H.H.J. v. K.T.J.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 12/14/2012 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 Reporter of Decisions, Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 2110583 H.H.J. v. K.T.J. Appeal from Marion C i r c u i t (DR-09-93.01) Court PER CURIAM. H.H.J. married ("the f a t h e r " ) on September child"), was b o r n and K.T.J. 28, 1986. ("the m o t h e r " ) were One c h i l d , H.R.J. ("the marriage. The f a t h e r of the parties' e n g a g e d i n an e x t r a m a r i t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h C.E.C., who g a v e birth to the father's siblings"). two y o u n g e r children ("the h a l f The e x i s t e n c e o f t h e f a t h e r ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h 2110583 C.E.C. and o f t h e h a l f s i b l i n g s was unknown t o t h e m o t h e r and to the c h i l d discovered result, f o r a number o f y e a r s . The m o t h e r the f a t h e r ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p with eventually C.E.C., and, as a t h e p a r t i e s were d i v o r c e d p u r s u a n t t o a November 2009, j u d g m e n t Among ("the d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t " ) o f t h e t r i a l other things not p e r t i n e n t to this 9, court. appeal, the d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t a w a r d e d t h e p a r t i e s j o i n t l e g a l and p h y s i c a l custody of the c h i l d . in divorce the In a d d i t i o n , the t r i a l judgment the following court included restriction on the father's c u s t o d i a l periods with the c h i l d : "The [ f a t h e r ] i s s t r i c t l y e n j o i n e d f r o m h a v i n g any c o n t a c t with or being i n the presence of [ C . E . C . ] ... w h i l e [ t h e c h i l d ] i s i n h i s c u s t o d i a l care. The [ f a t h e r ] s h o u l d p a y s p e c i a l a t t e n t i o n t o t h i s p a r a g r a p h as a v i o l a t i o n o f t h e same w o u l d c o n s t i t u 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 i n t h e eyes o f t h i s c o u r t . This court i s f i r m l y convinced that contact w i t h [C.E.C.] i s not p r e s e n t l y i n the b e s t i n t e r e s t o f [ t h e c h i l d ] and i n f a c t w o u l d be q u i t e d e t r i m e n t a l to the emotional w e l l being of [the The child]." father married "the second w i f e " ) C.E.C. i n December 2010. mother f i l e d a p l e a d i n g s e e k i n g the father seeking held ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o as i n contempt. an a w a r d o f p r i m a r y to modify custody As custody 2 On J a n u a r y 26, 2011, t h e the b a s i s and t o have f o r her of the c h i l d , claim t h e mother 2110583 asserted, the among o t h e r second wife since that and h i s a l l e g e d January circumstances things, 2010 the father's marriage to failure constituted warranting a to v i s i t material change a custody m o d i f i c a t i o n . to certain support the c h i l d of The c o n t e m p t claims pertained requirements f o r the child. The f a t h e r a n s w e r e d t h e m o t h e r ' s p l e a d i n g on F e b r u a r y 25, 2 0 1 1 . The m o t h e r lite filed i s s u e s on M a r c h evidentiary hearing 2011. On May The t r i a l 31, 2011, t h e t r i a l t h e mother awarding the father again 8, 2 0 1 1 . a hearing on t h e p e n d e n t e l i t e awarding f a t h e r ' s home. a motion seeking pendente lite entered an custody of the c h i l d a l t e r n a t i n g weekend included c o n d u c t e d an i s s u e s on A p r i l 18, court In t h a t pendente l i t e specifically court on p e n d e n t e visitation order, the requirement and at the the t r i a l that order court the c h i l d " s h a l l n o t be i n t h e p r e s e n c e o f [ t h e s e c o n d w i f e ] " d u r i n g t h e father's visitation. Furthermore, the pendente lite order r e q u i r e d t h e m o t h e r t o p o s t b o n d i n t h e amount o f $ 5 , 0 0 0 . The trial any court provisions divorce warned t h e mother o f t h e pendente judgment, she c o u l d lite that order be h e l d 3 i f she v i o l a t e d or of the i n contempt original and could 2110583 forfeit order the $5,000 b o n d . requiring the response to the That p o r t i o n mother trial to court's post " i n the p a s t been d e t r i m e n t a l the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the November trial 3, counterclaim court the seeking to modify the r a i s e d by the child See the child. the had mother the express C i v . P. t r i e d by merits filed of" on a divorce i n the p r e s e n c e the in 1 not p r o v i s i o n of t r i e d by are the lite entered on father R u l e 1 5 ( b ) , A l a . R. pleadings was that the from b e i n g t h a t i s s u e was pendente reestablishment hearing Although of the p a r t i e s . not a 2011. second w i f e , bond to the f a t h e r and conducted judgment p r o h i b i t i n g the the determination had The a of of consent ("When i s s u e s e x p r e s s or implied c o n s e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s , t h e y s h a l l be t r e a t e d i n a l l r e s p e c t s as i f t h e y had In been r a i s e d i n the i t s November 21, 2011, pleadings."). modification judgment, t r i a l c o u r t awarded the mother p r i m a r y p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y of the the R e f e r e n c e s made by t h e t r i a l c o u r t d u r i n g t h e final h e a r i n g i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e m o t h e r had e a r l i e r a l l o w e d t h e c h i l d t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r , and when, he w o u l d v i s i t t h e f a t h e r , and t h e t r i a l c o u r t a d d r e s s e d t h a t i s s u e i n i t s May 2011 p e n d e n t e l i t e o r d e r i n w h i c h i t r e q u i r e d the mother t o p o s t a bond. I t does n o t a p p e a r t h a t , f o l l o w i n g t h e d i v o r c e , t h e father e x e r c i s e d h i s r i g h t t o a l t e r n a t i n g w e e k l y c u s t o d y t h a t he had been awarded i n the d i v o r c e judgment. 1 4 2110583 child and awarded the alternating weekend visitation. provision child's of the specifying that 16th birthday, child. father a standard schedule The j u d g m e n t after June of included a 17, 2012, i . e . , t h e v i s i t a t i o n w o u l d be a t t h e d i s c r e t i o n In addition, the November 21, 2011, m o d i f i c a t i o n judgment s p e c i f i e d : "3. I t i s f u r t h e r ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that during the v i s i t a t i o n period with the [ f a t h e r ] , ... [ t h e c h i l d ] s h a l l a t no t i m e be a l l o w e d t o be i n the p r e s e n c e o f [the second w i f e ] . [The c h i l d ] a n d [ t h e c h i l d ] a l o n e i s t h e o n l y one a l l o w e d , a t h i s d e s i r e , t o d e v i a t e from t h i s p a r a g r a p h . A l l other p r o v i s i o n s o f t h i s C o u r t ' s f i n a l judgment o f d i v o r c e on this issue shall remain i n f u l l f o r c e and effect." ( C a p i t a l i z a t i o n i n o r i g i n a l . ) The f a t h e r f i l e d a p o s t j u d g m e n t motion, which the t r i a l court timely notice of appeal t o t h i s The facts. record on a p p e a l denied. The f a t h e r filed a court. reveals the following pertinent During the m o d i f i c a t i o n proceeding, the p a r t i e s agreed t h a t t h e mother would r e c e i v e p r i m a r y p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d , and t h e y l i t i g a t e d t h e i s s u e s o f c h i l d s u p p o r t and t h e father's v i s i t a t i o n with the c h i l d . to the support therefore, we issues omit N e i t h e r p a r t y a p p e a l e d as determined by t h e t r i a l any d i s c u s s i o n o f those 5 c o u r t , and, issues. The 2110583 parties' testimony at the f i n a l v i s i t a t i o n pertained to visitations pendente l i t e the hearing. pendente l i t e hearing the issue of the evidence i s not contained at that hearing on v i s i t a t i o n with the c h i l d before the issue from i n the record a p p e a l ; t h e r e f o r e , t h i s c o u r t does n o t have b e f o r e presented of a f t e r t h e A p r i l 18, 2 0 1 1 , The t r a n s c r i p t hearing on of on i t evidence the father's the date of that hearing. We note t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t spoke w i t h t h e c h i l d i n t h e p r e s e n c e of the p a r t i e s ' attorneys; the c h i l d ' s statements, although t r a n s c r i b e d , were n o t s w o r n . The the mother t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r had been a c t i v e i n child's before the p a r t i e s d i v o r c e d b u t t h a t t h e f a t h e r h a d done v e r y l i t t l e with the also child admitted life since that and i n v o l v e d in his activities the p a r t i e s he separated. attend d i d not extracurricular baseball The of any father the child's o r b a s k e t b a l l games o r t o u r n a m e n t s . The c h i l d i s a champion wakeboarder, and, b e f o r e the father The f a t h e r a d m i t t e d t h a t , a l t h o u g h he e x e r c i s e d h i s v i s i t a t i o n with had been the c h i l d involved at a lake i n that house, he sport the divorce, with had taken w a k e b o a r d i n g o n l y once o r t w i c e d u r i n g t h e summer. 6 the c h i l d . the child The f a t h e r 2110583 also acknowledged t h a t he h a d r e f u s e d to attend any o f t h e wakeboarding c o m p e t i t i o n s i n which the c h i l d had p a r t i c i p a t e d . The father testified that uncomfortable attending he b e l i e v e d that he w o u l d feel those wakeboarding events because the m o t h e r a n d some o f h e r f r i e n d s w o u l d be there. I t i s u n d i s p u t e d t h a t t h e c h i l d h a s n e v e r met t h e s e c o n d wife, that he h a s no d e s i r e t o do s o , a n d t h a t he does n o t w i s h t o v i s i t w i t h t h e f a t h e r when t h e s e c o n d w i f e i s p r e s e n t . The mother e x p l a i n e d second wife t h a t t h e c h i l d does n o t want t o s e e t h e because o f t h e manner i n which the parties' m a r r i a g e ended and because t h e c h i l d b e l i e v e s t h e second w i f e is the reason the father child's l i f e . that i s only minimally involved i n the The m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t she d i d n o t b e l i e v e the c h i l d should be forced t o have second w i f e . The f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d that try" to v i s i t h i m a t h i s home w i t h half contact the c h i l d with the "needs t o siblings. the second wife A l t h o u g h t h e c h i l d d i d n o t t e s t i f y , he d i d make statements t o the t r i a l court. and t h e certain Those s t a t e m e n t s i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e c h i l d i s h u r t b y what he p e r c e i v e s as t h e f a t h e r ' s o r r e f u s a l t o be a c t i v e l y i n v o l v e d i n h i s l i f e , 7 failure as t h e f a t h e r 2110583 was before the p a r t i e s ' divorce. disinclination her also expressed a t o meet t h e s e c o n d w i f e o r v i s i t t h e f a t h e r i n presence. The father maintaining second regard argues that the r e s t r i c t i o n that the c h i l d the The c h i l d the unless t o reviewing v i s i t a t i o n , this court on h i s v i s i t a t i o n i s not to v i s i t wife trial erred in that s p e c i f i e s the father i n the presence of the c h i l d a judgment desires resolving t o do s o . a dispute With over court has s t a t e d : " ' " ' " [ C ] a s e s i n A l a b a m a have c o n s i s t e n t l y held that the primary consideration i n setting visitation r i g h t s i s the best interests and w e l f a r e of the c h i l d . F u r t h e r m o r e , each c h i l d v i s i t a t i o n case must be d e c i d e d on i t s own f a c t s a n d circumstances." F a n n i n g v. F a n n i n g , 504 So. 2d 737, 739 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1987) (citations omitted). "When t h e i s s u e o f visitation i s determined after oral proceedings, the trial court's determination o f t h e i s s u e w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d a b s e n t an abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n o r a showing t h a t i t i s p l a i n l y i n e r r o r . Andrews v . A n d r e w s , 520 So. 2d 512 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1987) ." D o m i n i c k v. D o m i n i c k , 622 So. 2d 402, 403 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1993).'"' "K.B. v. C l e b u r n e C n t y . Dep't o f Human Res., 897 So. 2d 379, 387-88 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2004) ( q u o t i n g K.L.R. v. L.C.R., 854 So. 2 d 124, 132 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 3 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n K.L.U. v. M.C., 809 So. 2d 837, 840-41 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 1 ) ) . " 8 2110583 P.S. v. M.S., [Ms. 2110611, J u l y 27, 2012] _ ( A l a . C i v . App. 2012) . in So. 3d , . "The t r i a l c o u r t h a s much d i s c r e t i o n ascertaining visitation rights, a n d e a c h c a s e must stand upon i t s own p e c u l i a r f a c t s a n d t h e p e r s o n a l i t i e s i n v o l v e d . " F i l l i n g i m v. F i l l i n g i m , 1980) 388 So. 2d 1010, 1011 ( A l a . C i v . App. ( c i t i n g A l l e n v. A l l e n , 385 So. 2d 1323 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 0 ) ; P h i l l i p s v. P h i l l i p s , 53 A l a . App. 191, 298 So. 2d 613 (1974); 753 a n d A t k i n s o n v. A t k i n s o n , 45 A l a . App. 428, 231 So. 2d (1970)). The f a t h e r c o n c e d e s t h a t , i n e x c e p t i o n a l c a s e s , not be i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of a c h i l d to v i s i t i t might a parent. See Watson v . W a t s o n , 555 So. 2d 1115, 1116 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1989). He a l s o points out that v i s i t a t i o n when t h e c h i l d or when the basis unreasonable. Civ. 189 a parent c a n n o t be denied i s m a n i p u l a t e d by t h e other parent f o r the c h i l d ' s Shires v. S h i r e s , refusal to v i s i t 494 So. 2d 102, 103 App. 1 9 8 6 ) ; s e e a l s o H a g l e r v. H a g l e r , e q u i t a b l e and t o t h e b e s t where i t i n t e r e s t of c h i l d r e n t h a t t h e y n o t be r e q u i r e d t o v i s i t w i t h a n o n - c u s t o d i a l because of t h e i r unwillingness 9 or fear (Ala. 460 So. 2d 187, ( A l a . C i v . App. 1984) ("There a r e c i r c u m s t a n c e s i s reasonable, is t o do so."). parent The 2110583 f a t h e r argues t h a t there i s evidence i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the has been manipulated reluctance to visit by the i n the mother presence unreasonable. B a s e d on t h o s e t h a t the court's his trial However, arguments the and child trial rejected of that the the child's second w i f e arguments, the refusal v i s i t a t i o n w i t h the and child f a t h e r contends to modify the restriction on is error. court was with those 21, 2011, c o u r t noted t h a t the them. mother In m o d i f i c a t i o n judgment, the t r i a l presented i t s November had i n t e r f e r e d w i t h t h e 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 f a t h e r i n the p a s t , 2011 t h a t she had p e n d e n t e l i t e h e a r i n g , and the mother t o p o s t with i t s orders. posting of the As bond, court's previous i t was would intended." the the n o t done so s i n c e t h e t h a t t h e b o n d he had continue to ensure her trial court noted, M o t h e r has order of v i s i t a t i o n . Thus, t h e t r i a l strictly The t h e m o t h e r was r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the the April required compliance "[s]ince complied the with b o n d has w o r k e d as court's t h a t i t determined t h a t , at the time of the t h i s matter, is findings indicate f i n a l hearing in no l o n g e r " h i n d e r i n g " t h e f a t h e r ' s child. 10 2110583 Further, t h e t r i a l c o u r t a p p e a r s t o have d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e c h i l d ' s s t a t e m e n t s i n d i c a t i n g t h a t he does n o t want t o be forced to v i s i t with the father's new family were c r e d i b l e o r v a l i d t h a n t h e f a t h e r ' s own e x p l a n a t i o n he h a d r e f u s e d to attend activities, i . e . , that possibility that child he no less as t o why any o f t h e c h i l d ' s e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r the f a t h e r might feel had wanted to avoid the uncomfortable visiting the a t t h o s e e v e n t s a t w h i c h t h e m o t h e r w o u l d be present. Thus, we c a n n o t c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e a u t h o r i t y r e l i e d upon by t h e f a t h e r d e m o n s t r a t e s e r r o r on t h e p a r t o f t h e t r i a l More i m p o r t a n t l y , supra, court. h o w e v e r , t h e f a c t s o f Watson v. Watson, S h i r e s v. S h i r e s , supra, and H a g l e r v. H a g l e r , are d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from the f a c t s o f t h i s case. supra, I n Watson v. Watson and S h i r e s v. S h i r e s , t h e f a t h e r was d e n i e d v i s i t a t i o n , and i n H a g l e r v. H a g l e r t h e f a t h e r was a w a r d e d v i s i t a t i o n if the children desired to visit, which, in that only case, c o n s t i t u t e d an e f f e c t i v e d e n i a l o f h i s v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s . this In c a s e , t h e f a t h e r has n o t been d e n i e d v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e child. Rather, the t r i a l court denied the f a t h e r ' s c l a i m to modify the requirement that the c h i l d not v i s i t 11 seeking him i n the 2110583 presence of the second w i f e . to remove t h e restriction The on his visitation had t h e b u r d e n o f d e m o n s t r a t i n g change in circumstances f a t h e r , as t h e p a r t y with seeking the child, t h a t t h e r e had b e e n a m a t e r i a l since the entry of the divorce j u d g m e n t and t h a t t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s and w e l f a r e o f t h e w a r r a n t the m o d i f i c a t i o n . 920 (Ala. Civ. visitation, determine decides a court whether (Ala. C i v . App. 1228, 1230 of does v. P.G., 54 So. a petition to not reexamine j u d g m e n t was the record F l a n a g a n v. 1995). supports on changed So. 2d 546, Flanagan, As i s e x p l a i n e d b e l o w , our that the proof. factual i n c l u d i n g the f o l l o w i n g : "A. [T]he F a t h e r , a t t h e f i n a l h e a r i n g on t h e m e r i t s of the o r i g i n a l case, t e s t i f i e d u n t r u t h f u l l y about the s t a t u s of h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h his paramour, [C.E.C.]. More s p e c i f i c a l l y t h e Father t e s t i f i e d , as d i d [ C . E . C . ] , t h a t t h e y no l o n g e r had a r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h one a n o t h e r n o r was one d e s i r e d or e n v i s i o n e d . The c o u r t took the Father and [C.E.C.'s] t e s t i m o n y i n t o a c c o u n t when t h e o r i g i n a l 12 549 2d determination 656 I n i t s j u d g m e n t , t h e t r i a l c o u r t made a number o f findings, to So. the f a t h e r d i d n o t meet h i s b u r d e n o f 918, modify evidence based see a l s o Moody v. N a g l e , 811 2 0 0 1 ) ; and 3d correct; rather, i t m o d i f i c a t i o n i s warranted ( A l a . C i v . App. the N.T. ("On 2010) i f i t s original circumstances."); review App. See child 2110583 custody order was initially fashioned barring c o n t a c t b e t w e e n t h e m i n o r c h i l d o f t h e p a r t i e s ... ( h e r e i n a f t e r 'minor c h i l d ' ) a n d [ C . E . C . ] . I t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t t h e F a t h e r a n d [C.E.C.] l a t e r m a r r i e d . B. The m i n o r c h i l d w o u l d be c a u s e d t o s u f f e r e m o t i o n a l l y a n d i t w o u l d be d e t r i m e n t a l t o h i s w e l l b e i n g i f he were f o r c e d , a g a i n s t h i s w i l l , t o be i n t h e p r e s e n c e o f t h e F a t h e r ' s new w i f e , [C.E.C.] ( h e r e i n a f t e r 'new w i f e ' ) . "C. The F a t h e r h a s n o t a v a i l e d h i m s e l f o f e v e r y , o r even t h e m a j o r i t y , o f o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o r e p a i r h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the minor c h i l d . Quite to t h e c o n t r a r y , t h e F a t h e r has been f o r c e d by t h e new w i f e t o p i c k b e t w e e n h i s new f a m i l y a n d t h e minor c h i l d . As a c o n s e q u e n c e , f u r t h e r damage h a s b e e n done t o h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e m i n o r c h i l d . This i s r e g r e t t a b l e , e s p e c i a l l y given the f a c t that t h e new w i f e was f u l l y aware t h a t t h e F a t h e r h a d a c h i l d when she s o u g h t t o become i n v o l v e d w i t h h i m and u l t i m a t e l y p l a y a p a r t i n t h e d e m i s e o f h i s marriage t o the [mother]. " I t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t t h i s C o u r t has no d e s i r e t o f u r t h e r damage t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f t h e F a t h e r and t h e minor c h i l d . Quite t o the contrary, i t i s the strong desire of t h i s court that the r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e F a t h e r and t h e minor c h i l d grow s t r o n g e r a n d i t i s t h i s c o u r t ' s b e l i e f t h a t deeds a n d n o t words a r e g o i n g t o be t h e c a t a l y s t f o r t h i s growth. "The F a t h e r p r e s e n t l y s e e s h i m s e l f as a v i c t i m i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n a n d t h a t i s u n f o r t u n a t e as t h e o n l y r e a l v i c t i m i n t h e a b o v e - s t y l e d cause i s t h e m i n o r c h i l d o f t h e p a r t i e s f o r no one a s k e d h i s o p i n i o n o r t h o u g h t s on h a v i n g h i s w h o l e w o r l d t u r n e d u p s i d e down. I t i s the b e l i e f of t h i s court that the sooner the Father accepts h i s share of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n f o r e v e r changing h i s son's l i f e , the sooner t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p w i l l begin t o h e a l . 13 2110583 "D. The D e f e n d a n t , [ K . T . J . ] ( h e r e i n a f t e r ' t h e M o t h e r ' ) has i n t h e p a s t been d e t r i m e n t a l t o t h e r e e s t a b l i s h m e n t of a r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e F a t h e r and t h e m i n o r c h i l d . S t a t e d more f r a n k l y , t h e M o t h e r w o u l d have b e e n c o n t e n t i f t h e F a t h e r h a d been a w a r d e d no v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e m i n o r c h i l d . However, t h e c o u r t f e l t t h a t i t w o u l d d e t r i m e n t a l t o t h e m i n o r c h i l d and q u i t e h o n e s t l y mean s p i r i t e d t o s e v e r t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e m i n o r c h i l d and his father. Therefore, i n an e f f o r t t o t h w a r t f u r t h e r e f f o r t s by t h e m o t h e r a t h i n d e r i n g t h e f a t h e r ' s and m i n o r c h i l d ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p , t h e c o u r t c a u s e d t h e m o t h e r t o p o s t a b o n d i n t h e amount o f $5,000. S i n c e t h e p o s t i n g o f t h e bond, t h e mother has s t r i c t l y c o m p l i e d w i t h c o u r t ' s p r e v i o u s o r d e r o f visitation. The bond has w o r k e d as i t was intended." (Emphasis added.) The a p p r o p r i a t e trial court are existence i n q u i r i e s - - a n d t h e ones u t i l i z e d b y t h e whether the father has demonstrated the o f 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 and w h e t h e r r e q u i r i n g the c h i l d to v i s i t the f a t h e r i n the presence of h i s new w i f e and f a m i l y w o u l d 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 so as to warrant N.T. v. P.G., a modification supra; of the o r i g i n a l Moody v. N a g l e , supra; restriction. and F l a n a g a n v. F l a n a g a n , s u p r a ; see a l s o G i l l i a m v. G i l l i a m , 876 So. 2d 1135, 1142 ( A l a . C i v . App. fashioning child); a visitation and C a r r 2003) (the primary award i s t h e b e s t v. B r o y l e s , consideration i n t e r e s t s of the 652 So. 2d 299, 303 14 in (Ala. Civ. 2110583 App. 1994) (same). The trial court witnessed t h e p a r t i e s as t h e y t e s t i f i e d and s p o k e w i t h t h e t h e n - 1 5 - y e a r - o l d evidence presented r e m a i n s h u r t and child. The to the t r i a l c o u r t i n d i c a t e s t h a t the child r e s e n t f u l of the f a t h e r ' s conduct b e f o r e d i v o r c e , and t h e c h i l d e x p r e s s e d the f u r t h e r anger t h a t the f a t h e r had f a i l e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n a c t i v i t i e s w i t h him o r t o any of h i s 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 f t e r the d i v o r c e . is clear both from the m o d i f i c a t i o n j u d g m e n t and t o t h e p a r t i e s and the carefully c r e d i b i l i t y and was i n the consider regarding w i f e and Patronas, the f a t h e r and motivations inferences f a m i l y w o u l d be So. the to 2d 473, the evidence evaluate be drawn that in the c o u r t made and the from d e t r i m e n t a l to the 475 t h a t the ( A l a . 1997). The trial witnesses their the court and to testimony, father's child. Ex new parte This c o u r t i s not to the t r i a l i t s u b s t i t u t e i t s judgment f o r t h a t of the 15 trial evaluated i n c l u d e d the allowed to reweigh evidence presented may child of the p a r t i e s . p o s i t i o n to whether v i s i t a t i o n 693 contained the statements the t r i a l considered best findings It t h e c h i l d a b o u t m a k i n g an e f f o r t t o r e p a i r r e l a t i o n s h i p of the court factual attend court, trial nor court. 2110583 Pickett v. P i c k e t t , 792 So. 2d 1124, 1129 2001). Also, this court ( A l a . C i v . App. has h e l d : "The t r i a l c o u r t h a s b r o a d d i s c r e t i o n i n d e t e r m i n i n g the v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s o f a n o n c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t , and i t s d e c i s i o n i n t h i s r e g a r d w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d a b s e n t an abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n . A l e x a n d e r v. A l e x a n d e r , 625 So. 2d 433, 435 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 3 ) . E v e r y c a s e i n v o l v i n g a v i s i t a t i o n i s s u e must be d e c i d e d on i t s own f a c t s a n d c i r c u m s t a n c e s , b u t the primary consideration i n e s t a b l i s h i n g the v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s accorded a noncustodial parent i s always t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s and w e l f a r e o f t h e c h i l d . F a n n i n g v. F a n n i n g , 504 So. 2d 737, 739 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1987)." Carr v. B r o y l e s , In this case, wanted t o h e l p with 652 So. 2d a t 303. the t r i a l court expressly stated that i t t h e p a r t i e s improve t h e c h i l d ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p the father but that the father's lack of e f f o r t i n that regard had caused evidence indicates father's marriage f u r t h e r damage t o t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p . that t h e changes t o t h e new w i f e i n this case The are the a n d , as t h e t r i a l court found, a f u r t h e r d e t e r i o r a t i o n o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e f a t h e r a n d c h i l d b e c a u s e o f t o t h e f a t h e r ' s f a i l u r e t o work t o improve that relationship. The father presented evidence i n d i c a t i n g t h a t he p r e f e r r e d t h a t t h e c h i l d v i s i t h i m w i t h h i s new f a m i l y a n d t h a t t h a t w o u l d make v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e c h i l d easier f o r the father. The father 16 presented no evidence 2110583 c o n c e r n i n g how would serve v i s i t i n g him the circumstances appeal, that and the that, trial given c h i l d ' s best of the this case, findings court the f o r c i n g the i n the presence of the second w i f e interests. the evidence the of trial abused in the the court, we the the father record on say determining and f a t h e r s o l e l y on unique cannot i t s discretion in h i s t o r y between c h i l d to v i s i t Given the the child, father's t e r m s w o u l d be d e t r i m e n t a l t o t h e c h i l d and n o t i n t h e c h i l d ' s best i n t e r e s t s . I n h i s b r i e f on a p p e a l , restriction on his visitation constitutional rights. place by judgment. error as the "[A] to J o n e s , 883 trial with the child violates T h a t r e s t r i c t i o n , h o w e v e r , was court in the November 9, 2009, put j u d g m e n t s o u g h t t o be 2d 207, 209 n. modified." 1 ( A l a . C i v . App. the his in divorce m o d i f i c a t i o n p e t i t i o n cannot r e v i v e claims the So. the f a t h e r a l s o contends t h a t Jones 2003) . of v. Thus, the f a t h e r ' s f a i l u r e to appeal t h a t r e s t r i c t i o n at the time of the entry review of of the restriction's the divorce issues alleged he judgment now raises infringement rights. 17 precludes of with his this regard court's to the constitutional 2110583 We note that the father argues i n his brief on appeal t h a t he a n d t h e s e c o n d w i f e were n o t i n a r e l a t i o n s h i p a t t h e t i m e t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t was e n t e r e d , thereby implying that t h e r e was no n e e d , a t t h a t t i m e , to challenge the r e s t r i c t i o n on i n i t s November his visitation. modification that However, judgment, t h e t r i a l court t h e f a t h e r and t h e second w i f e status of t h e i r 21, 2011, expressly determined had misrepresented r e l a t i o n s h i p a t the time of the the divorce hearing. Given t h e r e c o r d and t h e h i s t o r y o f t h e p a r t i e s , and applying the appropriate standard that that f i n d i n g i s not supported Out this father we cannot say by t h e r e c o r d . o f an abundance o f c a u t i o n , h o w e v e r , we n o t e t h a t t h e father could not p r e v a i l in of review, appellate claimed on t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i s s u e s r a i s e d brief. that In h i s postjudgment the t r i a l court motion, the had v i o l a t e d his First Amendment r i g h t o f a s s o c i a t i o n b e c a u s e he h a d b e e n d e p r i v e d o f "his right second] of a s s o c i a t i o n with wife simultaneously." t h i s court's review of h i s F i r s t On a p p e a l , c h i l d r e n and [the the father o f t h e i s s u e w h e t h e r he h a s b e e n and F o u r t e e n t h whom t h e c h i l d w i l l h i s three Amendment r i g h t s seeks deprived t o choose with a s s o c i a t e when t h e f a t h e r i s e x e r c i s i n g 18 2110583 visitation with the child. We conclude that the father's argument on a p p e a l i s n o t t h e same a r g u m e n t as t h e argument i n his postjudgment motion; t h e r e f o r e , argument i s n o t p r o p e r l y b e f o r e that 'we cannot reverse this court. urged f o r the S i n g l e t o n v. S t a t e Farm F i r e & Cas. 280, 285 (Ala. 2005)." LLC, 998 So. The father because, " I t i s w e l l known the judgment of the t r i a l on an argument n o t made b e l o w and appeal.' h i s F o u r t e e n t h Amendment 2d 1042, last June f i r s t time Co., 928 W h i t e Sands Group, L.L.C. v. 1057 on So. PRS 2d II, (Ala. 2008). argues that erred the mother's the r e l a t i o n s h i p before father the father's court I t i s c l e a r from the the trial e n t i r e l y w i t h i n the c h i l d ' s d i s c r e t i o n . that 2012, the is testimony 17, based visitation good after court and parties child divorced. enjoyed The c o u r t a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r l o v e s t h e c h i l d and to continue t o have a g o o d r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h him. also father. indicate The c h i l d ' s statements before that communicate w i t h him he was and hurt the by the father's 19 the trial desires However, a f t e r t h e p a r t i e s ' d i v o r c e , t h e c h i l d became e m b i t t e r e d the a trial toward court father's failure to continued refusal to 2110583 attend e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r events that were important to the child. However, t h e r e c o r d a l s o i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e f a t h e r s p e n d s time w i t h the c h i l d . alternating hearing and weekends has an his f a t h e r has v i s i t e d w i t h t h e c h i l d since the April 2011 pendente made some a t t e m p t s t o engage t h e c h i l d those v i s i t a t i o n s . t h a t the The 2 The f a t h e r and c h i l d ' s most r e c e n t improvement i n the on lite during the mother each t e s t i f i e d v i s i t with the father c h i l d ' s a t t i t u d e toward the indicated father and family. "The n a t u r a l and p r o p e r r e l a t i o n s h i p o f a p a r e n t and child should be nurtured, encouraged and p r o t e c t e d by t h e c o u r t a f t e r t h e b r e a k d o w n o f a marriage. No unreasonable impediment s h o u l d be raised. ... "... The r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e c u l t i v a t i o n o f that r e l a t i o n s h i p should r i g h t f u l l y be upon the f a t h e r , and t h e m o t h e r , n o t upon t h e c h i l d . To so p l a c e i t i s to p r o b a b l y d e s t r o y i t , not p r o t e c t i t . " Moore v. see 471 Moore, 331 also Parker (1959) So. 2d v. P a r k e r , (reversing a 742, 269 744 ( A l a . C i v . App. A l a . 299, 303, judgment p l a c i n g 112 So. visitation 1976); 2d at 467, the T h e f a t h e r c o n c e d e d t h a t he had m i s s e d one o r two v i s i t s s i n c e t h e A p r i l 2011 p e n d e n t e l i t e h e a r i n g . However, t h o s e v i s i t s were m i s s e d b e c a u s e t h e f a t h e r had t o work o r b e c a u s e t h e r e was a c o n f l i c t w i t h t h e c h i l d ' s s c h e d u l e . 2 20 2110583 discretion of the c h i l d and s t a t i n g t h a t what i s b e s t f o r t h e c h i l d " as t o be made b y t h e t r i a l should "a d e c i s i o n court rather than the c h i l d ) . The efforts record indicates that the father to repair h i s relationship with has made the c h i l d , some that the c h i l d was r e s p o n d i n g , a n d t h a t t h e c h i l d was w i l l i n g t o t r y t o have a relationship precluding the with child f a t h e r ' s new w i f e the from father. unwanted The restriction visitation with the adequately addresses the c h i l d ' s i n t e r e s t s and e n c o u r a g e s t h e r e p a i r o f t h e c h i l d ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e father. Allowing v i s i t a t i o n with the c h i l d t o determine the f a t h e r would not, given the c h i l d ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t s . A c c o r d i n g l y , of the t r i a l child t o determine remand t h i s with court's this modification visitation we r e v e r s e June of t h e f a c t s , be i n judgment t h a t after cause f o r t h e e n t r y the timing that part allows the 17, 2012, a n d we o f a judgment i n c o m p l i a n c e opinion. AFFIRMED I N PART; REVERSED I N PART; AND REMANDED. Thompson, P . J . , and Pittman, Bryan, a n d Moore, J J . , concur. Thomas, J . , c o n c u r s i n part writing. 21 and d i s s e n t s i n part, with 2110583 THOMAS, J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g I concur w i t h concludes ("the that father") i n p a r t and d i s s e n t i n g i n p a r t . the majority of t h i s court t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l argument on a p p e a l i s not properly i n s o f a r as i t r a i s e d b y H.H.J. before this court b e c a u s e i t i s n o t t h e same argument as t h e argument r a i s e d i n his postjudgment motion. So. 3d a t with the majority of t h i s the Marion C i r c u i t visitation should court . I also concur i n s o f a r as i t c o n c l u d e s that Court e r r e d by o r d e r i n g t h a t t h e f a t h e r ' s be l e f t H.R.J. ("the c h i l d " ) . entirely w i t h i n the d i s c r e t i o n of So. 3d a t . However, my review o f t h e r e c o r d l e a d s me t o t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e t r i a l a l s o e r r e d b y f o r b i d d i n g t h e p r e s e n c e o f C.E.C. wife") ("the s e c o n d during the father's v i s i t a t i o n with the c h i l d . disputes t h a t a m a t e r i a l change o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s court No one has o c c u r r e d o r t h a t K . T . J . ("the m o t h e r " ) s h o u l d have been a w a r d e d p r i m a r y custody of the c h i l d . unusual r e s t r i c t i o n s the best The q u e s t i o n i s whether the h i g h l y p l a c e d on t h e f a t h e r ' s v i s i t a t i o n a r e i n i n t e r e s t of the c h i l d . I am n o t c o n v i n c e d that they are. The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e f a t h e r h a s been e x e r c i s i n g his v i s i t a t i o n with the c h i l d father's parent's lake house on a l t e r n a t i n g weekends a t t h e because 22 of the t r i a l court's 2110583 o r i g i n a l p r o h i b i t i o n a g a i n s t the c h i l d ' s being i n the presence of the second wife. The trial court's November 21, 2011, judgment a g a i n f o r b a d e t h e c h i l d from b e i n g i n t h e p r e s e n c e of the second w i f e , and i t added an a d d i t i o n a l l i m i t a t i o n : the t r i a l court r e s t r i c t e d v i s i t a t i o n s to the f a t h e r ' s r e s i d e n c e . 3 The a p p a r e n t e f f e c t o f t h e j u d g m e n t i s t h a t t h e s e c o n d w i f e i s r e q u i r e d t o move o u t o f t h e r e s i d e n c e the v i s i t a t i o n The 2011, trial being i f he I were occur. included a finding i n i t s November " [ t ] h e minor that emotionally presence of the court judgment suffer cannot would and before i t would forced, agree against detrimental caused c o u r t had 21, to to h i s w e l l to be in the main o p i n i o n the second w i f e . t h a t the t r i a l be his will, As i t to support i t s f i n d i n g ; the t r i a l notes, So. 3d a t sufficient the . evidence therefore, I conclude that c o u r t e x c e e d e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n and t h a t i t s j u d g m e n t imposing the r e s t r i c t i o n s Certainly a t r i a l to child be [the second w i f e ] . " c h i l d h a d n e v e r met cannot e v e r y o t h e r weekend o r a t i s s u e i s due c o u r t may t o be reversed. s e t c o n d i t i o n s on visitation p r o t e c t a c h i l d when t h e r e a r e a l l e g a t i o n s o f abuse o r t h a t T h e f a t h e r has n o t a p p e a l e d l o c a t i o n of the v i s i t a t i o n s . 3 23 regarding the restricted 2110583 a c a r e g i v e r has L.D.L., 604 trial So. p s y c h o l o g i c a l problems. 2d 425, 428 See, ( A l a . C i v . App. e.g., I.L. 1992)(reversing a c o u r t ' s judgment g r a n t i n g u n s u p e r v i s e d v i s i t a t i o n noncustodial child); App. parent Y.A.M. v. 1992)(same); (Ala. C i v . App. Fisk, 523 So. court's Watson 2d 464 be 2d Watson, 1035, 555 ( A l a . C i v . App. requiring problem). t h a t the 2d 1115, 1117 and C a l d w e l l v. he suffered Such c o n c e r n s from are a not presented wife's presence b e e n , o r e v e r w i l l be, h a r m f u l t o t h e c h i l d , trial parent's t h a t the evidence second the (Ala. Civ. noncustodial because I conclude abused 1037 So. to a 1988)(affirming a the supervised case. to i n d i c a t e So. sexually discussion infra); or emotional present i n this allegedly v. 1989)(see to psychological had M.R.M., 600 judgment visitation fails who v. has ever a l t h o u g h , as the m a i n o p i n i o n p o i n t s o u t , t h e c h i l d does n o t w i s h t o v i s i t the f a t h e r i f the second In 1984), that Hagler Hagler, t h e c h i l d r e n , who they v i s i t him. c o u r t may, is v. wife i s present. were afraid H a g l e r , 460 460 So. were 8 and of So. the So. 2d 187 3d a t . (Ala. Civ. 11 y e a r s o f age, f a t h e r and 2d a t 188. We d i d not App. claimed d e s i r e to s a i d t h a t "a trial and n o r m a l l y s h o u l d , r e q u i r e v i s i t a t i o n e v e n i f i t f o r c e d upon a c h i l d " i f i t " i s reasonably 24 satisfied from 2110583 the evidence that a c h i l d the c u s t o d i a l parent, i s merely p a r r o t i n g the or that the child of immature i s too wishes to form a c o n s i d e r e d o p i n i o n , o r where t h e c h i l d e x p r e s s e s or to unwillingness foundation." t h e c h i l d was wishes without 189. Id. at t r i a l c o u r t was her visit The presented -- and that the a r r i v e at the The trial had imposed a court $5, 000 the so that fact c a n n o t undo t h e damaging e f f e c t s Furthermore, review opinion presence regarding of the that the the the that of the expected to the . 25 legal, the opposite, i t continue to trial bond requirements past not reveal child social, any considered r e f u s i n g t o be the court manipulation. formed a Although comprehend t h e that the m a t u r e young p e r s o n , t h e most m a t u r e 1 5 - y e a r - o l d be in 3d a t not does had consequences of second w i f e . the record child the would complied with of t o be argument Quite she she indicating the "parroting" So. the child. The had o r was reluctance reject determined that evidence or conclusion. not child. my basis states that unreasonable. did bond the child's same manipulated manipulate main o p i n i o n m a n i p u l a t e d by t h e m o t h e r not mother reasonable w i t h and r e j e c t e d t h e a r g u m e n t s t h a t s e c o n d w i f e ' s p r e s e n c e was I do any fears may child in be the a cannot financial, or 2110583 emotional implications parent. Finally, reasonable basis of a there strained was f o r the no c a s e when t h e t h a t a c h i l d who regarding trial court i s u n w i l l i n g to v i s i t has the conclusion of this court is in conflict visitation with our Watson v. Watson , 555 In Watson , we So. 2d 1115 the best visiting decisions tendencies paranoia. 189). a and 555 child noncustodial had So. the been rare proving f i t parent Thus, I the father's i n Hagler c o u r t had parent the who with child had ample not feared suicidal depression 2d a t 1116-17 ( c i t i n g H a g l e r , 460 So. and 2d We r e i t e r a t e d : " W h i l e i t i s a r a r e and e x c e p t i o n a l c a s e , t h e r e a r e c i r c u m s t a n c e s where i t i s r e a s o n a b l e , and i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d , t o n o t be r e q u i r e d t o visit a non-custodial parent because of his u n w i l l i n g n e s s o r f e a r t o do s o . I t i s an e x t r e m e decision that r e s t r i c t s an o t h e r w i s e relatively q u a l i f i e d p a r e n t from v i s i t i n g h i s c h i l d . " 26 and 1989). t h a t v i s i t a t i o n was because diagnosed the id. ( A l a . C i v . App. determined t h a t the t r i a l i n t e r e s t of with See regarding evidence to support i t s determination in in does t h e evidence an o t h e r w i s e a any c a s e a an e x a m p l e o f t h e w o u l d s u f f e r a d v e r s e p s y c h o l o g i c a l damage. believe t o be I do n o t , as a p p a r e n t l y m a j o r i t y o f t h i s c o u r t , see t h i s extreme testimony child's unwillingness presence of the second w i f e . and relationship with at 2110583 Id. I am n o t p e r s u a d e d b y t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d t h a t t h e trial court's visitation extreme decision to alternating residence, to weekends, restrict only the father's at the father's and o n l y o u t s i d e t h e p r e s e n c e o f t h e second w i f e i s in the best i n t e r e s t of the c h i l d . I come t o t h i s in l i g h t of the testimony presented to the t r i a l conclusion court. The m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r h a d made e f f o r t s t o repair h i s relationship with responding, and t h a t relationship with child: tooth said the c h i l d the father. that was w i l l i n g The t r i a l the c h i l d was t o t r y t o have a judge s t a t e d t o the " B u t I c a n t e l l y o u a t e v e r y t u r n y o u r daddy h a s f o u g h t and n a i l , your l i f e . " and the c h i l d , The m o t h e r s a i d t h a t she d e s i r e d the c h i l d that unhealthy a t l e a s t i n f r o n t o f me[,] t o be i n v o l v e d i n t o have a " h e a l t h y their due r e l a t i o n s h i p " ; h o w e v e r , she r e l a t i o n s h i p a t the time to the p a r t i e s ' f o r the father divorce of the t r i a l and the was father's marriage t o the second w i f e . Notably, the said and the father c h i l d ' s most r e c e n t t h a t he was s e e i n g that the c h i l d and t h e mother t e s t i f i e d visit with the father. regarding The father improvement i n t h e c h i l d ' s a t t i t u d e had enjoyed 27 h i s time with the father's 2110583 m o t h e r and t h e f a t h e r ' s nephew. around." The f a t h e r s a i d : "He's coming The m o t h e r s a i d : " I t h i n k [ t h e c h i l d ' s a t t i t u d e t o w a r d t h e f a t h e r and h i s f a m i l y ] m i g h t change. L i k e [the f a t h e r ] was saying, he has -[ t h e c h i l d ] has c a l l e d [ t h e f a t h e r ' s nephew]. [The f a t h e r ' s nephew] and [ t h e c h i l d ] have p l a y e d d i s c g o l f a c o u p l e o f t i m e s , maybe t h r e e o r f o u r t i m e s h e r e l a t e l y . I t h i n k t h a t ' s a s t a r t . [The c h i l d ] came home and he t o l d me t h a t , w e l l , we went t o [ t h e f a t h e r ' s m o t h e r ' s ] house t h i s weekend. [The m o t h e r ] s a i d , w e l l , t h a t ' s good. D i d you have a good t i m e ? W e l l , a t l e a s t I had somebody t o t a l k t o me. [The f a t h e r ' s m o t h e r ] t a l k e d t o me and [ t h e f a t h e r ' s nephew] t a l k e d t o me. You know, so I t h i n k i t ' s a s t a r t . " Because I b e l i e v e the c o u r t and proper breakdown relationship of a marriage, cause o f the breakdown, main o p i n i o n as of a should encourage the n a t u r a l parent e v e n when one I dissent that a f f i r m s the t r i a l i t prohibits the and presence of parent after i s the as t o t h a t p o r t i o n court's the the sole of the judgment i n s o f a r second v i s i t a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e f a t h e r and t h e c h i l d . 28 child wife during

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.