Karen Jean Hubbart Baird v. Anthony John Hubbart

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 06/08/2012 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ( ( 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 OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012 2110255 Karen Jean Hubbart Baird v. Anthony John Hubbart Appeal from Baldwin C i r c u i t Court (DR-10-901505.01) THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g In filed November an a c t i o n Judge. 2010, Anthony i n the Baldwin John Hubbart Circuit ("the f a t h e r " ) Court ("the t r i a l c o u r t " ) i n w h i c h he s o u g h t , p u r s u a n t t o § 30-3B-305, A l a . Code 1975, t o r e g i s t e r a J u l y 2006 j u d g m e n t o f t h e S u p e r i o r Court 2110255 o f Coweta C o u n t y , G e o r g i a . had divorced the m o t h e r " ) , had father T h a t J u l y 2006 f o r e i g n j u d g m e n t from Karen Jean Hubbart B a i r d ("the a w a r d e d t h e m o t h e r c u s t o d y o f t h e p a r t i e s ' two m i n o r c h i l d r e n , and had a w a r d e d t h e f a t h e r v i s i t a t i o n w i t h the children. r e f e r to the complaint as action t h e p u r p o s e s o f t h i s o p i n i o n , we initiated " t h e 2010 the For by the action." father f a t h e r ' s November 2010 A l s o i n h i s c o m p l a i n t i n t h e 2010 objected to the mother's plans a n o t h e r s t a t e w i t h t h e c h i l d r e n , and he to relocate On J a n u a r y 27, 2011, to sought a m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e v i s i t a t i o n p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e J u l y 2006 f o r e i g n judgment. action, divorce the t r i a l c o u r t r e g i s t e r e d the G e o r g i a d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t as an A l a b a m a j u d g m e n t . On February tenus hearing hearing, the the mother 22, 2011, i n the trial had 2010 court failed the trial action. issued to court At an comply the oral c o n d u c t e d an conclusion ruling with the ore of that finding that notification p r o v i s i o n s of the Alabama 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 Act ("the Act"), § 30-3-160 et 2 seq., Ala. Code 1975, and 2110255 sustaining the father's change o f p r i n c i p a l residence Three days l a t e r , a purported objection to of the the children. on F e b r u a r y 25, p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , and 2011, she o f t h a t m o t i o n a F e b r u a r y 24, 2011, husband, M i c h a e l M a r c h 1, entered Baird. 2 On a judgment f i n d i n g t h a t mother's proposed 1 the mother filed submitted i n support a f f i d a v i t e x e c u t e d by the 2011, Act the trial her court a p p l i e d to the 2010 a c t i o n and d e n y i n g t h e p r o p o s e d r e l o c a t i o n u n d e r t h a t A c t . that judgment, the trial v i s i t a t i o n with the children. M a r c h 1, On 2011, court also The judgment e n t e r e d February 28, 2011, while modified the mother d i d not i n the the 2010 2010 In father's appeal the action. action was still p e n d i n g i n the t r i a l c o u r t , the mother sent the f a t h e r w r i t t e n c o r r e s p o n d e n c e n o t i f y i n g him of her i n t e n t to relocate to a p a r t i c u l a r a d d r e s s i n H e n d e r s o n , N e v a d 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 . On M a r c h 16, 2011, the father f i l e d The t r i a l c o u r t a l s o a n n o u n c e d i t s i n t e n t i o n t o the v i s i t a t i o n p r o v i s i o n s of the d i v o r c e judgment. 1 another modify A v a l i d p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n may be filed only in r e f e r e n c e t o a f i n a l j u d g m e n t . M a l o n e v. G a i n e y , 726 So. 2d 725, 725 n. 2 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1999). The t r i a l court's F e b r u a r y 22, 2011, o r a l r u l i n g d i d not c o n s t i t u t e a f i n a l judgment. 2 3 2110255 complaint o b j e c t i n g t o t h a t p r o p o s e d change i n t h e c h i l d r e n ' s principal residence; award an of hereinafter attorney complaint, f e e and costs. he a l s o complaint that the t r i a l sought That r e f e r r e d t o as " t h e 2011 a c t i o n . " answered t h e f a t h e r ' s requested i n that action an is The m o t h e r i n t h e 2011 a c t i o n , a n d she court allow the proposed r e l o c a t i o n of t h e c h i l d r e n t o Henderson, Nevada. The course trial court o f two d a y s . entered proposed c o n d u c t e d an o r e t e n u s h e a r i n g On A u g u s t The 15, 2 0 1 1 , t h e t r i a l change of the children's a postjudgment motion, judgment record indicates incorporated principal residence f e e o f $4,957.66. which mother t i m e l y a p p e a l e d t o t h i s The court a j u d g m e n t i n t h e 2011 a c t i o n i n w h i c h i t d e n i e d t h e a w a r d e d t h e f a t h e r an a t t o r n e y filed over the that the t r i a l The m o t h e r court denied. court. the p a r t i e s ' an a g r e e m e n t and 2006 divorce reached by t h e p a r t i e s . P u r s u a n t t o t h a t j u d g m e n t , t h e f a t h e r was a w a r d e d t h e p a r t i e s ' m a r i t a l home, a n d t h e m o t h e r r e c e i v e d t h e i r v a c a t i o n home i n Gulf Shores. S h o r t l y a f t e r t h e d i v o r c e , t h e mother and t h e c h i l d r e n r e l o c a t e d from G e o r g i a t o G u l f Shores t o l i v e i n t h e v a c a t i o n home, a n d t h e y r e m a i n e d i n t h a t home a t t h e t i m e o f 4 2110255 the h e a r i n g i n t h i s matter. child i n O c t o b e r 2006. 2008, a n d he h a s r e s i d e d mother and t h e c h i l d r e n 3 The m o t h e r gave b i r t h t o B a i r d ' s The m o t h e r married i n the Gulf since that Baird i n March S h o r e s home w i t h t h e time. The father has r e s i d e d i n S o u t h C a r o l i n a s i n c e O c t o b e r 2006. B a i r d w o r k s as a m e c h a n i c f o r an a i r l i n e , and, beginning i n 2008, he h a s w o r k e d f o r S o u t h w e s t A i r l i n e s i n L o s A n g e l e s , California. Angeles week. The m o t h e r explained f o r one week a n d t h e n that B a i r d worked returned t o Alabama i n Los f o r one However, i n May 2010, B a i r d a c c e p t e d a p r o m o t i o n t h a t r e q u i r e d t h a t he be a b l e t o commute d a i l y t o L o s A n g e l e s . mother t e s t i f i e d that, i n t h e summer o f 2010, she a n d B a i r d began i n v e s t i g a t i n g m o v i n g t o C a l i f o r n i a from which B a i r d c o u l d The or t o another state commute d a i l y t o a n d f r o m L o s A n g e l e s by a i r p l a n e . The with father t h e mother testified that i n the f a l l during a brief o f 2010, he conversation learned of the T h e m o t h e r h a d r e n t e d t h e G u l f S h o r e s home t o o t h e r s d u r i n g t h e summer o f 2 0 1 1 , a s , she s t a t e d , she h a d done f o r s e v e r a l y e a r s p a s t ; t h e f a m i l y s t a y e d e l s e w h e r e when t h e home was r e n t e d t o o t h e r s . However, i t i s c l e a r t h a t t h e G u l f S h o r e s home was c o n s i d e r e d the p r i n c i p a l residence of the mother and t h e p a r t i e s ' c h i l d r e n . 3 5 2110255 mother's p l a n s that to relocate with t h e c h i l d r e n ; he testified t h e mother i n f o r m e d him she p l a n n e d t o r e l o c a t e t o L a s Vegas. The f a t h e r s t a t e d t h a t i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r l e a r n i n g o f the mother's p l a n s filed t o r e l o c a t e , he c o n s u l t e d t h e 2010 a c t i o n to object t o the planned r e l o c a t i o n . D u r i n g t h e F e b r u a r y 22, 2 0 1 1 , h e a r i n g father presented relocation evidence would make h i s a t t o r n e y and i n t h e 2010 a c t i o n , t h e indicating visitation with that the proposed the children more difficult. Also action, during the February t h e mother t e s t i f i e d t o move " o u t w e s t . " therefore, city o r town testified that i n t h e 2010 t h a t she a n d h e r h u s b a n d w a n t e d However, t h e m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d the time o f t h a t h e a r i n g , and, 22, 2 0 1 1 , h e a r i n g she d i d n o t have a h o u s e " o u t she t e s t i f i e d she w o u l d that, at west," t h a t she d i d n o t know t o w h i c h eventually she was n o t a s k i n g relocate. that The mother s h e be a l l o w e d to r e l o c a t e w i t h t h e c h i l d r e n t o a s p e c i f i c l o c a t i o n a n d t h a t she w a n t e d t o be a b l e t o move anywhere n e a r L o s A n g e l e s . In that follows: of questioning, 4 to line t h e mother 4 testified "[MOTHER'S ATTORNEY] . A r e y o u a s k i n g t h i s C o u r t j u s t g i v e you a c a r t e b l a n c h e , move where y o u 6 The as 2110255 mother testified that she h a d i n v e s t i g a t e d s e v e r a l houses, t h a t e a c h house was i n a d i f f e r e n t s c h o o l s y s t e m , a n d t h a t she had i n v e s t i g a t e d each that those school school system. The m o t h e r testified s y s t e m s were good a n d t h a t t h e y g e n e r a l l y h a d newer s c h o o l s . The m o t h e r m e n t i o n e d b r i e f l y during the F e b r u a r y 2 2 , 2 0 1 1 , h e a r i n g t h a t one o f t h e s c h o o l s y s t e m s she h a d i n v e s t i g a t e d was l o c a t e d i n H e n d e r s o n , Nevada. Six days 2011, o r a l after the t r i a l court made i t s February 22, r u l i n g d e n y i n g t h e p r o p o s e d r e l o c a t i o n a n d change want t o s o r t o f p l a c e ? "A. I d o n ' t know where I c a n f i n d a h o u s e , so i t would b e - - n o y e s . Yes. "Q. A n d as we s i t h e r e t h i s m o r n i n g o f F e b r u a r y 22nd, you a r e n o t a s k i n g t h e C o u r t t o a l l o w you t o move t o L a s V e g a s , Nevada, L o s A n g e l e s , C a l i f o r n i a o r any o t h e r p a r t i c u l a r p l a c e , a r e you? "A. I d o n ' t have a h o u s e , s o I d o n ' t know where I'm g o i n g t o move. "Q. location, "A. But you're a r e you? not asking for a particular Correct. "Q. You want t o j u s t be a b l e t o move you want t o o u t West? "A. Correct." 7 anywhere 2110255 o f p r i n c i p a l r e s i d e n c e o f t h e p a r t i e s ' m i n o r c h i l d r e n , and day before action, the the trial c o u r t e n t e r e d i t s judgment i n the mother, p u r s u a n t to father notified the Nevada. That n o t i f i c a t i o n set address of the and as of her i t i d e n t i f i e d the the that the compliance with the During ore father again intent the Nevada. h o u s e she the The and schools opportunities be family the to February 28, 2011, s u c h as children notice hearing evidence damaged in and the of the 2011 support of It is made Act. action, his the argument his relationship with, the mother p r e s e n t e d s p e c i f i c e v i d e n c e r e g a r d i n g the p u r c h a s e d i n Henderson, Nevada; about children available proposed in to the the would relocation B a i r d had by in the employment was would to the attend; children and about 2011 the p l a n n e d t o move t o m o t h e r knew t h a t she 8 cultural i n Nevada. D u r i n g the h e a r i n g i n the that Henderson, t o Nevada. n o t i f i c a t i o n provisions tenus 1975, i n t e n d e d t o move, parties' proposed r e l o c a t i o n presented would relocate n o t i f i c a t i o n cited Baird's that h i s a b i l i t y to v i s i t with, children to 2010 Code forth information schools The reason f o r the undisputed § 30-3-165, A l a . house i n t o w h i c h the a t t e n d i n Nevada. one action, the father argued Henderson, 2110255 Nevada, a t t h e time o f t h e F e b r u a r y 22, 2011, h e a r i n g i n t h e 2010 a c t i o n b u t t h a t she h a d f a i l e d t o a c k n o w l e d g e t h a t p l a n at that hearing. February The f a t h e r s u b m i t t e d e v i d e n c e , 23, 2011, e - m a i l f r o m t h e m o t h e r t o t h e f a t h e r and Baird's February 24, 2011, a f f i d a v i t , that argument. In her testimony 2011 action, 5 the mother including a denied t h a t tended to support d u r i n g the h e a r i n g i n the that she knew during the F e b r u a r y 22, 2011, h e a r i n g t h a t t h e f a m i l y w o u l d be m o v i n g t o Henderson, Nevada. On a p p e a l , t h e m o t h e r c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e t r i a l in denying children. her request In denying to relocate t h e mother residence of the c h i l d r e n judgment, the material denial change court of the i n i t i a l request with the t o change the i n i t s A u g u s t 15, 2011, determined i n circumstances" Nevada permission principal trial to court erred that between "there the time was no of i t s t o r e l o c a t e and t h e m o t h e r ' s F e b r u a r y 28, 2011, n o t i f i c a t i o n t o t h e f a t h e r o f h e r i n t e n t t o D u r i n g t h e f i r s t day o f t h e h e a r i n g i n t h e 2011 a c t i o n , Baird's February 24, 2011, a f f i d a v i t was admitted into e v i d e n c e w i t h o u t o b j e c t i o n b y t h e m o t h e r ; i t was d e s i g n a t e d as " P l a i n t i f f ' s E x h i b i t 1." 5 9 2110255 r e l o c a t e the c h i l d r e n t o Henderson, Nevada. that i t found "that t h i s i s a successive The c o u r t 6 p e t i t i o n and t h a t t h e [mother] d i d n o t l i k e t h e r e s u l t o f t h e f i r s t t i m e and re-filed." Also, summarizing relocate, had at the close i t s intent the t r i a l concluded that to court of the ore tenus hearing, deny the mother's request failed mother determining t h e c h i l d r e n as a r e q u e s t t o m o d i f y t o d e m o n s t r a t e a change o f t h e most r e c e n t contends that and t h a t t h e i n circumstances judgment. the trial court erred move Daugherty 2008). in t h a t she was r e q u i r e d t o show a m a t e r i a l change i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n t h e 2011 a c t i o n i n o r d e r t o o b t a i n to to s t a t e d t h a t i t b e l i e v e d the mother the e a r l i e r judgment d e n y i n g h e r i n i t i a l r e q u e s t , The in t h a t i t must t r e a t t h e m o t h e r ' s s e c o n d request to relocate with since the entry simply " I d i d n o t g e t i t r i g h t l a s t t i m e so I am g o i n g t o do i t a g a i n , " mother had stated to v. Nevada with the D a u g h e r t y , 993 In that case, children. So. the t r i a l 2d 8, court The 14 permission mother cites ( A l a . C i v . App. entered a judgment The t r i a l c o u r t and t h e p a r t i e s r e f e r r e d t o t h e F e b r u a r y 22, 2011, o r a l r u l i n g as t h e d a t e o f t h e o r i g i n a l j u d g m e n t , a l t h o u g h t h a t j u d g m e n t was n o t a c t u a l l y e n t e r e d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 8 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., u n t i l M a r c h 1, 2011. 6 10 2110255 a u t h o r i z i n g the mother's r e l o c a t i o n w i t h children. The f a t h e r a p p e a l e d , a r g u i n g , the p a r t i e s ' minor among o t h e r things, t h a t t h e m o t h e r was r e q u i r e d t o meet t h e s t a n d a r d set forth i n Ex p a r t e i n order McLendon, relocate. This concluding the 455 that mother So. court 2d 863 rejected § 30-3-169.4, overcome the ( A l a . 1984), the father's argument, A l a . Code 1974, r e q u i r e d presumption that to the that proposed r e l o c a t i o n 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 s and that the that m o t h e r h a d met t h a t burden. The court then s t a t e d " [ t ] h e r e i s no s t a t u t e o r c a s e l a w t h a t r e q u i r e s t h e m o t h e r t o further meet permission at the McLendon to relocate." in order to receive D a u g h e r t y v. D a u g h e r t y , 993 So. 3d 14. In t h i s case, the t r i a l to standard meet the McLendon c o u r t d i d not r e q u i r e the mother standard. Rather, the trial court d e t e r m i n e d t h a t i t had a l r e a d y d e n i e d the mother's r e q u e s t t o relocate as part of i t s judgment i n the 2010 action and, t h e r e f o r e , t h a t , i n t h e 2011 a c t i o n , t h e m o t h e r was s e e k i n g modify that e a r l i e r j u d g m e n t i n t h e 2010 action. The to trial c o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t , i n o r d e r t o m o d i f y i t s e a r l i e r , M a r c h 1, 2011, d e n i a l o f h e r o r i g i n a l r e q u e s t t o r e l o c a t e , the mother 11 2110255 was r e q u i r e d t o d e m o n s t r a t e a m a t e r i a l change i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s s i n c e t h e e n t r y o f t h e most r e c e n t issue of the p r i n c i p a l The Act visitation, divorced. implicates of the c h i l d r e n . governs issues We of agree. custody, o f c h i l d r e n whose p a r e n t s h a v e S u c h i s s u e s a r e a l w a y s s u b j e c t t o m o d i f i c a t i o n upon See, e.g., P.A. ( A l a . C i v . App. contain no custody orders possible indication rather modification petitions."); (Ala. and and t h e r e s i d e n c e a proper p e t i t i o n . 982 residence judgment p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e ("Those that those than earlier orders awards upon and McQuinn C i v . App. 2003) that issue 2011) v. L.S., 78 So. 3d 979, of properly v. M c Q u i n n , custody were p e n d e n t e custody filed 866 a change i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s lite subject to modification So. (An a w a r d o f v i s i t a t i o n " e x c e p t as i t may be s u b j e c t orders 2d 570, i s final as t o to modification " ) . As t h e t r i a l court 575 upon noted, pursuant t o the law p e r t a i n i n g t o the m o d i f i c a t i o n of custody and visitation, demonstrated. award a material See Ex p a r t e of primary physical change i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s McLendon, s u p r a custody, must be ( i n modifying an the party seeking the m o d i f i c a t i o n must d e m o n s t r a t e , i n p a r t , a m a t e r i a l change i n circumstances); Morgan v. M o r g a n , 964 So. 2d 24, 34 ( A l a . C i v . 12 2110255 App. of 2007) ("In cases i n which a parent seeks a a joint-custody material change prior arrangement, of the circumstances parent of the modification must p r o v e parties since involved."'" (Ala. Flanigan 1995) 27, v. (a 2005), quoting 30, 276 So. Flanigan, party 2d 613, 656 must i n turn So. 615 2d 1228, establish 1230 a 54 petition to modify 920 visitation, m o d i f i c a t i o n i s w a r r a n t e d b a s e d on Similarly, we court in of v i s i t a t i o n ) ; and ... 2010) change mother to the i n circumstances j u d g m e n t on trial pursuant court was that issue. erred in required Act since entry Accordingly, determining to that, demonstrate 13 we a a whether circumstances."). seeking must d e m o n s t r a t e the ("On decides to modify j u d g m e n t d e n y i n g a r e q u e s t t o change t h e p r i n c i p a l child App. change changed conclude that a party 50 1973))); (Ala. Civ. ( A l a . C i v . App. a 916 Ponder, material N.T. 3d 918, 2d 913, P o n d e r v. to warrant a m o d i f i c a t i o n So. So. ( A l a . C i v . App. circumstances v. P.G., to and b e s t i n t e r e s t o f t h e c h i l d o r c h i l d r e n ( q u o t i n g W a t t e r s v. W a t t e r s , 918 C i v . App. A l a . App. a the [ j u d g m e n t ] w h i c h change o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s i s s u c h as a f f e c t the w e l f a r e of '"a of the residence a this material material most cannot say in a recent that the case, the change in 2110255 circumstances in t h e 2010 i n order t o m o d i f y t h e M a r c h 1, 2011, action that had d e n i e d her o r i g i n a l judgment request to erred in r e l o c a t e with the c h i l d r e n . The denying based mother also her request argues that the t r i a l to relocate with on t h e e v i d e n c e presented court the p a r t i e s ' c h i l d r e n to i t . In i t s August 15, 2011, j u d g m e n t , t h e t r i a l c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e r e h a d been no m a t e r i a l change i n circumstances j u d g m e n t i n t h e 2010 a c t i o n . in the 2011 determination occurred action, the entry the entry of the At the conclusion of the hearing the trial court by s t a t i n g t h a t t h e o n l y since were t h a t since explained that changes i t found o f t h e judgment i n t h e 2010 t h e m o t h e r and B a i r d h a d c l o s e d t h e s a l e on had action their p u r c h a s e o f a home i n Nevada and t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a d s e n t t h e father a proper, s p e c i f i c n o t i f i c a t i o n of the d e t a i l s of the p r o p o s e d r e l o c a t i o n , as r e q u i r e d by t h e A c t . The mother determining that circumstances. argues there had In making contends i n her b r i e f presented that detailed the been that to this no erred in change in the mother first t h a t she c o u l d n o t h a v e pertaining 14 court material argument, court evidence trial to the proposed 2110255 relocation any sooner because that i n f o r m a t i o n was not a v a i l a b l e t o h e r a t t h e t i m e o f t h e F e b r u a r y 22, 2012, in the that 2010 she support action. presented of her T h e r e f o r e , she at the request hearing contends, in to relocate the the 2011 hearing evidence action demonstrated yet a in material change i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s . However, e v e n a s s u m i n g t h a t t h e m o t h e r d i d n o t know t h e d e t a i l s of her proposed r e l o c a t i o n at the time of the February 22, 2011, h e a r i n g , h e r p u r p o r t e d i n a b i l i t y t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e Act at that t i m e was an issue and argument t h a t c o u l d have b e e n r a i s e d i n a p r o p e r a p p e a l o f t h e M a r c h 1, 2010, i n t h e 2010 action. F i l i n g s u c h an a p p e a l w o u l d have been t h e a p p r o p r i a t e method o f d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l abused judgment i t s discretion in denying the mother's c o u r t had request r e l o c a t e at that time. G l o v e r v. G l o v e r , 730 (Ala. However, t h e m o t h e r f a i l e d t o a p p e a l C i v . App. 1998). t h e j u d g m e n t i n t h e 2010 the h e a r i n g i n the 221 action. The m o t h e r a l s o c o n t e n d s at So. 2d 218, to 2011 t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e she p r e s e n t e d action demonstrated a material change i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s s i n c e t h e e n t r y o f t h e judgment i n t h e 2010 action. The mother argues 15 that she p r e s e n t e d evidence 2110255 i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , a f t e r t h e i n i t i a l F e b r u a r y 22, 2 0 1 1 , h e a r i n g , she learned that the family would be m o v i n g t o Henderson, N e v a d a , a f a c t she s a y s was n o t a v a i l a b l e t o h e r a t t h e t i m e of the o r i g i n a l hearing. Indeed, t h e mother based her e v i d e n c e i n s u p p o r t o f h e r r e q u e s t f o r t h e r e l o c a t i o n on t h e basic a s s e r t i o n that, before had the l a s t court hearing, no k n o w l e d g e o f t h e e x a c t l o c a t i o n o f t h e p r o p o s e d move. However, t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d was d i s p u t e d . the she h a d The e v i d e n c e w o u l d s u p p o r t a c o n c l u s i o n m o t h e r was aware a t t h e t i m e hearing on a p p e a l on t h a t i n t h e 2010 a c t i o n that of the February the o f f e r t o move t o t h a t home. that 22, 2 0 1 1 , f o r t h e home i n Henderson, Nevada, had been a c c e p t e d and t h a t were p l a n n i n g issue she a n d B a i r d I t appears t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t reached t h a t c o n c l u s i o n , because i t s t a t e d a t t h e c l o s e of the hearing i n t h e 2011 a c t i o n that the only changes i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s h a d been t h e c l o s i n g o f t h e s a l e o f t h e h o u s e i n Henderson, Nevada, and t h e mother's n o t i f i c a t i o n provisions of the Act. "So The t r i a l with court the stated: I do n o t t h i n k I have a change o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h a t h a s occurred she compliance h e r e , t h a t t h e s i t u a t i o n i s e s s e n t i a l l y t h e same t h a t j u s t d i d not f i l e t h e document r i g h t t h e f i r s t 16 time and 2110255 was t a k i n g another b i t e appeal, the we cannot trial court demonstrate at the apple." Given the r e c o r d s a y t h a t t h e m o t h e r has erred i n concluding a material that demonstrated she had that failed change i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s s u c h on to that i t s h o u l d m o d i f y i t s e a r l i e r j u d g m e n t d e n y i n g t h e p r o p o s e d change in the c h i l d r e n ' s p r i n c i p a l The awarding mother the also father argues an residence. that attorney the fee. trial court However, f a i l e d t o c i t e t o any a u t h o r i t y i n s u p p o r t o f t h a t erred the in mother argument, and, t h e r e f o r e , she has n o t c o m p l i e d w i t h t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f R u l e 2 8 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) , A l a . R. App. P., w i t h r e g a r d t o t h a t a r g u m e n t . When an a p p e l l a n t f a i l s t o c i t e t o s u p p o r t i n g c o u r t may affirm. So. 2d 347, 348 260 S p r a d l i n v. B i r m i n g h a m A i r p o r t A u t h . , ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) ; Thomason v. Redd, 565 So. 2d ( A l a . C i v . App. m o t h e r has authority, this 1990). Accordingly, f a i l e d t o demonstrate we e r r o r as t o t h i s issue. B r y a n , and Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . Moore, J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t , w i t h o u t 17 259, conclude t h a t the AFFIRMED. Pittman, 613 writing.

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.