h e d u l e d child-support-modification hearing, the intended to mother, 10 mother orally relocate with days after she enjoin r e l o c a t e d the the complied The notified the the f a t h e r an u n s w o r n " N o t i c e and hearing. hearing, father minor of I n t e n t to R e l o c a t e arguing with § 61.13001(3)(a). before she child. The to With the Child," The that a the that hand-delivered f o l l o w i n g day. relocation, day the parties' to appear at f a t h e r moved the mother had to not At a subsequent h e a r i n g , the m o t h e r a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t she d i d n o t have a w r i t t e n a g r e e m e n t w i t h the f a t h e r t o r e l o c a t e , nor had r e l o c a t e and court granted received court approval the f i n d i n g t h a t she requirements. judgment, mother had The she filed a petition to relocate. temporary permission " s u b s t a n t i a l l y complied" Florida appellate court to The trial relocate, with statutory reversed stating: " S e c t i o n 61.13001 d e l i n e a t e s t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s a primary residential parent must follow before 20 to that 2110001 r e l o c a t i n g w i t h a m i n o r c h i l d who i s t h e s u b j e c t o f an order determining the child's time-sharing, r e s i d e n t i a l care, k i n s h i p , or custody. Unless t h e r e i s a v a l i d agreement t o the c h i l d ' s r e l o c a t i o n under s e c t i o n 61.13001(2), the p r i m a r y r e s i d e n t i a l p a r e n t must f i l e a petition to r e l o c a t e and receive p e r m i s s i o n f r o m t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t t o r e l o c a t e . See § 6 1 . 1 3 0 0 1 ( 3 ) . T h i s p e t i t i o n must be f i l e d u n d e r oath, c o n t a i n seven s p e c i f i c items of i n f o r m a t i o n , and be s e r v e d on e v e r y o t h e r p e r s o n e n t i t l e d t o access or time-sharing with the child. § 61.13001(3). " The M o t h e r ' s e f f o r t s i n t h i s c a s e were i n a d e q u a t e b e c a u s e she f a i l e d t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e t h r e s h o l d r e q u i r e m e n t o f p r o p e r l y f i l i n g a sworn p e t i t i o n w i t h the t r i a l court. ... Rather, she merely hand-delivered to the Father an unsworn ' N o t i c e o f I n t e n t t o R e l o c a t e W i t h C h i l d ' one day b e f o r e r e l o c a t i n g . The M o t h e r d i d n o t f i l e any f o r m of documentation with the court, despite the statute's explicit directive to file a sworn petition. Thus, she failed t o comply w i t h the s t a t u t e and s h o u l d n o t have b e e n g r a n t e d p e r m i s s i o n to r e l o c a t e . " 60 So. 3d a t 489-90 It is Raulerson evident that (emphasis added). from a review Florida's of 61.13001(3)(a) parental-relocation and statute e s t a b l i s h e s a p r o c e d u r a l mechanism f o r l i t i g a t i n g t h e i s s u e o f a proposed change in the location of a child's primary r e s i d e n c e t h a t i s d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h e p r o c e d u r a l mechanism s e t out i n Alabama's P a r e n t - C h i l d R e l a t i o n s h i p P r o t e c t i o n A c t , 21 § 2110001 30-3-160 et s e q . , A l a . Code custodial parent there a is may 1975. not r e l o c a t e written agreement Under with Florida a child reflecting unless consent access to or time-sharing with the child," o r (b) t h e p a r e n t p r o p o s i n g t o r e l o c a t e a court in relocation. p a r e n t may In and contrast, receives under relocate with a child court Alabama approval law, the entitled 61.13001(2)(a), petition a a (a) to r e l o c a t i o n b y " [ t ] h e p a r e n t s and e v e r y o t h e r p e r s o n to law, of § files the custodial a f t e r p r o v i d i n g the n o t i c e r e q u i r e d by §§ 30-3-163 o r 30-3-164 and § 30-3-165, A l a . Code 1975, " u n l e s s a p e r s o n e n t i t l e d t o n o t i c e f i l e s seeking a temporary a proceeding o r p e r m a n e n t o r d e r t o p r e v e n t t h e change of p r i n c i p a l r e s i d e n c e o f a c h i l d w i t h i n 30 d a y s a f t e r of s u c h n o t i c e . " § 30-3-169, A l a . Code 1975. 1 6 9 . 1 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975 receipt See a l s o § 30-3- ("A p e r s o n e n t i t l e d t o c u s t o d y o f o r v i s i t a t i o n w i t h a c h i l d may commence a p r o c e e d i n g o b j e c t i n g t o a proposed seek a change o f t h e p r i n c i p a l temporary relocation."). or permanent residence of a c h i l d order to prevent and the A l t h o u g h the s u b s t a n t i v e law c o n t a i n e d i n the F l o r i d a and A l a b a m a p a r e n t a l - r e l o c a t i o n s t a t u t e s i s s i m i l a r i n 22 2110001 many respects, substantive the procedural remedies for enforcing the law are d i f f e r e n t . In t h e p r e s e n t case, t h e p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t e d t h a t F l o r i d a substantive law a p p l i e d t o the i s s u e s b e f o r e is principles. I n E t h e r e d g e v. G e n i e I n d u s t r i e s , I n c . , 632 So. 1324 will the (Ala. apply accepted 1 9 9 4 ) , o u r supreme c o u r t litigation, but w i l l "procedural" aspects rely of Eugene F. S c o l e s choice-of-law stated that f o r e i g n law o n l y t o the extent substance of the case, (quoting with That stipulation 2d consistent the court. "'a that i t deals court with i . e . , a f f e c t s t h e outcome o f t h e on the forum law to deal litigation.'" & Peter Hay, with Id. at Conflict the 1326 o f Laws 57 (1992)). The manner parent's a b i l i t y is inherently Restatement i n which litigation concerning a custodial to r e l o c a t e with a c h i l d i s brought t o court procedural rather than substantive. (Second) o f C o n f l i c t o f Laws § 122: "A c o u r t u s u a l l y a p p l i e s i t s own l o c a l l a w r u l e s p r e s c r i b i n g how l i t i g a t i o n s h a l l be c o n d u c t e d e v e n when i t a p p l i e s t h e l o c a l l a w r u l e s o f a n o t h e r s t a t e to resolve other issues i n the case. "Comment: "a. R a t i o n a l e . Each s t a t e has l o c a l law r u l e s p r e s c r i b i n g t h e p r o c e d u r e by w h i c h c o n t r o v e r s i e s a r e 23 See 2110001 b r o u g h t i n t o i t s c o u r t s and by w h i c h t h e t r i a l o f t h e s e c o n t r o v e r s i e s i s c o n d u c t e d . These r u l e s f o r c o n d u c t i n g l a w s u i t s and a d m i n i s t e r i n g t h e c o u r t s ' p r o c e s s e s v a r y f r o m s t a t e t o s t a t e . The f o r u m h a s compelling r e a s o n s f o r a p p l y i n g i t s own r u l e s t o d e c i d e such i s s u e s even i f t h e case has f o r e i g n c o n t a c t s and e v e n i f many i s s u e s i n t h e c a s e w i l l be d e c i d e d by r e f e r e n c e t o t h e l o c a l l a w o f a n o t h e r s t a t e . The f o r u m i s more c o n c e r n e d w i t h how i t s j u d i c i a l machinery f u n c t i o n s and how i t s c o u r t p r o c e s s e s a r e a d m i n i s t e r e d t h a n i s any o t h e r s t a t e . Also, i n matters of j u d i c i a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , i t w o u l d o f t e n be d i s r u p t i v e o r d i f f i c u l t f o r t h e f o r u m t o a p p l y t h e l o c a l l a w r u l e s o f a n o t h e r s t a t e . The difficulties i n v o l v e d i n d o i n g s o w o u l d n o t be r e p a i d by a f u r t h e r a n c e of the values that the a p p l i c a t i o n of another s t a t e ' s l o c a l law i s designed to promote. " P a r t i e s do n o t u s u a l l y g i v e t h o u g h t t o m a t t e r s of j u d i c i a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n b e f o r e they e n t e r i n t o legal transactions. They do n o t u s u a l l y place r e l i a n c e on t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f t h e r u l e s o f a p a r t i c u l a r s t a t e t o issues t h a t would a r i s e only i f l i t i g a t i o n s h o u l d become n e c e s s a r y . A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e parties have no expectations as to such e v e n t u a l i t i e s , a n d t h e r e i s no d a n g e r o f u n f a i r l y d i s a p p o i n t i n g t h e i r hopes b y a p p l y i n g t h e f o r u m ' s r u l e s i n such m a t t e r s . " See also (stating form that i n which involving local Restatement "[t]he (Second) local a proceeding of C o n f l i c t § 124 law o f t h e forum determines t h e may be instituted f o r e i g n e l e m e n t s " ) a n d § 127 law o f t h e forum o f Laws governs rules conduct of proceedings i n c o u r t " ) . 24 (stating on that of pleading a claim "[t]he and t h e 2110001 In the to mother present file responsibility case, any fell 169.1. pleading on proposed r e l o c a t i o n . Alabama the seeking relocation, to relocate, c o u n t e r p e t i t i o n be The t r i a l in d i d not court; father, require that who burden objected to the of the See A l a . Code 1975, §§ 30-3-169 & 30-3¬ When, i n r e s p o n s e proposed law to the the mother Alabama father's did file law d i d not objection a to her counterpetition require that the verified. c o u r t may have a p p l i e d t h e f o r e g o i n g p r i n c i p l e s sub s i l e n t i o b e c a u s e i t d i d n o t s t a t e t h e b a s i s f o r i t s d e n i a l o f t h e f a t h e r ' s R u l e 5 2 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., m o t i o n t h a t the mother's asserting c o u n t e r p e t i t i o n and amended c o u n t e r p e t i t i o n t o r e l o c a t e were i n s u f f i c i e n t u n d e r F l o r i d a l a w on a c c o u n t o f their being u n v e r i f i e d . mother's contention Nor 4 that d i d i t expressly the verification requirement of raise either in a at the i t , counterpetition or presentation. Instead, § father close the trial the waived had 61.13001(3)(a) responsive address the by failing to to her pleading of her court evidentiary appropriately addressed the i s s u e of the s u f f i c i e n c y of the mother's 4 S e e n o t e 2, s u p r a . 25 notice 2110001 t o t h e f a t h e r -- t h a t i s , t h e c e r t i f i e d l e t t e r o f F e b r u a r y 21, 2011, to relocate with the t r i a l c o u r t r e s o l v e d t h a t i s s u e i n f a v o r of the stating children. The t h a t the mother i n t e n d e d mother, h o l d i n g t h a t the m o t h e r had "substantially complied w i t h a l l n o t i c e requirements r e g a r d i n g the proposed r e l o c a t i o n of the minor c h i l d r e n . " On appeal, the f a t h e r c h a l l e n g e s s u f f i c i e n c y o f t h e m o t h e r ' s n o t i c e i n o n l y one i t was respect: the that u n v e r i f i e d . A l a b a m a l a w does n o t r e q u i r e t h a t a n o t i c e o f i n t e n t t o r e l o c a t e be verified. See § 30-3-165. II. The f a t h e r next argues that the trial court failed to c o n s i d e r a l l the r e l e v a n t f a c t o r s s e t out i n § 6 1 . 1 3 0 0 1 ( 7 ) ( a ) ( k ) , F l a . S t a t . Ann., be p e r m i t t e d . The to determine whether a r e l o c a t i o n should Florida statute provides: "(7) No presumption; f a c t o r s to determine c o n t e s t e d r e l o c a t i o n . - - A presumption i n f a v o r of or a g a i n s t a r e q u e s t t o r e l o c a t e w i t h t h e c h i l d does not a r i s e i f a parent or other person seeks t o r e l o c a t e and t h e move w i l l m a t e r i a l l y a f f e c t t h e current schedule of contact, access, and t i m e - s h a r i n g w i t h the n o n r e l o c a t i n g parent or o t h e r person. In reaching i t s decision regarding a p r o p o s e d temporary or permanent r e l o c a t i o n , the c o u r t s h a l l e v a l u a t e a l l of the f o l l o w i n g : " ( a ) The n a t u r e , q u a l i t y , e x t e n t o f involvement, and d u r a t i o n o f t h e c h i l d ' s relationship with the parent or other 26 2110001 person p r o p o s i n g to r e l o c a t e w i t h the c h i l d and w i t h t h e n o n r e l o c a t i n g p a r e n t , other p e r s o n s , s i b l i n g s , h a l f - s i b l i n g s , and o t h e r s i g n i f i c a n t persons i n the c h i l d ' s l i f e . "(b) The age and d e v e l o p m e n t a l s t a g e o f t h e c h i l d , t h e n e e d s o f t h e c h i l d , and he t h e l i k e l y i m p a c t t h e r e l o c a t i o n w i l l have on t h e c h i l d ' s p h y s i c a l , e d u c a t i o n a l , and emotional development, taking into c o n s i d e r a t i o n any s p e c i a l needs o f the child. " ( c ) The f e a s i b i l i t y o f p r e s e r v i n g t h e relationship between the nonrelocating parent or other p e r s o n and the child through s u b s t i t u t e arrangements t h a t take into consideration the logistics of c o n t a c t , a c c e s s , and t i m e - s h a r i n g , as w e l l as the financial circumstances of the parties; whether those factors are sufficient to foster a continuing m e a n i n g f u l r e l a t i o n s h i p between the c h i l d and the nonrelocating parent or other p e r s o n ; and t h e l i k e l i h o o d o f c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e s u b s t i t u t e a r r a n g e m e n t s by the r e l o c a t i n g p a r e n t o r o t h e r p e r s o n once he o r she i s o u t o f t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e court. "(d) The c h i l d ' s p r e f e r e n c e , taking i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e age and m a t u r i t y o f the c h i l d . "(e) Whether the relocation will enhance the g e n e r a l q u a l i t y of l i f e f o r both the parent or other person s e e k i n g the r e l o c a t i o n and t h e c h i l d , i n c l u d i n g , b u t not l i m i t e d t o , f i n a n c i a l or emotional b e n e f i t s or e d u c a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s . 27 2110001 " ( f ) The r e a s o n s e a c h p a r e n t o r o t h e r person is seeking or opposing the relocation. "(g) The current employment and economic c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f each p a r e n t or other person and w h e t h e r t h e proposed relocation i s n e c e s s a r y t o improve the economic c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f the p a r e n t or other person seeking r e l o c a t i o n of the child. "(h) T h a t t h e r e l o c a t i o n i s s o u g h t i n good f a i t h and t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h t h e o b j e c t i n g p a r e n t has f u l f i l l e d h i s o r h e r financial obligations to the parent or other person seeking r e l o c a t i o n , i n c l u d i n g c h i l d s u p p o r t , s p o u s a l s u p p o r t , and m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y and m a r i t a l d e b t o b l i g a t i o n s . "(i) The career and other o p p o r t u n i t i e s a v a i l a b l e to the objecting parent or other person i f the r e l o c a t i o n occurs. " ( j ) A h i s t o r y o f s u b s t a n c e abuse o r d o m e s t i c v i o l e n c e as d e f i n e d i n [§] 741.28 or which meets the c r i t e r i a of [§] 39.806(1)(d) by e i t h e r p a r e n t , i n c l u d i n g a consideration of the s e v e r i t y of such c o n d u c t and t h e f a i l u r e o r s u c c e s s o f any attempts a t r e h a b i l i t a t i o n . " ( k ) Any o t h e r f a c t o r best i n t e r e s t of the c h i l d The record reflects that the affecting " parties c o n c e r n i n g most o f t h e F l o r i d a s t a t u t o r y no direct evidence concerning 28 factor the submitted evidence factors. T h e r e was (d), the children's 2110001 p r e f e r e n c e w i t h r e s p e c t to the proposed r e l o c a t i o n . t h e r e was or no e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t e i t h e r d o m e s t i c v i o l e n c e e x i s t e d , so f a c t o r As t o f a c t o r sought ( h ) , i t was the r e l o c a t i o n fulfilled i n good f a i t h factor ( i ) , t h e f a t h e r , who Corps in indicating career and that sometimes factors -- The years, trial evidence other person i s seeking or f a t h e r contends With cause to forgo heard concerning the ( g ) . On evidence remaining appeal, (c) and ( f ) . ( f ) ("The reasons opposing the each p a r e n t or relocation."), savings to purchase upon the claimed. the fact Rather, that the 29 he had a $447,000 l a k e house i n a n t i c i p a t i o n of the c h i l d r e n ' s remaining i n Lauderdale based the t h a t h i s o p p o s i t i o n to the r e l o c a t i o n i s not spent t h e i r l i f e the mother any extensive, p r i n c i p a l l y b a s e d upon t h e f a c t t h a t he and t h e s t e p m o t h e r as had Marine no him had respect to presented ( a ) , ( b ) , ( c ) , ( e ) , ( f ) , and respect to factor t h a t the f a t h e r court f a t h e r ' s a r g u m e n t f o c u s e s on f a c t o r s With and obligations. the r e l o c a t i o n would conflicting, abuse (j) i s not a p p l i c a b l e . e x p e c t s t o r e t i r e from the one-half opportunities. substance u n d i s p u t e d b o t h t h a t the mother a l l of h i s support two Likewise, County, says, h i s opposition relocation will alter is the 2110001 frequency and children. q u a l i t y of On the time that d i r e c t e x a m i n a t i o n by he spends w i t h his counsel, the the father testified: "Q. Okay. Mr. B a t e s , i s t h i s w h o l e move a m a t t e r o f y o u [ r ] n o t w a n t i n g t o s p e n d t h e money on v i s i t a t i o n ? "A. No. I t ' s f a r l e s s a b o u t money and more a b o u t t h e t i m e o f f . I t ' s a 3 1 - h o u r d r i v e t o A r i z o n a o r an a l l - d a y f l y i n g e v e n t , and when I g e t t h e r e , [I w o u l d ] have t o s t a y i n a h o t e l . I d o n ' t want my k i d s t o remember g r o w i n g up i n a h o t e l w i t h t h e i r f a t h e r . I w o u l d r a t h e r them s p e n d t i m e h e r e a t t h e home t h e y know. I can d r i v e [ f r o m A l b a n y t o K i l l e n ] on a F r i d a y n i g h t , l e a v e on a Sunday, and s t i l l have t h e weekend and be h e r e w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e . I t ' s n o t so much a m a t t e r o f money. I t ' s a b o u t t h e t i m e and q u a l i t y o f v i s i t a t i o n . " Paraphrasing the p e r t i n e n t p o r t i o n s of f a c t o r ( c ) , the maintains that " [ i t i s not] [frequency and q u a l i t y of the] and into the feasib[le] [to] father preserv[e] r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n [him] c h i l d [ r e n ] through s u b s t i t u t e arrangements t h a t consideration the the logistics of contact, ... take access, and time-sharing." In App. I n r e B.T.G., 993 2008), a Florida So. 2d appellate frequency-and-quality-of-time 1140, 1143 court argument. (Fla. Dist. answered In that mother r e l o c a t e d w i t h the c h i l d r e n from S a r a s o t a , Seattle, Washington. The trial 30 court a Ct. similar case, the F l o r i d a , to o r d e r e d the mother to 2110001 return the children to Sarasota, l o n g - d i s t a n c e v i s i t a t i o n s c h e d u l e was to preserve Father and the the appellate court close finding 'hopelessly r e l a t i o n s h i p that children." reversed, 993 So. holding 2d at that "any inadequate' e x i s t e d between 1142. The the Florida that "the question of whether substitute visitation arrangements are adequate t o foster a continuing meaningful r e l a t i o n s h i p between the c h i l d and the n o n r e l o c a t i n g parent is 'not whether the same d e g r e e o f frequent and c o n t i n u i n g contact would be maintained.' W i l s o n v. W i l s o n , 827 So. 2d 401, 403 ( F l a . [ D i s t . C t . App.] 2002) ( c o n s t r u i n g section 61.13(2) ( d ) , t h e prior version of the current parental relocation statute). Instead, the [5] The o r i g i n a l p a r e n t a l - r e l o c a t i o n s t a t u t e adopted i n F l o r i d a was f o r m e r l y f o u n d a t § 6 1 . 1 3 ( 2 ) ( d ) , F l a . S t a t . Ann. I t r e q u i r e d c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the f o l l o w i n g f a c t o r s : 5 " 1 . Whether t h e move w o u l d be l i k e l y t o i m p r o v e the g e n e r a l q u a l i t y of l i f e f o r both the r e s i d e n t i a l p a r e n t and t h e c h i l d . "2. The e x t e n t t o w h i c h v i s i t a t i o n b e e n a l l o w e d and e x e r c i s e d . r i g h t s have "3. W h e t h e r t h e p r i m a r y r e s i d e n t i a l p a r e n t , once o u t o f t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n , w i l l be l i k e l y t o c o m p l y w i t h any s u b s t i t u t e v i s i t a t i o n a r r a n g e m e n t s . "4. W h e t h e r t h e s u b s t i t u t e v i s i t a t i o n w i l l be adequate to foster a continuing meaningful 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 s e c o n d a r y r e s i d e n t i a l parent. "5. Whether the cost of t r a n s p o r t a t i o n f i n a n c i a l l y a f f o r d a b l e by one o r b o t h p a r t i e s . 31 is 2110001 proper standard for evaluating the proposed substitute visitation i s whether the s u b s t i t u t e v i s i t a t i o n i s 'sufficient to foster a continuing m e a n i n g f u l 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 nonrelocating parent.' § 61.13001(7)(c), F l a . Stat. Ann. ( 2 0 0 6 ) ; see Fredman v. Fredman, 917 So. 2d 1038, 1041 ( F l a . D i s t . C t . App. 2006) ( c o n s t r u i n g section 61.13(2)(d))." 993 So. 2d indicating incident longer at that 443. he The could to the r e l o c a t i o n . t r a v e l time i n v o l v e d father not presented afford the no evidence travel expenses H i s o b j e c t i o n was b a s e d on t h e (and, t h u s , the shorter duration o f e a c h v i s i t , g i v e n t h e l i m i t a t i o n s o f h i s w o r k s c h e d u l e ) and the "6. Whether t h e move i s i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f child." "The [ F l o r i d a ] l e g i s l a t u r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y amended t h e p a r e n t a l r e l o c a t i o n s t a t u t e and moved i t t o s e c t i o n 61.13001, e f f e c t i v e O c t o b e r 1, 2006." Fredman v. Fredman 960 So. 2d 52, 53 n.1 ( F l a . D i s t . C t . App. 2 0 0 7 ) . The 2006 v e r s i o n o f t h e s t a t u t e a p p l i e d " [ t ] o o r d e r s e n t e r e d b e f o r e O c t o b e r 1, 2006, i f t h e existing order d e f i n i n g custody, primary residence, the parenting plan, time-sharing, or access to or with the c h i l d does n o t e x p r e s s l y g o v e r n t h e r e l o c a t i o n o f t h e c h i l d . " See § 6 1 . 1 3 0 0 1 ( 1 1 ) ( a ) ( 1 ) , F l a . S t a t . Ann. ( 2 0 0 6 ) . See a l s o M u l l e r v. M u l l e r , 964 So. 2d 732, 733 n.1 ( F l a . D i s t . C t . App. 2007) ("The t r i a l j u d g e p r o p e r l y a p p l i e d t h e 2006 v e r s i o n o f t h e r e l o c a t i o n s t a t u t e as s e c t i o n 1 1 ( a ) mandates t h a t t h i s v e r s i o n a p p l y ' [ t ] o o r d e r s e n t e r e d b e f o r e O c t o b e r 1, 2006, i f t h e existing order d e f i n i n g custody, primary residence, or v i s i t a t i o n o f o r w i t h t h e c h i l d does n o t e x p r e s s l y g o v e r n r e l o c a t i o n of the c h i l d . ' " ) . S e c t i o n 61.13001 has b e e n amended s e v e r a l t i m e s s i n c e i t s e n a c t m e n t i n 2006. The c u r r e n t v e r s i o n a p p l i e s " [ t ] o o r d e r s e n t e r e d b e f o r e O c t o b e r 1, 2009 See n o t e 3, s u p r a . 32 2110001 the l e s s - t h a n - o p t i m a l s e t t i n g i n which v i s i t a t i o n would o c c u r . Such a l t e r a t i o n s the degree i n the and not by Based on evidence could reasonably fostered the his future for a l l . that the matters the have continuing willing at concluded that to the with children that trial mother, father c o n v e n i e n t and court who children the is agreement. the the affect had in the t o make enjoyable t r i a l c o u r t a l s o c o u l d r e a s o n a b l y have c o n c l u d e d other irrespective than of Returning financial. contact trial, cooperate with q u a l i t y of a p a r e n t - c h i l d mother's however, shared-parenting presented c o n t a c t w i t h the The of relationship physical meaningful parent-child the to reason App. relationship surroundings for ( f ) , the father seeking the (Fla. D i s t . C t . App. that if a continue, A s t e n v. C o s t a , 874 2 0 0 4 ) , and Harris 2 0 0 1 ) , he v. insists relocation 2 0 0 4 ) , B e r r e b b i v. C l a r k e , Ct. and relationship exists i t w i l l factor Dist. i s b a s e d upon setting. C i t i n g Van D i s t . C t . App. the kind parties' father's p a s t , w o u l d be visitation, the contemplated the father's So. 870 Migliore, that was 2d So. 789 the solely 1244 (Fla. 2d 172 (Fla. So. 2d 477 c o n t e n d s t h a t an i m p r o v e m e n t i n r e l o c a t i n g p a r e n t ' s f i n a n c i a l p r o s p e c t s i s not 33 sufficient 2110001 to warrant a r e l o c a t i o n . for the proposition The that c a s e s c i t e d by t h e an parent's f i n a n c i a l prospects improvement in child will suffer nonrelocating from parent. a both Van appellate court affirmed a t r i a l the nonrelocating evidence. The parent Van Asten court relocating sufficient to evidence that the the Asten court's based stand relationship with diminished In the i s n o t , by i t s e l f , w a r r a n t a r e l o c a t i o n when w e i g h e d a g a i n s t father on and Harris, the judgment i n f a v o r conflicting ore of tenus concluded that " [ r ] e l o c a t i o n cases always i n v o l v e a c o n s i d e r a b l e e x e r c i s e of d i s c r e t i o n i n the statutory the w e i g h i n g and [trial] evaluation court ruling discretion, despite the [mother]." 874 In Berrebbi, resulted in a the the trial supported court's by the bounds of that this may pose by the father to that the 1245. only case of cited a judgment a Florida appellate judgment substantial f a c t o r s . Here, within hardship reversal r e l o c a t i n g parent, the was 2d a t So. of permitting evidence. in court favor of the concluded that relocation The was appellate explained: "The M o t h e r ' s s t a t e d g r o u n d f o r r e l o c a t i o n was purposes of better economic opportunities 34 that 'for for not court 2110001 h e r s e l f a n d h e r h u s b a n d . ' The s u b s t i t u t e v i s i t a t i o n schedule significantly alters the Father's visitation from three and one-half days of v i s i t a t i o n e v e r y week t o one weekend p e r month p l u s spring break, five weeks o f summer v a c a t i o n , T h a n k s g i v i n g , and h a l f o f t h e C h r i s t m a s h o l i d a y . "The e v i d e n c e a d d u c e d a t t h e h e a r i n g showed t h a t t h e c h i l d was i n a good s c h o o l a n d d o i n g w e l l , a n d t h e t r i a l c o u r t f o u n d t h e move w o u l d n o t i m p r o v e e i t h e r h e r s c h o o l o r home l i f e . The e v i d e n c e f u r t h e r showed t h a t t h e c h i l d ' s c o u n s e l o r t h o u g h t r e l o c a t i o n w o u l d n o t be i n t h e c h i l d ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t s . The c o u n s e l o r t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e c h i l d and t h e F a t h e r have a v e r y c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p a n d t h a t she was c o n c e r n e d a b o u t t h e i m p a c t i t w o u l d h a v e on t h e c h i l d t o be s e p a r a t e d f r o m t h e F a t h e r . A d d i t i o n 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 t h e c h i l d began h a v i n g p r o b l e m s s l e e p i n g when she l e a r n e d o f t h e p o s s i b l e relocation. T h e r e was no e v i d e n c e presented to c o u n t e r t h e c o u n s e l o r ' s t e s t i m o n y , n o r was t h e r e any e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d t h a t t h e r e l o c a t i o n w o u l d be good f o r t h e c h i l d . Any e v i d e n c e r e g a r d i n g t h e b e n e f i t s of r e l o c a t i o n r e l a t e d t o t h e M o t h e r a n d h e r new husband. " [ F o r m e r §] 6 1 . 1 3 ( 2 ) ( d ) , however, d i r e c t s t h e court to consider the best i n t e r e s t s of the c h i l d , not just the p e t i t i o n i n g parent. Because a l l e v i d e n c e r e g a r d i n g t h e i m p a c t r e l o c a t i o n w o u l d have on t h e c h i l d s u p p o r t s a d e n i a l o f t h e p e t i t i o n , we cannot say t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l competent evidence t o s u p p o r t a f i n d i n g t h a t t h i s move i s i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of the c h i l d . Accordingly, the t r i a l court abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n g r a n t i n g t h e p e t i t i o n f o r r e l o c a t i o n , a n d we r e v e r s e . " [ 6 ] 870 So. 2d a t 173. 6 See note 5, s u p r a . 35 2110001 U n l i k e t h e e v i d e n c e adduced i n B e r r e b b i , t h e t e s t i m o n y o f the mother and s t e p f a t h e r , would support emotionally a finding i f b e l i e v e d by t h e t r i a l that and e d u c a t i o n a l l y the relocation beneficial court, would be to the c h i l d r e n . Aside from t h e b e l i e f t h a t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e c h i l d r e n would be d i m i n i s h e d presented i f they moved to Arizona, the father no 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 r e l o c a t i o n w o u l d be detrimental t o the c h i l d r e n . The t r i a l c o u r t made no s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s o f f a c t ; a c c o r d i n g l y , t h i s c o u r t w i l l assume t h a t t h e trial court "made judgment, u n l e s s those such f i n d i n g s necessary f i n d i n g s w o u l d be c l e a r l y Ex p a r t e B r y o w s k y , 676 So. 2d 1322, a close case, determinations, t o support i t s and, depending erroneous." 1324 ( A l a . 1996) . upon the t r i a l court reasonably i t s credibility c o u l d have r u l e d i n favor of e i t h e r party. " ' I t was w i t h i n t h e p r o v i n c e o f t h e t r i a l court to consider the c r e d i b i l i t y of the w i t n e s s e s , t o draw r e a s o n a b l e inferences from their testimony and from the documentary evidence i n t r o d u c e d a t t r i a l , and to assign such weight t o v a r i o u s a s p e c t s o f t h e e v i d e n c e as i t r e a s o n a b l y may have deemed a p p r o p r i a t e . ... I n o r d e r t o r e v e r s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ... , we w o u l d have to make our own credibility d e t e r m i n a t i o n s a n d we w o u l d have t o r e w e i g h 36 This i s 2110001 the evidence, n e i t h e r a l l o w e d t o do.'" Vestlake 367 Cmtys. P r o p . Owners' of Ass'n which we are v. Moon, 86 So. 3d 359, ( A l a . C i v . App. 2011) ( q u o t i n g M i l l e r v. A s s o c i a t e d Land Corp., Gulf 941 So. 2d 982, 990 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 5 ) ) . B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e j u d g m e n t o f the Lauderdale C i r c u i t C o u r t i s due t o be a f f i r m e d . AFFIRMED. Thomas a n d Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . Thompson, P . J . , c o n c u r s specially. Bryan, J . , concurs i n the r e s u l t , 37 without writing. 2110001 THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g I write specially to specially. reiterate that agreement a t i s s u e i n t h i s m a t t e r p r o v i d e d the f o r the a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e s u b s t a n t i v e law o f t h e S t a t e o f F l o r i d a . determining the propriety a l l o w i n g t h e m o t h e r and has cited opinions analysis. How was of this not of the the law a holding i n this opinion trial Therefore, court's Florida courts, might question should have before not be which been this read A c t , § 30-3-160 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 38 1975. court govern decided court, to apply a r i s i n g under Alabama's P a r e n t - C h i l d R e l a t i o n s h i p in judgment c h i l d r e n to relocate, t h i s matter Alabama the settlement and to our under our cases Protection

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.