Jason Michael Snoyman v. Katrina Moore Snoyman

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 09/07/2012 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 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS SPECIAL TERM, 2012 2110544 Jason M i c h a e l Snoyman v. K a t r i n a Moore Snoyman Appeal from Dale C i r c u i t (DR-06-490.04) MOORE, Court Judge. Jason Michael Snoyman ("the f a t h e r " ) appeals from a c u s t o d y - m o d i f i c a t i o n j u d g m e n t o f t h e D a l e C i r c u i t C o u r t ("the trial court") custody a w a r d i n g K a t r i n a Moore Snoyman ("the m o t h e r " ) o f t h e p a r t i e s ' o l d e s t c h i l d , A.S. We r e v e r s e . 2110544 Procedural The p a r t i e s were trial On divorced by a judgment e n t e r e d by t h e Pursuant to that judgment, f a t h e r was a w a r d e d c u s t o d y o f t h e p a r t i e s ' f o u r the court History on November 8, 2007. children. August 15, modification asserted in the 2011, of the t h e mother filed custody the of a p e t i t i o n seeking children. The a mother t h a t t h e f a t h e r was u n a b l e t o be p h y s i c a l l y p r e s e n t home with Specifically, she the children stated that due to h i s m i l i t a r y the father had told duty. her she c o u l d have c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d r e n f r o m J u l y 16, 2011, t h r o u g h the e n d o f t h e 2011-2012 orders. The indicated mother that mistreated their the school further court's father face previous and and c o r p o r a l punishment a g a i n s t trial asserted father children y e a r b a s e d on h i s d e p l o y m e n t custody of the that the had fiancé had physically had employed the c h i l d r e n i n v i o l a t i o n of the order. She occasions. parties' the c h i l d r e n his fiancé had h i t the p a r t i e s ' o l d e s t on a t l e a s t two that children support. 2 also asserted child, A.S., The mother and an that the across the requested award of sole child 2110544 Also on A u g u s t 15, 2011, the mother filed a motion f o r temporary custody of the p a r t i e s ' c h i l d r e n , a s s e r t i n g t h a t the f a t h e r had i n f o r m e d t h e m o t h e r t h a t he was b e i n g d e p l o y e d and t h a t she w o u l d have t h e c h i l d r e n f r o m J u l y 16, 2011, u n t i l t h e end o f t h e s c h o o l y e a r and t h a t t h e E n t e r p r i s e s c h o o l system would not a l l o w her t o e n r o l l the c h i l d r e n w i t h o u t a custody o r d e r from the t r i a l c o u r t . The m o t h e r a l s o a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e children that had informed her t h e y were being physically a b u s e d by t h e f a t h e r and h i s f i a n c e . On A u g u s t 19, 2011, t h e m o t h e r f i l e d a r e n e w e d m o t i o n f o r e m e r g e n c y e x p a r t e t e m p o r a r y c u s t o d y , a s s e r t i n g t h a t t h e r e was an o n g o i n g i n v e s t i g a t i o n by the C o f f e e County Department of Human R e s o u r c e s r e g a r d i n g an i n c i d e n t i n w h i c h t h e f a t h e r had a l l e g e d l y p h y s i c a l l y a b u s e d A.S. to the mother's allegations entered an temporary therein. change on On August August f a t h e r f i l e d a response 26, 31, custody setting her from 19, Dale 2011, the petition County 3 to mother denying the motion f o r a h e a r i n g on November 28, September venue and 2011, 2011, o r d e r d e n y i n g the mother's modification On motion The trial the court f o r emergency for a custody 2011. filed a C o f f e e County; motion the to trial 2110544 c o u r t d e n i e d t h a t m o t i o n on S e p t e m b e r 27, 2011. tenus proceedings, the trial court entered F o l l o w i n g ore a judgment December 16, 2011, t h a t s t a t e d , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : " T h i s c a u s e i s b e f o r e t h e c o u r t on t h e m o t h e r ' s P e t i t i o n t o Modify the d i v o r c e decree entered i n t h i s c a s e on November 8, 2007. I n t h a t o r d e r t h e f a t h e r was a w a r d e d c u s t o d y 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 . T h e r e a f t e r t h e mother p e t i t i o n e d t o modify t h e o r d e r o f c u s t o d y i n t h e d i v o r c e d e c r e e and a f t e r a trial the mother's request to modify the c h i l d r e n ' s c u s t o d y was d e n i e d . However, s e v e r a l p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e o r d e r r e g a r d i n g v i s i t a t i o n were m o d i f i e d i n c l u d i n g a l l o w i n g the mother specific telephonic v i s i t a t i o n . "The f i r s t i s s u e t o be a d d r e s s e d i n t h i s c a s e i s t h e p r o p e r s t a n d a r d o f p r o o f t o be a p p l i e d . I t has been h e l d t h a t i n o r d e r t o change c u s t o d y a f t e r an i n i t i a l c u s t o d y d e t e r m i n a t i o n has b e e n made t h e r e must be a s h o w i n g t h a t t h e r e has b e e n 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 ; t h a t t h e good o f t h e p r o p o s e d change w i l l o f f s e t t h e d i s r u p t i v e e f f e c t o f u p r o o t i n g t h e c h i l d and t h a t t h e p r o p o s e d change i n c u s t o d y w i l l m a t e r i a l l y promote t h e minor c h i l d ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t s . Ex P a r t e McLendon, 455 So. 2d 863 (Ala. 1 9 8 4 ) ; Cupp v. Cupp, 976 So. 2d 1010 ( A l a . Civ. App. 2 0 0 7 ) ; Adams v. Adams, 21 So. 3d 1247 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) . "The m o t h e r c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e r e h a s been 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 as e v i d e n c e d by t h e father's a c t of domestic v i o l e n c e against the parties' oldest child, [ A . S . ] . The m o t h e r argues t h a t i n l i g h t of the domestic v i o l e n c e t h a t the p r o p o s e d change i n c u s t o d y w i l l more t h a n o f f s e t t h e d i s r u p t i v e e f f e c t o f u p r o o t i n g t h e c h i l d r e n and t h e change w i l l m a t e r i a l l y p r o m o t e 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 . The m o t h e r f u r t h e r c o n t e n d s that the f a t h e r has i n t e n t i o n a l l y t h w a r t e d h e r e f f o r t s t o 4 on 2110544 have t e l e p h o n i c 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 w h i c h i s f u r t h e r e v i d e n c e o f t h e n e e d t o change c u s t o d y . "The f a t h e r a d m i t s t h a t he s l a p p e d t h e o l d e s t c h i l d on t h e c h e e k b u t c o n t e n d s i t was a one t i m e e v e n t t h a t w i l l n o t be r e p e a t e d a n d t h a t i t was i n an e f f o r t t o c a l m h e r down a t a t i m e t h a t s h e was b e i n g d e f i a n t b y y e l l i n g a t h i m a n d she was a l s o b e i n g v e r y d i s r e s p e c t f u l . He c o n t e n d s i t was i n t h e n a t u r e o f n e c e s s a r y d i s c i p l i n e r a t h e r t h a n abuse o r d o m e s t i c v i o l e n c e . The f a t h e r d e n i e s t h a t he i s i n t e n t i o n a l l y d e n y i n g t h e mother a c c e s s t o t h e c h i l d r e n by t e l e p h o n e . I t i s t h e f a t h e r ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t the c h i l d r e n a r e e x t r e m e l y busy w i t h their s c h o o l work a n d e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s a n d t h a t t h e y a r e u n a b l e t o s p e a k w i t h t h e i r m o t h e r when she calls. "In regard t o t h e mother's c l a i m t h a t t h e f a t h e r has c o m m i t t e d an a c t o f d o m e s t i c v i o l e n c e , i t i s t h e law o f t h i s s t a t e t h a t i f t h e t r i a l c o u r t d e t e r m i n e s that domestic violence has occurred that a rebuttable presumption a r i s e s that custody should n o t be a w a r d e d t o t h e p e r p e t r a t o r o f s u c h v i o l e n c e . Section 3 0 - 3 - 1 3 1 , Code o f A l a b a m a [1975]. The i n c i d e n t between t h e f a t h e r and daughter c l e a r l y r i s e s t o the l e v e l of domestic v i o l e n c e . Therefore the i s s u e b e f o r e t h e c o u r t i s whether t h e f a t h e r ' s e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e reasons f o r t h e i n c i d e n t between he a n d t h e o l d e s t d a u g h t e r r e b u t s t h e p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t he s h o u l d n o t have c u s t o d y o f h e r o r h e r s i b l i n g s . A f t e r considering the evidence presented on t h a t i s s u e t h e c o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e i n c i d e n t was a one t i m e e v e n t t h a t h o p e f u l l y w i l l n o t be r e p e a t e d and was i n r e s p o n s e t o c e r t a i n a c t i o n s b y t h e c h i l d . Even t h o u g h t h e c o u r t c o n s i d e r s t h e f a t h e r ' s a c t i o n s t o be d o m e s t i c v i o l e n c e t h e c o u r t b e l i e v e s that u n d e r t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h e p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t he s h o u l d n o t be a l l o w e d c u s t o d y h a s b e e n r e b u t t e d . the "The n e x t i s s u e b e f o r e t h e c o u r t i s i n r e g a r d t o o l d e s t c h i l d ' s c u s t o d i a l p r e f e r e n c e . The c o u r t 5 2110544 notes t h a t the c h i l d ' s c u s t o d i a l p r e f e r e n c e i s a f a c t o r t h a t s h o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d by t h e c o u r t e v e n though t h a t p r e f e r e n c e i s not c o n t r o l l i n g . N a u d i t t v. Haddock, 882 So. 2d 364 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003) . I t has f u r t h e r been s t a t e d t h a t i n c o n s i d e r i n g the c h i l d ' s p r e f e r e n c e the c o u r t should a l s o c o n s i d e r t h e c h i l d ' s age, m a t u r i t y , and reasons f o r the c u s t o d i a l p r e f e r e n c e . T o l e s v. T o l e s , 947 So. 2d 416 (Ala. C i v . App. 2 0 0 6 ) ; F a m i l y Law i n A l a b a m a , 4 t h E d i t i o n (2009). T h e r e f o r e i n l i g h t of the a f o r e s t a t e d c a s e l a w l a n g u a g e t h e c o u r t must c o n s i d e r t h e o l d e s t c h i l d ' s l e v e l o f m a t u r i t y and t h e r e a s o n s f o r h e r c u s t o d i a l p r e f e r e n c e . The c o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e c h i l d has a r e a s o n a b l e l e v e l of m a t u r i t y f o r a twelve year o l d but the c o u r t i s concerned about the reasons f o r her stated preference. There was testimony presented t h a t t h e m o t h e r was not as s t r i c t i n h e r d i s c i p l i n e and r u l e s as t h e f a t h e r and t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n were a l l o w e d more f r e e d o m i n t h e i r m o t h e r ' s home i n c l u d i n g b e i n g a l l o w e d t o s t a y up l a t e at n i g h t . "Another factor to be considered is the c o n s i s t e n t f i n d i n g by t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s t h a t siblings should not be separated without a c o m p e l l i n g r e a s o n . Dunn v. Dunn, 972 So. 2d 810 (Ala. C i v . App. 2 0 0 7 ) . T h e r e f o r e t h e i s s u e t o be determined i s whether there i s a c o m p e l l i n g reason to separate these s i b l i n g s . A f t e r c o n s i d e r i n g the evidence presented, the court finds that the d o m e s t i c v i o l e n c e i n c i d e n t b e t w e e n t h e f a t h e r and o l d e s t daughter r i s e s t o the l e v e l of a c o m p e l l i n g reason to separate these s i b l i n g s . " I n summary, t h e c o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e m o t h e r has met h e r b u r d e n o f p r o o f by s h o w i n g t h a t 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 has o c c u r r e d i n t h i s c a s e . The c o u r t f i n d s f u r t h e r as t o t h e c h i l d , [A.S.], t h a t the p o s i t i v e good of r e s i d i n g w i t h her mother o u t w e i g h s any d i s r u p t i v e e f f e c t o f t h e change and t h a t t h e p r o p o s e d change w i l l m a t e r i a l l y p r o m o t e 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 r t f i n d s f u r t h e r t h a t 6 2110544 there i s a c o m p e l l i n g reason t o a l l o w her to r e s i d e w i t h h e r m o t h e r and t o c o n t i n u e t h e o t h e r c h i l d r e n i n t h e i r f a t h e r ' s custody. "Therefore i n r e g a r d to the c h i l d r e n , [K.S.], [R.S.,] and [N.S.,] t h e c o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e m o t h e r has failed to show a material change in circumstances o r t h a t t h e change w o u l d o f f s e t t h e disruptive effect or that the change would m a t e r i a l l y promote the c h i l d r e n ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t s . " The trial petition court as t o A.S. but i t denied K.S., R.S., then and and N.S. i n h i s or her The 2011. father On the mother's awarded the mother c u s t o d y The that trial determining and court awarded each denied a l l other a postjudgment motion same d a t e , court the The entered t h a t the t a k e n p l a c e and, moot. father f i l e d an order on on A.S., parent requests. December a motion court's January c u s t o d i a l e x c h a n g e o f A.S. 28, for mother f i l e d J a n u a r y 5, r u l e on h e r request the court a m o t i o n t o amend t h e 2011, 13, had 2012, already entered trial an order 7 On J a n u a r y 27, denying the was court's r e q u e s t i n g t h a t the t r i a l f o r c h i l d support. an judgment; thus, t h a t the f a t h e r ' s motion f o r a s t a y j u d g m e n t on trial of v i s i t a t i o n w i t h the c h i l d or c h i l d r e n custody filed trial immediate s t a y of enforcement of the t r i a l the modification t h e p e t i t i o n as t o t h e p a r t i e s ' o t h e r c h i l d r e n , v i s i t a t i o n and t e l e p h o n e not granted court 2012, father's 2110544 postjudgment motion. entered 32, an o r d e r A l a . R. On F e b r u a r y 3, 2012, t h e t r i a l s t a t i n g t h a t i t was d e v i a t i n g f r o m t h e R u l e J u d . Admin., child-support d e c l i n i n g t o award t h e mother c h i l d s u p p o r t . his notice court of appeal t o t h i s court guidelines and The f a t h e r filed on M a r c h 6, 2012. Facts The were divorced testified father parties that he military and that According t o the father, deploy j u s t before mother d u r i n g he on November i s a pilot is 8, 2007. The i n the United stationed i n North b e c a u s e he h a d b e e n States Carolina. scheduled t o he t o o k t h e p a r t i e s ' c h i l d r e n t o v i s i t t h e t h e summer o f 2 0 1 1 , he h a d made p l a n s to allow t h e c h i l d r e n t o s t a y w i t h t h e m o t h e r f o r t h e 2011-2012 year. The f a t h e r himself testified, a n d was u n a b l e however, that t o deploy with school he h a d i n j u r e d h i s unit as p l a n n e d , t h a t he h a d n o t i f i e d t h e m o t h e r t h a t he was n o t d e p l o y i n g , a n d that he had picked v i s i t a t i o n with The m o t h e r her new Although husband the children up from their summer t h e m o t h e r on A u g u s t 20, 2 0 1 1 . testified that she l i v e s i n Enterprise i n a t h r e e - b e d r o o m house t h e mother testified 8 that that they she i s e m p l o y e d , with rent. she 2110544 t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a t the time of the hearing, medical leave The s h e was on u n p a i d a n d was n o t r e c e i v i n g any i n c o m e . mother t e s t i f i e d that, during h e r summer visitation w i t h the c h i l d r e n , they had t o l d her "very d i s t u r b i n g The mother testified that the c h i l d r e n had stuff." described an i n c i d e n t t o h e r i n w h i c h t h e f a t h e r h a d b a c k h a n d e d A.S., who was 12 y e a r s o l d a t t h e t i m e o f t h e h e a r i n g , and that, during twice i n the face t h a t same i n c i d e n t , he h a d h e l d h i s h a n d o v e r A.S.'s mouth a n d p i n n e d h e r a g a i n s t mother t e s t i f i e d that, the w a l l i n the a i r . i n response t o the c h i l d r e n ' s The telling h e r a b o u t t h a t i n c i d e n t , she h a d c o n t a c t e d a s o c i a l w o r k e r a n d had that taken the c h i l d r e n t o the p o l i c e department. she had a l s o filed an a c t i o n She s t a t e d i n w h i c h she had sought a p r o t e c t i o n - f r o m - a b u s e o r d e r on b e h a l f o f t h e c h i l d r e n b u t t h a t t h a t a c t i o n had been d i s m i s s e d . had The m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t she a l s o c o n t a c t e d t h e F a m i l y A d v o c a c y P r o g r a m on t h e f a t h e r ' s m i l i t a r y b a s e a n d h a d i n f o r m e d them o f what t h e c h i l d r e n h a d described had with t o her. The m o t h e r a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n t o l d h e r t h a t t h e f a t h e r h a d h i t t h e p a r t i e s ' s o n , K.S., a buttocks, spiked belt and left bruises on h i s thighs and t h a t t h e f a t h e r h a d t h r o w n A.S. i n t o w a l l s a n d o n t o 9 2110544 t h e g r o u n d , and t h a t t h e f a t h e r had w i t h h e l d given her very According telephonic little to f o o d b e c a u s e he was the contact mother, with the b e e n o r d e r e d by t h e t r i a l had not the The angry w i t h father had c h i l d r e n , which court. She seen the c h i l d r e n s i n c e the from t h e i r f o o d f r o m A.S. summer v i s i t a t i o n or her. denied had her previously also t e s t i f i e d that f a t h e r had w i t h her she p i c k e d them on A u g u s t 20, up 2011. f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t , at the time of the h e a r i n g , he was e n g a g e d b u t t h a t h i s f i a n c e had n o t b e e n r e s i d i n g w i t h him and the was children since March or A p r i l a t t e n d i n g c o l l e g e i n Texas. he nor The 2011 because father t e s t i f i e d that his fiancé had With regard to the i n c i d e n t i n v o l v i n g A.S. physically mistreated m o t h e r , t h e f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t A.S. t o him w h i l e she was had w a r n e d h e r , and l i t t l e slap across he had her against the testified children. by the had b e e n " m o u t h i n g o f f " s u p p o s e d t o be c l e a n i n g h e r room, t h a t t h a t he f e l t he n e e d e d t o g i v e h e r a t o i n j u r e A.S., wall, mouth f o r t h r e e t o f i v e father the neither described t h e mouth t o "hush h e r up." not i n t e n d e d she that but that he had lightly seconds t o stop her he did not 10 typically quick He s t a t e d and t h a t he had not that pinned covered from t a l k i n g . employ he her The physical 2110544 punishment before; had with the c h i l d r e n but that he had spanked them he a l s o s t a t e d t h a t i t h a d been a l o n g t i m e s i n c e had t o go that far in disciplining t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e i n c i d e n t w i t h A.S. parties' previous physically court disciplined hearing. According discipline like hearing the to "time outs" i n 2010 father, The father had been r a i s e d i n t h e children the them. he and t h a t he h a d n o t since he the has last since court employed and g r o u n d i n g when t h e c h i l d r e n misbehave. The father interviewed by testified he had a number o f a g e n c i e s a l l e g a t i o n s of abuse. the that Cumberland County been regarding contacted the and mother's He t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n b y Social Services Department i n North C a r o l i n a h a d been c o n c l u d e d and t h a t no w r o n g d o i n g on h i s p a r t h a d been f o u n d . He s t a t e d t h a t he h a d n o t a l l o w e d to the speak children's received with emotional from the children since stability Cumberland based August on County t h e mother 2011 guidance Social for the he had Services Department. The f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t e v e r y t i m e t h e c h i l d r e n r e t u r n from v i s i t i n g the mother, their 11 behavior i s erratic and i t 2110544 takes them According and a t o the emotional "shy" few weeks to return f a t h e r , A.S. changes of to a was experiencing adolescence, but The children testified i n camera. f a t h e r ' s f i a n c e no l o n g e r had physical had she A.S. b e e n gone f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y a y e a r . father had before face, that struck s c h o o l had covered her ground. she was fingernail up mouth, b u t According father her slapped to not been and She her face that had not face, he the couple being she loud. tried and lifted father was She of that months her that he had her off the trying to s t a t e d t h a t , when to step away and She a y e a r ago" s i b l i n g s j u s t get and slapped just leaving a bruise. happened " l i k e , that testified s t a t e d t h a t he had seems t o work more e f f e c t i v e l y . f a t h e r had a wall, face, her the testified A.S. the A.S., t h a t t h a t i n c i d e n t had s i n c e t h e n , she had f a t h e r ' s house against she was caught her l i v e d i n the in l e t out. d i s c i p l i n e h e r and that the comfortable. the the routine. i n t a l k i n g t o t h e f a t h e r a b o u t t h e s e c h a n g e s , and he t r i e d t o make h e r the normal his testified and that, g r o u n d e d and that A.S. stated that never h i t her l i k e t h a t or t r e a t e d her l i k e t h a t 12 the on 2110544 any other occasion s t r i k e the other A.S. and she had never seen the father c h i l d r e n l i k e he h a d s t r u c k h e r on t h e testified mother's that telephone that calls the father anymore. does She not stated face. answer that the she was happy l i v i n g a t t h e f a t h e r ' s h o u s e , b u t , she s a i d , she t h o u g h t t h a t she was h a p p i e r a t t h e m o t h e r ' s h o u s e . she was s u r e t h e mother much as t h e o t h e r l o t more. A.S. A.S. stated and t h e f a t h e r e a c h l o v e h e r j u s t but that she t h i n k s the mother l i k e there as shows i t a t e s t i f i e d t h a t she l o v e s b o t h o f h e r She s t a t e d t h a t she f e l t that parents. w o u l d be more f r e e d o m a t t h e m o t h e r ' s house and t h a t summer v i s i t a t i o n w i t h the mother h a d been f u n . A.S. t e s t i f i e d t h a t , i f she were s e p a r a t e d f r o m her she w o u l d m i s s them. siblings, she w o u l d be h a p p i e s t being talk also t e s t i f i e d that l i v i n g w i t h t h e m o t h e r , e v e n i f i t meant s e p a r a t e d from her s i b l i n g s , to her She siblings every so l o n g as she was a b l e t o night. She testified that she w o u l d p r e f e r n o t t o be s e p a r a t e d f r o m h e r s i b l i n g s b u t t h a t i t m i g h t be b e t t e r so l o n g as t h e y c o u l d contact each other at l e a s t once a day. K.S. with testified that the f a t h e r because he w o u l d p r e f e r to continue t h e f a t h e r ' s house 13 living i s "better" than 2110544 the mother's house; he stated and t h a t that the father's house i s the c h i l d r e n get "kind of better nicer and b i g g e r food" and " b e t t e r h e a l t h " a t t h e f a t h e r ' s house. K.S. s t a t e d t h a t he h a d a l o t o f f r i e n d s i n N o r t h C a r o l i n a and t h a t he i s comfortable there. He testified that he does not get i n t r o u b l e much b u t t h a t , when he d o e s , he h a s t o s i t on h i s b e d for into a "time out." trouble K.S. a l s o while stated he was v i s i t i n g summer v i s i t a t i o n . He testified that he h a d n o t gotten t h e mother d u r i n g their that he a n d h i s b r o t h e r , N.S., have a bunk b e d a t t h e m o t h e r ' s h o u s e a n d t h a t " s q u o o s h e d " when he s t a y s bugs a t t h e mother's there. house he i s K.S. s t a t e d t h a t t h e r e a r e and t h a t he does not l i k e the m o t h e r ' s h o u s e ; he a l s o s t a t e d , h o w e v e r , t h a t t h e r e i s n o t h i n g about s t a y i n g w i t h He t e s t i f i e d continue t h e m o t h e r t h a t makes h i m u n c o m f o r t a b l e . f u r t h e r t h a t he d i d n o t know i f he w o u l d want t o living with the father i f i t meant b e i n g separated f r o m one o r more o f h i s s i b l i n g s . R.S., t h e p a r t i e s ' the time o f t h e h e a r i n g , the father and t h a t mother's house. d a u g h t e r who was e i g h t t e s t i f i e d t h a t she l i k e s the father's house years living i s bigger She t e s t i f i e d t h a t , i f she g e t s i n t o 14 o l d at with than the trouble 2110544 at t h e f a t h e r ' s house, t h e f a t h e r grounds h e r o r puts h e r i n "time out." She s t a t e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r u s e d t o s p a n k them b u t t h a t he h a s " p r e t t y much" s t o p p e d a n d t h a t grounded i n s t e a d . R.S. t e s t i f i e d t h a t she d i d n o t know where she w o u l d p r e f e r to live, houses, she w o u l d be c o m f o r t a b l e mother and t h a t or the father. testified visited that i t i s a l o t of fun at both N.S., t h e p a r t i e s ' living with the s i x - y e a r - o l d son, t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a d b e e n k i n d o f mean when t h e y h a d her during t h e summer b u t t h a t he h a d l i k e d t h a t were a t h e r h o u s e . He t e s t i f i e d and h e r husband had c a l l e d h i m "Bubba" a n d he does n o t l i k e b e i n g testified t h a t he w o u l d r a t h e r she h a s f u n t o y s and v i d e o c h i l d r e n t o s t a y up r e a l l y live that they with called that. t h e mother He because games a n d b e c a u s e she a l l o w s t h e l a t e a n d t h e f a t h e r does n o t . I t was u n d i s p u t e d t h a t e a c h c h i l d and the toys t h a t he does n o t l i k e the mother's husband and t h a t t h e mother school the c h i l d r e n get were was d o i n g v e r y w e l l i n involved i n extracurricular activities. S t a n d a r d o f Review This court o u t l i n e d the a p p l i c a b l e standard of review i n C.L.B. v. D.L.O., 61 So. 3d 325, 328 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 0 ) : 15 2110544 "The s t a n d a r d o f a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w o f a c h i l d - c u s t o d y j u d g m e n t b a s e d on o r e t e n u s e v i d e n c e i s d e f e r e n t i a l . "'"When e v i d e n c e i n a c h i l d - c u s t o d y c a s e has b e e n p r e s e n t e d o r e t e n u s t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t , t h a t c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s of f a c t b a s e d on t h a t e v i d e n c e a r e p r e s u m e d t o be c o r r e c t . The t r i a l c o u r t i s i n t h e b e s t p o s i t i o n t o make a c u s t o d y d e t e r m i n a t i o n -¬ i t h e a r s t h e e v i d e n c e and o b s e r v e s the w i t n e s s e s . A p p e l l a t e c o u r t s do n o t s i t i n judgment of d i s p u t e d e v i d e n c e t h a t was p r e s e n t e d ore tenus b e f o r e the t r i a l c o u r t i n a custody hearing."' " B u r g e t t v. B u r g e t t , 995 So. 2d 907, 912 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e B r y o w s k y , 676 So. 2d 1322, 1324 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) ) . An a p p e l l a t e c o u r t w i l l n o t r e v e r s e a t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t as t o c u s t o d y i n such a case u n l e s s the evidence f a i l s t o support the trial court's custody determination so t h a t the appellate court must conclude that that d e t e r m i n a t i o n i s ' " p l a i n l y and p a l p a b l y w r o n g . " ' Ex parte Perkins, 646 So. 2d 46, 47 (Ala. 1994) ( q u o t i n g P h i l l i p s v. P h i l l i p s , 622 So. 2d 410, 412 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1993)). "'"[E]ven under the ore tenus rule, '[w]here the c o n c l u s i o n of the t r i a l c o u r t i s so o p p o s e d t o t h e w e i g h t o f t h e e v i d e n c e that the variable factor of witness demeanor c o u l d n o t r e a s o n a b l y s u b s t a n t i a t e it, then the conclusion is clearly e r r o n e o u s and must be r e v e r s e d . '" B.J.N. v. P.D., 742 So. 2d 1270, 1274 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1999) ( q u o t i n g J a c o b y v. B e l l , 370 So. 2d 278, 280 ( A l a . 1 9 7 9 ) ) . ' "Cheek v. D y e s s , 1 So. 2 00 7)." 3d 1025, 16 1029 (Ala. Civ. App. 2110544 Discussion The the f a t h e r argues t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n custody meet t h e o f A.S. because, he custody-modification McLendon, 455 So. 2d 863 says, standard the modifying evidence did s e t f o r t h i n Ex not parte ( A l a . 1984). "The b u r d e n s e t o u t i n [Ex p a r t e ] M c L e n d o n [ , 455 So. 2d 863 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) , ] r e q u i r e s t h e p a r e n t s e e k i n g a c u s t o d y change t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t 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 has o c c u r r e d s i n c e t h e previous j u d g m e n t , t h a t t h e c h i l d ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t s w i l l be m a t e r i a l l y p r o m o t e d by a change o f c u s t o d y , and t h a t t h e b e n e f i t s o f t h e change w i l l more t h a n o f f s e t t h e i n h e r e n t l y d i s r u p t i v e e f f e c t r e s u l t i n g from the change i n c u s t o d y . Ex p a r t e McLendon, 455 So. 2d a t 866." Dean v. The Dean, 998 So. 2d 1060, 1065 ( A l a . C i v . App. f a t h e r argues t h a t the t r i a l t h e m o t h e r c u s t o d y o f A.S. court e r r e d i n awarding b e c a u s e , he s a y s , to present s u f f i c i e n t evidence supporting her petition. The f a t h e r a s s e r t s t h a t the b e c a u s e t h e i n c i d e n t i n v o l v i n g A.S. the mother the trial court r e f e r r e d t o by t h e o f A.S. The slapped improper f o r the t r i a l b a s e d on father A.S. had that erred mother thus, he court to modify custody incident. testified been failed allegations in does n o t r i s e t o t h e l e v e l o f d o m e s t i c v i o l e n c e , and, a r g u e s , i t was 2008) . that raised the at 17 i n c i d e n t i n w h i c h he a previous hearing on had the 2110544 m o t h e r ' s m o d i f i c a t i o n p e t i t i o n i n June 2010. however, t h a t school could the i n c i d e n t occurred l e t out." o f 2011, conducted. that some Section family months proceedings, has occurred constitutes circumstances." the t r i a l before court i n the the hearing 30-3-134, A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s violence determination before the i n c i d e n t had occurred eight in custody-modification or testified, "a c o u p l e months B a s e d on A.S.'s t e s t i m o n y , have c o n c l u d e d spring A.S. since the of (Emphasis added.) that, "a f i n d i n g t h a t d o m e s t i c finding a was last custody change Because the t r i a l in court c o u l d have i n t e r p r e t e d A.S.'s t e s t i m o n y as i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e incident A.S. 2011, i n which after modification the father the p a r t i e s petition slapped were last i n 2010, we i n court conclude had o c c u r r e d on that a previous the court d i d not e r r i n considering that i n c i d e n t . Section 3 0 - 3 - 1 3 1 , A l a . Code 1975, provides: " I n e v e r y p r o c e e d i n g where t h e r e i s a t i s s u e a dispute as to the custody of a child, a d e t e r m i n a t i o n by t h e c o u r t t h a t d o m e s t i c o r f a m i l y violence has occurred raises a rebuttable p r e s u m p t i o n by t h e c o u r t t h a t i t i s d e t r i m e n t a l t o the c h i l d and n o t i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t o f t h e c h i l d t o be p l a c e d i n s o l e c u s t o d y , j o i n t l e g a l c u s t o d y , or j o i n t p h y s i c a l custody w i t h the p e r p e t r a t o r o f domestic or f a m i l y v i o l e n c e . Notwithstanding the provisions regarding rebuttable presumption, the 18 in trial 2110544 j u d g e must a l s o t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t what, i f any, i m p a c t t h e d o m e s t i c v i o l e n c e h a d on t h e c h i l d . " The f a t h e r a s s e r t s t h a t t h e i n c i d e n t i n w h i c h he s l a p p e d did not r i s e t o the l e v e l trial court that, although the t r i a l of domestic v i o l e n c e erred i n finding that i t d i d . court amounted t o d o m e s t i c v i o l e n c e , that the t h e f a t h e r h a d overcome finding and t h a t t h e We n o t e , concluded that A.S. however, that incident i t a l s o proceeded to conclude the presumption of domestic violence that following the father should from not have c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d r e n . Regardless, court was i n accordance required domestic-violence on a p p e a l t h a t impact was mother n o r A.S. incident to take with into § 30-3-131, account i n c i d e n t h a d h a d on A.S. there had by was "no testimony the i n c i d e n t . " offered any had had a n e g a t i v e We testimony impact any the trial impact The f a t h e r asserts as t o what, i f any, agree. Neither indicating on A.S. A.S. that to discipline never seen t h e f a t h e r h e r when he strike slapped her, that her s i b l i n g s , Section 30-3-134 provides 19 that and t h a t the t r i a l the just she h a d he n e v e r h i t h e r l i k e t h a t o r t r e a t e d h e r l i k e t h a t on any occasion. the testified t h a t she knows t h e f a t h e r l o v e s h e r , t h a t t h e f a t h e r was trying the had other court's 2110544 f i n d i n g o f d o m e s t i c v i o l e n c e c o n s t i t u t e s a f i n d i n g o f a change in circumstances. finding amounted circumstances, end of our required Assuming, finding of a that material that change in the inquiry. a deciding, as i s r e q u i r e d u n d e r McLendon, t h a t i s n o t 1 to without Under McLendon, t h e m o t h e r was to demonstrate a m a t e r i a l change i n not only circumstances, she was a l s o r e q u i r e d t o show " t h a t t h e c h i l d ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t s will be m a t e r i a l l y p r o m o t e d by the benefits inherently of disruptive custody." Dean, f i n d i n g t h a t the 3-131 that the i t was father's satisfied the her 998 change more than the So. at trial 2d 1065. rebutted The evidence presented the change in court's the presumption i n § 30¬ i n A.S.'s b e s t i n t e r e s t s t o r e m a i n i n indicates of proving that that the i n d i c a t i n g that mother i t w o u l d be b e s t i n t e r e s t s f o r h e r c u s t o d y t o be m o d i f i e d . no that offset r e s u l t i n g from custody burden will effect f a t h e r had not a change o f c u s t o d y , and the had not i n A.S.'s T h e r e was benefits of also the See R i c h v. R i c h , 887 So. 2d 289, 303 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004) ( Y a t e s , P . J . , d i s s e n t i n g ) ("[A] f i n d i n g of domestic abuse u n d e r § 30-3-134 may n o t a l w a y s be a ' m a t e r i a l ' change in circumstances "). 1 20 2110544 change o f c u s t o d y o f A.S. from the f a t h e r t o the mother would o f f s e t any d i s r u p t i v e e f f e c t s Although testimony the o f A.S. trial from t h a t change. court was i n formulating able to consider i t s judgment, this s t a t e d i n G l o v e r v. S i n g l e t o n , 598 So. 2d 995, 996 App. the court (Ala. Civ. 19 9 2 ) : " H e r e , t h e r e i s s i m p l y no e v i d e n c e t o show t h a t a change o f c u s t o d y i s n e c e s s a r y . A t t r i a l , t h e r e was no m e n t i o n o f t h e c h i l d ' s needs o r t h e a b i l i t y o f the f a t h e r t o care f o r h e r . There i s c e r t a i n l y n o t h i n g t o i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e mother i s a n y t h i n g l e s s t h a n an e x e m p l a r y p a r e n t . I t does n o t a p p e a r f r o m the c h i l d ' s testimony t h a t she i s p a r t i c u l a r l y unhappy i n h e r m o t h e r ' s home. The c h i l d m e r e l y p r e f e r s t o l i v e w i t h h e r f a t h e r a t t h i s t i m e . Under A l a b a m a l a w , t h i s i s s i m p l y n o t enough t o j u s t i f y a change o f c u s t o d y . " In the present case, excepting the t r i a l court's findings r e g a r d i n g t h e i n c i d e n t i n w h i c h t h e f a t h e r s l a p p e d A.S., the only i n modifying the Like i n Glover, the factor custody by t h e t r i a l r e v e a l e d t h a t A.S. that she i s happy l o v e s t h e m o t h e r and t h e f a t h e r i n both p r e f e r s t o l i v e w i t h the mother. justify court o f A.S. was A.S.'s p r e f e r e n c e . evidence and considered a change i n c u s t o d y . 21 homes, b u t t h a t she simply T h a t i s s i m p l y n o t enough t o 2110544 Because the evidence i n the p r e s e n t burden required c a s e d i d n o t meet t h e f o r a m o d i f i c a t i o n of custody discussed i n McLendon, we r e v e r s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t m o d i f y i n g custody o f A.S., and we remand t h e c a s e judgment c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s REVERSED AND f o r the entry the of a opinion. REMANDED. B r y a n and Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . Thompson, J., P.J., d i s s e n t s , with joins. 22 writing, which Pittman,

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.