Mark D. Davis v. Tonya D. Blackstock

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 04/05/2013 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 2111244 Mark D. Davis v. Tonya D. B l a c k s t o c k Appeal from Lauderdale C i r c u i t (DR-06-86.01) Court PER CURIAM. The p a r t i e s t o t h i s a p p e a l , and Tonya D. B l a c k s t o c k Mark D. D a v i s ("the f a t h e r " ) ("the m o t h e r " ) , have b e e n b e f o r e t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s o f t h i s s t a t e on s e v e r a l p r e v i o u s occasions. 2111244 "The f a t h e r and t h e m o t h e r m a r r i e d on November 11, 2000. F o u r months l a t e r , w h i l e t h e y were r e s i d i n g i n T e n n e s s e e , t h e f a t h e r and t h e m o t h e r separated. The m o t h e r was pregnant with the [ p a r t i e s ' ] c h i l d at the time of the s e p a r a t i o n . S u b s e q u e n t l y , a p e t i t i o n f o r d i v o r c e was f i l e d i n the Chancery Court f o r Lawrence County, Tennessee ('the T e n n e s s e e t r i a l c o u r t ' ) . B e f o r e t h e T e n n e s s e e t r i a l c o u r t r u l e d on t h e d i v o r c e p e t i t i o n f i l e d w i t h t h a t c o u r t , t h e f a t h e r and t h e m o t h e r moved t o A l a b a m a , where t h e m o t h e r g a v e b i r t h t o t h e c h i l d on December 27, 2001. "On F e b r u a r y 15, 2002, t h e T e n n e s s e e t r i a l c o u r t entered a j u d g m e n t d i v o r c i n g t h e f a t h e r and t h e mother. In essence, the Tennessee judgment g r a n t e d t h e f a t h e r and t h e m o t h e r j o i n t c u s t o d y , w i t h t h e m o t h e r r e c e i v i n g p r i m a r y p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y and c h i l d support. I n J u n e 2002, w h i l e the f a t h e r , the m o t h e r , and t h e c h i l d continued to reside i n Alabama, the f a t h e r p e t i t i o n e d t h e Tennessee t r i a l c o u r t f o r a m o d i f i c a t i o n o f i t s F e b r u a r y 15, 2002, judgment w i t h r e g a r d t o custody. On S e p t e m b e r 3, 2003, t h e T e n n e s s e e t r i a l c o u r t m o d i f i e d i t s d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t by g r a n t i n g the father equal p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y on a f o u r - d a y r o t a t i n g b a s i s and t e r m i n a t i n g the f a t h e r ' s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n . "The m o t h e r a p p e a l e d t h e S e p t e m b e r 3, 2003, judgment t o the Tennessee C o u r t o f A p p e a l s . On O c t o b e r 12, 2004, t h e T e n n e s s e e C o u r t o f A p p e a l s i s s u e d an o p i n i o n and an o r d e r affirming that p o r t i o n o f t h e S e p t e m b e r 3, 2003, j u d g m e n t t h a t m o d i f i e d c u s t o d y and v a c a t i n g t h a t p o r t i o n o f t h e judgment t h a t m o d i f i e d the f a t h e r ' s child-support o b l i g a t i o n . The T e n n e s s e e C o u r t o f A p p e a l s remanded the case f o r a h e a r i n g t o determine which p a r e n t should be t h e ' p r i m a r y r e s i d e n t i a l p a r e n t ' and w h e t h e r c h i l d s u p p o r t s h o u l d be a w a r d e d . See D a v i s v. D a v i s , (No. M2003-02312-COA-R3-CV) (Tenn. C t . App. 2004) ( n o t r e p o r t e d i n S.W.3d). The T e n n e s s e e t r i a l c o u r t n e v e r a c t e d on t h i s mandate. 2 2111244 "On F e b r u a r y 6, 2006, t h e m o t h e r filed a petition f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n o f c u s t o d y and child support i n the Lauderdale Circuit Court ('the A l a b a m a t r i a l c o u r t ' ) . I n r e s p o n s e , on F e b r u a r y 23, 2006, t h e f a t h e r f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r a custody h e a r i n g i n the Tennessee t r i a l c o u r t . Both p a r t i e s f i l e d m o t i o n s t o d i s m i s s t h e o t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n on t h e ground of l a c k of subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n . The m o t h e r a r g u e d t h a t t h e T e n n e s s e e t r i a l c o u r t no longer had j u r i s d i c t i o n over the custody issue b e c a u s e t h e f a t h e r , t h e m o t h e r , and t h e c h i l d h a d r e s i d e d i n Alabama f o r t h e p r e c e d i n g four years. The f a t h e r a r g u e d t h a t t h e A l a b a m a t r i a l c o u r t c o u l d not exercise j u r i s d i c t i o n because the Tennessee c o u r t was c o n t i n u i n g t o e x e r c i s e i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n . The A l a b a m a t r i a l c o u r t g r a n t e d t h e f a t h e r ' s m o t i o n to dismiss, but i t set aside i t s d i s m i s s a l order a f t e r t h e mother a l l e g e d t h a t the Tennessee t r i a l c o u r t h a d y i e l d e d j u r i s d i c t i o n t o A l a b a m a as a more c o n v e n i e n t f o r u m and h a d d i s m i s s e d the father's custody-hearing petition. "The p a r t i e s p r o c e e d e d t o a c u s t o d y h e a r i n g i n the Alabama t r i a l c o u r t . A t t h e h e a r i n g , t h e f a t h e r r e q u e s t e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r be h e l d i n c o n t e m p t f o r f a i l i n g t o a b i d e by t h e T e n n e s s e e t r i a l court's September 3, 2003, j u d g m e n t ; he a l s o r e q u e s t e d t h a t he be a w a r d e d 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 . The m o t h e r d e n i e d t h a t she was i n c o n t e m p t and r e q u e s t e d t h a t she be a w a r d e d p r i m a r y p h y s i c a l custody of the child. Following ore tenus p r o c e e d i n g s , t h e Alabama t r i a l court entered a j u d g m e n t on September 1, 2006. The A l a b a m a t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment m a i n t a i n e d j o i n t l e g a l custody, but i t awarded t h e mother 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 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 . The Alabama t r i a l c o u r t f u r t h e r o r d e r e d t h e f a t h e r t o pay c h i l d s u p p o r t and t o p a y o n e - h a l f of the uninsured-medical expenses o f the c h i l d . The judgment a l s o p r o v i d e d the father a c r e d i t of $1,338.93 t o be a p p l i e d t o h i s s h a r e o f t h e c h i l d ' s uninsured-medical expenses." 3 2111244 Davis v. Blackstock, 2007) ("Davis I") In Davis 47 So. I, supra, c o u r t " ) had child-custody this but c o u r t ' s award of p r i m a r y mother p e t i t i o n e d reversing Blackstock, (Ala. Civ. rejected C i r c u i t Court this for a writ trial 47 court App. So. court 801 custody (Ala. the trial our c o u r t had award. 2009) . In The supreme erred in Ex parte reaching h o l d i n g , o u r supreme c o u r t n o t e d i t s a g r e e m e n t t h a t t h e c o u r t had p r o p e r l y e x e r c i s e d s u b j e c t - m a t t e r the p a r t i e s ' custody at 803 n. 1 ("The dispute. trial 47 So. 3d that the Appeals concluded [ t r i a l c o u r t ' s ] a s s u m p t i o n o f j u r i s d i c t i o n was consistent with the p r o v i s i o n s of the Uniform C h i l d Custody J u r i s d i c t i o n Enforcement Act, A l a . Code 1975, c o n c l u s i o n a p p e a r s t o be On remand from a f f i r m e d the t r i a l Ex § its j u r i s d i c t i o n over Ex p a r t e B l a c k s t o c k , Court of C i v i l the to the mother. o f c e r t i o r a r i , and court's father's ( h e r e i n a f t e r "the reversed holding that this 3d the j u r i s d i c t i o n over p h y s i c a l custody the w r i t , the 797-98 lacked subject-matter dispute, court granted 796, (footnote omitted) . arguments t h a t the Lauderdale trial 3d 30-3B-101 e t and seq. This this court correct."). parte Blackstock, c o u r t ' s award o f p r i m a r y 4 supra, physical custody 2111244 to the mother and child-support judgment. 2010) addressed award Davis set noting that forth v. B l a c k s t o c k , ("Davis I I " ) . child-support the father's This obligation the t r i a l i n the September 47 So. 3d 816 court had agreed been court had failed 47 So. 3d a t 817. portion of the trial Accordingly, court's 1, 2006, that the father's calculated, to include ini t s f o r the c h i l d . this Davis court reversed September p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e amount o f c h i l d s u p p o r t that of the ( A l a . C i v . App. improperly c a l c u l a t i o n the cost of h e a l t h insurance II, challenge 1, 2006, that judgment a w a r d e d and ordered t h e f a t h e r ' s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n be r e c a l c u l a t e d . Id. Davis II certificate was released o f j u d g m e n t was on April issued 2, 2010, on A p r i l and 21, 2010. m a t t e r a p p e a r s t o have been s e t f o r a s t a t u s h e a r i n g trial court in September that 2010, indicate whether hearing explained the f u r t h e r procedural but took the record place. h i s t o r y of t h i s The i n the does This not court matter follows: "On November 10, 2010, t h e f a t h e r f i l e d i n t h e A l a b a m a t r i a l c o u r t a m o t i o n f o r a h e a r i n g and f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e 2006 j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d by t h e Alabama t r i a l court. He a r g u e d t h a t t h e 2006 5 the as 2111244 j u d g m e n t v i o l a t e d h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s , and he a l s o a l l e g e d 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 had o c c u r r e d s i n c e t h e e n t r y o f t h e 2006 j u d g m e n t that j u s t i f i e d a m o d i f i c a t i o n of custody. The f a t h e r a l s o r e q u e s t e d t h a t the Alabama t r i a l c o u r t take steps n e c e s s a r y to p r o t e c t the child from i n a p p r o p r i a t e conduct a l l e g e d l y o c c u r r i n g at the mother's house. A f t e r a h e a r i n g , the Alabama t r i a l court entered a j u d g m e n t on November 18, 2010, f i n d i n g t h a t t h e f a t h e r was i n a r r e a r s w i t h r e g a r d t o h i s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n i n t h e amount o f $14,246, p l u s $2,314.14 i n a c c u m u l a t e d i n t e r e s t . The Alabama t r i a l court a l s o s e t the father's c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n a t $435 p e r month. The Alabama t r i a l c o u r t f i n a l l y noted: "'It f u r t h e r appears to the c o u r t that pursuant to the appellate decisions heretofore i s s u e d t h a t t h e r e r e m a i n s an i s s u e r e g a r d i n g the i m p u t a t i o n of h e a l t h i n s u r a n c e c o s t i n the c a l c u l a t i o n of c h i l d s u p p o r t p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 3 2 [ , A l a . R. J u d . Admin.,] t h a t must be a p p l i e d . The court hereby sets further hearing on this matter The c o u r t w i l l h e a r argument i n r e g a r d t o s a i d i s s u e as w e l l as any o t h e r pending motions.' II "On F e b r u a r y 25, 2011, t h e f a t h e r f i l e d a m o t i o n t o v a c a t e ab i n i t i o t h e 2006 j u d g m e n t . The f a t h e r a l l e g e d t h a t t h e 2006 j u d g m e n t was v o i d f o r l a c k o f s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n because of the mother's noncompliance w i t h v a r i o u s p r o v i s i o n s of the Uniform I n t e r s t a t e Family Support Act ('the UIFSA'), § 30-3A-101 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975, and t h e U n i f o r m C h i l d C u s t o d y J u r i s d i c t i o n and E n f o r c e m e n t A c t ('the U C C J E A ' ) , § 30-3B-101 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975. ... The f a t h e r ' s m o t i o n t o v a c a t e was d e n i e d on M a r c h 4, 2011. The f a t h e r f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t of mandamus w i t h t h i s c o u r t on M a r c h 8, 2 0 1 1 . " 6 2111244 Ex parte Davis, (footnotes So. 3d 695, 699 (Ala. Civ. App. judgment Davis, had supra, been this entered court in determined that this matter, t h e r e f o r e , t h a t r e v i e w o f t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d by t h e appropriate The 2011) omitted). I n Ex p a r t e final 82 pursuant to the p e t i t i o n f a t h e r argued, had n o t o b t a i n e d among o t h e r subject-matter no and, father was f o r a w r i t o f mandamus. things, that the trial 1 court j u r i s d i c t i o n over the i s s u e of c h i l d s u p p o r t when t h e m o t h e r i n i t i a t e d h e r 2006 a c t i o n i n t h e trial court because the mother had failed to register the judgments of the Chancery C o u r t f o r Lawrence County, Tennessee The November 18, 2010, o r d e r s e t t h e f a t h e r ' s p e n d e n t e l i t e c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n a t $435 p e r month, b u t , in e n t e r i n g t h a t order, the t r i a l c o u r t d i d not i n c l u d e i n i t s c a l c u l a t i o n of c h i l d support the c o s t of health-insurance c o v e r a g e t o w h i c h t h e m o t h e r had t e s t i f i e d i n the 2006 hearing. Rather, the t r i a l c o u r t s e t the matter f o r a l a t e r h e a r i n g t o d e t e r m i n e an amount o f c h i l d s u p p o r t t h a t w o u l d i n c l u d e c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the cost of h e a l t h i n s u r a n c e . The f a t h e r had a l s o f i l e d t h e November 10, 2010, p e t i t i o n s e e k i n g , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t o change c u s t o d y t o j o i n t p h y s i c a l and l e g a l custody. The t r i a l c o u r t and t h i s c o u r t t r e a t e d t h e November 10, 2010, p e t i t i o n , u n d e r t h e s p e c i f i c f a c t s o f t h i s c a s e , t o be p a r t o f t h e a c t i o n t h a t r e m a i n e d p e n d i n g i n t h e t r i a l court. See Ex p a r t e D a v i s , 82 So. 3d a t 699 n. 1. A c c o r d i n g l y , because i s s u e s remained pending before the t r i a l c o u r t , t h e November 18, 2010, o r d e r was n o t f i n a l and c o u l d n o t s u p p o r t an a p p e a l . M c C o n i c o v. C a r r o l l , 891 So. 2d 328, 330 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2004). 1 7 2111244 ("the Tennessee c o u r t " ) , p u r s u a n t t o the U n i f o r m C h i l d Custody J u r i s d i c t i o n and et seq., Ala. Support Act 1975. Code ("the This this Enforcement Act 1975, or UIFSA"), ("the the § U C C J E A " ) , § 30-3B-101 Uniform 30-3A-101 c o u r t r e j e c t e d each of the Interstate et seq., Family Ala. Code f a t h e r ' s arguments on issue. T h i s c o u r t a l s o r e j e c t e d o t h e r a r g u m e n t s a s s e r t e d by father that the trial court had lacked subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r v a r i o u s p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e UCCJEA. so, this court the f a t h e r were n o t See Ex parte court denied Ex p a r t e concluded Davis, the Davis, provisions relied a p p l i c a b l e under the 82 So. 3d a t 701-03. father's petition In doing upon f a c t s of t h i s Accordingly, by case. this f o r a w r i t o f mandamus i n supra. Thereafter, hearing t h a t the the the to consider m o t h e r moved t h e the matter. t h a t m o t i o n , s t a t i n g t h a t he trial However, t h e intended court to set a f a t h e r opposed to p e t i t i o n the United S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t f o r a w r i t o f c e r t i o r a r i f r o m t h e Supreme Court The of Alabama's father filed Court, and the d e c i s i o n i n Ex his petition trial parte i n the Blackstock, United States supra. Supreme c o u r t h e l d the m a t t e r i n abeyance 8 until 2111244 after the United petition In States Supreme f o r a w r i t of c e r t i o r a r i trial issue court of c h i l d lacked support. issue trial of c h i l d court on father's judgment. a s s e r t e d h i s arguments jurisdiction As i s e x p l a i n e d , infra, an o r e t e n u s July 9, the father hearing 2012. A f t e r that over the arguments a g a i n i n t h i s conducted support the f o r a summary subject-matter p e r s i s t s i n r e a s s e r t i n g those The denied on O c t o b e r 4, 2010. June 2012, t h e f a t h e r moved In t h a t motion, the f a t h e r again the Court appeal. on t h e the p a r t i e s f i n i s h e d t h e i r i n i t i a l o r a l a r g u m e n t s d u r i n g t h e J u l y 9, 2012, hearing, the father informed t h e t r i a l c o u r t t h a t he h a d , t h a t same m o r n i n g , f i l e d a f e d e r a l a c t i o n , a g a i n s t t h e t r i a l the p a r t i e s ' attorneys, and t h e m o t h e r . 2 The f a t h e r o f f e r e d no e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e f e d e r a l a c t i o n a n d t h e t r i a l no i n q u i r y a b o u t i t . did not request judge, c o u r t made A t t h e J u l y 9, 2012, h e a r i n g , t h e f a t h e r that the t r i a l judge recuse himself. T h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t , on t h e same d a t e as t h e scheduled ore tenus h e a r i n g , the f a t h e r f i l e d i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e N o r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f Alabama a complaint against the t r i a l j u d g e a n d 12 o t h e r Alabama o f f i c i a l s a l l e g i n g c l a i m s t h a t those o f f i c i a l s had v i o l a t e d his c i v i l r i g h t s i n connection w i t h t h i s ongoing l i t i g a t i o n . The f a t h e r named Judge T e r r y A. Moore o f t h i s c o u r t as one o f the defendants i n t h a t f e d e r a l c i v i l - r i g h t s a c t i o n . Judge Moore h a s r e c u s e d h i m s e l f f r o m c o n s i d e r i n g t h i s a p p e a l . 2 9 2111244 A l s o d u r i n g t h e J u l y 9, 2012, h e a r i n g , d u r i n g a w i t n e s s ' s testimony, joined the f a t h e r f i l e d a motion seeking " t o exclude mis- non-party"; i n that motion, the father e a r l i e r o b j e c t i o n he h a d made t o p r e v e n t of Human Resources ("DHR") f r o m child-support dispute s t i l l On A u g u s t modifying 3, pending before histotal $28,862.47, i n c l u d i n g i n t e r e s t . judge e n t e r e d new trial On an o r d e r j u d g e was a s s i g n e d August trial court the t r i a l entered i n the court. an order t o $460 p e r child-support arrearage a t On A u g u s t 7, 2012, t h e t r i a l recusing himself from t h e a c t i o n . A to the action. 31, 2012, t h e f a t h e r postjudgment motion pursuant The as a p a r t y the father's child-support o b l i g a t i o n month a n d e s t a b l i s h i n g an t h e S t a t e Department acting 2012, t h e t r i a l renewed t o Rule purported to file a 5 9 ( e ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. 3 c o u r t c o n d u c t e d a h e a r i n g on t h e f a t h e r ' s p u r p o r t e d postjudgment motion. During that hearing, the f a t h e r withdrew 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 t a k e n o n l y f r o m a f i n a l judgment. SCI A l a b a m a F u n e r a l S e r v s . , I n c . v. H e s t e r , 984 So. 2d 1207, 1208 n. 1 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007) . I n an e a r l i e r o p i n i o n , t h i s c o u r t n o t e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r h a d amended h i s c o m p l a i n t t o seek a m o d i f i c a t i o n o f custody o f t h e c h i l d and t h a t , d e s p i t e t h e f a t h e r ' s e f f o r t s , t h a t c l a i m h a d n o t b e e n a s s i g n e d a s e p a r a t e c a s e number. Ex p a r t e D a v i s , 82 So. 3d a t 699 n. 1. Thus, t h e A u g u s t 3, 2012, o r d e r was n o t a f i n a l judgment t h a t d i s p o s e d o f a l l t h e p a r t i e s ' c l a i m s . 3 A 10 2111244 his pending claims child. On seeking November judgment c o n f i r m i n g granting claims the be order. and court that denying implicitly denied and, t h e r e f o r e , H e a s t o n v. N a b o r s , final trial court entered ("A claims and c o n t r o v e r s i e s order, h i s remaining pending a l l remaining pending i n the August disposed judgment 3, 2012, of the remaining constituted a final 889 So. 2d 588, 590 2004) a noted that s e v e r a l of those pending The November 9, 2012, o r d e r pending claims See the request withdrawn, had been 2012, of custody of the t h e A u g u s t 3, 2012, c h i l d - s u p p o r t father's motions; the t r i a l motions 9, a modification i s one that judgment. ( A l a . C i v . App. disposes of a l l the between t h e p a r t i e s . " ) . The f a t h e r h a d f i l e d a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l on September 14, 2012. the T h a t n o t i c e o f a p p e a l was deemed h e l d i n a b e y a n c e entry o f t h e November 9, 2012, f i n a l 4 ( a ) ( 4 ) , A l a . R. App. P. judgment entry notice when or order shall be but before treated Therefore, o f a p p e a l became e f f e c t i v e on November court entered 11 the final the entry as f i l e d and on t h e d a y t h e r e o f . " ) . the t r i a l See R u l e ("A n o t i c e o f a p p e a l f i l e d a f t e r t h e announcement o f a d e c i s i o n o r o r d e r the judgment. until after the the father's 9, 2012, judgment of in id., this 2111244 matter, and t h e a p p e a l granted t h e f a t h e r ' s m o t i o n t o i n c o r p o r a t e i n t o t h e r e c o r d on appeal i s timely. i n t h i s matter the records appeals i n Davis support o f , and i n response mandamus I and D a v i s father f i r s t subject-matter issues because, register he says, that this court from t h e p r e v i o u s I I and t h e m a t e r i a l s s u b m i t t e d i n t o , the p e t i t i o n jurisdiction the Tennessee u n d e r t h e UIFSA. aside on a p p e a l that the t r i a l over t h e mother court's f o r a writ of supra. a r g u e s on a p p e a l lacked void note a d d r e s s e d i n Ex p a r t e D a v i s , The is We the child-support failed September court to properly 3, 2003, judgment The f a t h e r i s c o r r e c t t h a t a j u d g m e n t t h a t f o r want o f s u b j e c t - m a t t e r a t any t i m e . jurisdiction M c C a r t h y v. McCarthy, 1140-41 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 0 ) . may be s e t 785 So. 2d 1138, However, t h i s c o u r t addressed t h e a r g u m e n t s a s s e r t e d i n t h e f a t h e r ' s c u r r e n t b r i e f on a p p e a l when he supra. asserted This arguments court that those same explained the t r i a l arguments i n Ex p a r t e i t s rejection court had lacked Davis, of the father's subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r u l e on t h e i s s u e o f c h i l d s u p p o r t as f o l l o w s : "The f a t h e r s p e c i f i c a l l y a r g u e s t h a t t h e m o t h e r f a i l e d t o comply w i t h t h e r e g i s t r a t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t s o f § 30-3A-602, A l a . Code 1975, a p a r t o f t h e UIFSA, and § 30-3B-305, A l a . Code 1975, a p a r t o f t h e 12 2111244 UCCJEA. S e c t i o n 30-3A-602 o f t h e UIFSA s e t s f o r t h t h e p r o c e d u r e a l i t i g a n t must f o l l o w i n o r d e r t o r e g i s t e r a f o r e i g n c h i l d - s u p p o r t judgment. Only s t r i c t compliance w i t h that r e g i s t r a t i o n procedure c o n f e r s s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n upon an A l a b a m a c i r c u i t court to enforce or to modify a f o r e i g n c h i l d - s u p p o r t judgment. See M a t t e s v. M a t t e s , 60 So. 3d 887 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 0 ) ; a n d Ex p a r t e Owens, 65 So. 3d 953 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010) . The father notes t h a t , when t h e m o t h e r f i l e d her F e b r u a r y 6, 2006, a c t i o n s e e k i n g c h i l d s u p p o r t , she d i d n o t r e g i s t e r t h e S e p t e m b e r 3, 2003, j u d g m e n t o f the Tennessee t r i a l c o u r t w i t h t h e Alabama t r i a l court. The f a t h e r o v e r l o o k s a salient point, however. A t t h e t i m e t h e m o t h e r f i l e d t h e 200 6 a c t i o n , t h e Tennessee t r i a l c o u r t had n o t e n t e r e d any c h i l d - s u p p o r t j u d g m e n t . A l t h o u g h t h e T e n n e s s e e C o u r t o f A p p e a l s had o r d e r e d t h e Tennessee t r i a l court t o consider awarding c h i l d support, the record i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e Tennessee t r i a l c o u r t had n o t a c t e d on t h a t mandate a n d h a d n o t a c t u a l l y e n t e r e d any j u d g m e n t r e q u i r i n g e i t h e r p a r t y t o p a y c h i l d support. Hence, t h e 2006 a c t i o n c a n n o t be c o n s t r u e d as a p e t i t i o n t o e n f o r c e o r t o m o d i f y a f o r e i g n c h i l d - s u p p o r t judgment. Rather, i t c a n o n l y be considered a p e t i t i o n to e s t a b l i s h c h i l d support u n d e r A l a b a m a l a w . A c c o r d i n g l y , § 30-3A-602 does not apply, and t h e mother's a l l e g e d f a i l u r e t o c o m p l y w i t h t h a t s t a t u t e does n o t b a r t h e A l a b a m a trial court from assuming subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n as t o t h e i s s u e o f c h i l d s u p p o r t . " Ex p a r t e The Davis, 82 So. 3d a t 701 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . f a t h e r ' s attempt t o r e l i t i g a t e the issue of the t r i a l court's subject-matter support dispute jurisdiction i s barred to consider by t h e l a w - o f - t h e - c a s e the child- doctrine. "Under t h e d o c t r i n e o f t h e 'law o f t h e c a s e , ' w h a t e v e r i s once 13 2111244 established continues on between the same parties principles, so l o n g d e c i s i o n was p r e d i c a t e d c o n t i n u e Blumberg v. Touche Ross litigation decided." Williams as t h e f a c t s over doctrine an on w h i c h t h e issue v. W i l l i a m s , So. 2d 922, 924 ( A l a . i s "designed that has to avoid already been 91 So. 3d 56, 62 ( A l a . C i v . 2012). The f a t h e r does n o t c o n t e n d t h a t t h e f a c t s on w h i c h t h e d e c i s i o n i n Ex p a r t e Davis, supra, was d e c i d e d have c h a n g e d . We n o t e t h a t t h e f a t h e r a r g u e d b e f o r e not case t o be t h e f a c t s o f t h e c a s e . " & Co., 514 The l a w - o f - t h e - c a s e repeated App. same t o be t h e l a w o f t h a t c a s e , w h e t h e r o r n o t c o r r e c t general 1987). i n the asserted here, that Williams t h e t r i a l c o u r t , b u t has v. Williams, supra, c o n s t i t u t e d a change i n t h e l a w d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h a t t h e t r i a l court lacked subject-matter of caution, we note that jurisdiction. the father was Out o f an abundance incorrect i n that argument. Williams v. W i l l i a m s , supra, i n v o l v e d a 2009 p r o c e e d i n g c o n c e r n i n g t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n o f a 2006 c h i l d - s u p p o r t t h a t had, i n t u r n , m o d i f i e d p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e p a r t i e s ' divorce judgment. In Williams, 14 t h e mother, judgment foreign i n t h e 2009 2111244 custody-modification trial court's judgment. a c t i o n , c h a l l e n g e d f o r the f i r s t time the jurisdiction and, the of the judgment. had trial The support judgment. lacked 2006 The the parties' seeking child-support properly set court in Williams v. W i l l i a m s , 91 Alabama So. and aside the modify that i t the dismissed 2006 child- determined that i t over 2006 action foreign divorce registered invoked to agreed, jurisdiction properly concluding trial properly in court a c t i o n and subject-matter because never court trial 2009 m o d i f i c a t i o n foreign the f o r e i g n d i v o r c e judgment p u r s u a n t t o the therefore, jurisdiction foreign enter The m o t h e r a r g u e d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s had n o t r e g i s t e r e d t h e i r 1998 UIFSA to the j u d g m e n t had pursuant 3d a t 60. to This the court not judgment, which contained a been UIFSA. 4 affirmed, t h a t b e c a u s e t h e f a t h e r had n o t r e g i s t e r e d t h e divorce had 1998 provision The c o u r t i n t h a t case a l s o s p e c i f i c a l l y n o t e d t h a t the f a c t s o f t h a t c a s e a r e d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m t h o s e o f Ex p a r t e D a v i s , s u p r a , t h u s i n d i c a t i n g t h a t W i l l i a m s v. W i l l i a m s was d e c i d e d on i t s own f a c t s and d i d n o t c o n s t i t u t e any change i n the law. 91 So. 3d a t 60 n. 3 ("Hence, t h i s was n o t a c a s e i n w h i c h a f o r e i g n j u r i s d i c t i o n had f a i l e d t o a d d r e s s child s u p p o r t so t h a t no r e g i s t r a t i o n o f t h e p r e v i o u s l y e n t e r e d f o r e i g n j u d g m e n t w o u l d have b e e n r e q u i r e d . See Ex parte D a v i s , 82 So. 3d 695, 701 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2011)."). 4 15 2111244 pertaining trial its to child court support, had l a c k e d as r e q u i r e d b y t h e UIFSA, t h e subject-matter 2006 m o d i f i c a t i o n j u d g m e n t . jurisdiction t o enter W i l l i a m s v. W i l l i a m s , 91 So. 3d a t 62. In t h i s the c a s e , as i n W i l l i a m s v. W i l l i a m s , s u p r a , parties challenged jurisdiction over the t r i a l court's the child-support subject-matter dispute by f a i l u r e t o p r o p e r l y r e g i s t e r a f o r e i g n judgment. Williams v. W i l l i a m s , jurisdictional supra, the courts arguing with presented. case i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e because t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l the a However, i n agreed a r g u m e n t when i t was f i r s t one o f the This argument f a t h e r makes i n r e l i a n c e on W i l l i a m s v . W i l l i a m s , supra, was r e j e c t e d i n e a r l i e r l i t i g a t i o n a d d r e s s i n g t h a t same i s s u e . When t h e f a t h e r i n t h i s c a s e made h i s j u r i s d i c t i o n a l under t h e UIFSA, this court agreed r e j e c t i o n o f t h e f a t h e r ' s arguments. The f a t h e r s o u g h t no f u r t h e r r e v i e w constitutes concerning a final 2012), t h i s the t r i a l Ex p a r t e D a v i s , court's supra. o f t h a t d e c i s i o n , and i t d e c i s i o n on t h e m e r i t s the j u r i s d i c t i o n I n Ex p a r t e with challenge o f h i s arguments o f t h e Alabama c o u r t s . Montgomery, 97 So. 3d 148 (Ala. C i v . App. court refused to consider a challenge t o subject- 16 2111244 m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n t h a t h a d been c o n s i d e r e d b y t h i s c o u r t and rejected i n a previous appeal. This court h e l d t h a t because i t had p r e v i o u s l y d e t e r m i n e d t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t had s u b j e c t matter j u r i s d i c t i o n over the p a r t i e s ' d i s p u t e , the d o c t r i n e of law o f t h e case p r e v e n t e d jurisdiction argument. r e l i t i g a t i o n of the Ex p a r t e Montgomery, In t h i s case, the t r i a l considered and jurisdiction issue the rejected challenge 97 So. 3d a t 155. c o u r t and t h i s c o u r t have a l r e a d y the father's i n Ex p a r t e Davis, of the t r i a l court's child-support dispute i n this subject-mattersupra. subject-matter litigated and f i n a l l y the law-of-the-case jurisdictional The erred in also specifically his The Thus, t h e jurisdiction has been over fully father i s barred by d o c t r i n e from c o n t i n u i n g t o r e l i t i g a t e h i s i n permitting Although action determined. challenges. father subject-matter- argues DHR on appeal that t o a c t as a p a r t y brief address Ex p a r t e Montgomery, the on appeal trial the court's supra. the t r i a l i n this father rulings court action. does not on his a r g u m e n t s on t h i s i s s u e , we i n t e r p r e t t h e f a t h e r ' s argument as c h a l l e n g i n g the t r i a l court's d e n i a l of h i s motions opposing DHR's s t a t u s as a p a r t y i n t h e a c t i o n . 17 2111244 DHR action. a d i d not f i l e a formal motion to intervene However, on O c t o b e r 13, 2010, R o b e r t limited notice o f appearance as an i n the F. S m i t h assistant filed district a t t o r n e y r e p r e s e n t i n g DHR on t h e i s s u e o f t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o r enforcement o f c h i l d On J a n u a r y an support. 5 28, 2 0 1 1 , t h e f a t h e r f i l e d i n t h e t r i a l court " o b j e c t i o n " t o DHR's a p p e a r a n c e i n t h e a c t i o n a n d t o t h e p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f DHR i n t h e a c t i o n , e i t h e r t h r o u g h or a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l ' s office t h e county attorney's office, DHR an o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e f a t h e r ' s filed 5 pursuant or through the State district t o § 3 8 - 1 0 - 7 . 1 , A l a . Code 1975. "objection." That n o t i c e o f appearance s t a t e d : "COMES NOW t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a , b y a n d t h r o u g h R o b e r t F. S m i t h , A s s i s t a n t D i s t r i c t A t t o r n e y f o r t h e 11th J u d i c i a l C i r c u i t , and appears i n t h i s cause f o r a l i m i t e d purpose and hereby g i v e s n o t i c e t h a t t h e Lauderdale County D i s t r i c t A t t o r n e y ' s O f f i c e i s authorized to e x c l u s i v e l y represent the State of A l a b a m a , D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s p u r s u a n t t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f T i t l e IV-D o f t h e S o c i a l S e c u r i t y Act regarding establishment or enforcement o f c h i l d support, s p o u s a l support, m e d i c a l support, and/or any o t h e r s u p p o r t s e r v i c e s . The D i s t r i c t A t t o r n e y ' s O f f i c e i s not a u t h o r i z e d t o represent or accept s e r v i c e on b e h a l f o f t h e [mother] w i t h r e g a r d t o a n y issues concerning visitation, custody or other issues not p e r t a i n i n g t o c h i l d support pursuant t o Code o f A l a . § 3 8 - 1 0 - 7 . 1 . " 18 On 2111244 February 7, 2 0 1 1 , t h e t r i a l court conducted a hearing f o r the s o l e purpose o f r e c e i v i n g evidence p e r t a i n i n g to the cost of h e a l t h i n s u r a n c e t o be i n c l u d e d i n t h e p a r t i e s ' c h i l d - s u p p o r t determinations. DHR's a t t o r n e y t o o k hearing, and t h e f a t h e r February 9, 2 0 1 1 , t h e t r i a l the d i d not object. a n d new b e h a l f o f DHR. July 9, representing DHR; sought court noted 2012, o r e t e n u s i n the action. DHR's o r i g i n a l c o u n s e l , moved counsel The t r i a l on c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r o v e r r u l i n g e a r l y J u l y 2012, S m i t h , withdraw, i n that Thereafter, f a t h e r ' s o b j e c t i o n t o DHR's p a r t i c i p a t i o n In to an a c t i v e r o l e hearing the t r i a l court t o be s u b s t i t u t e d on at the beginning that of the new counsel was formally granted the s u b s t i t u t i o n o f c o u n s e l i n a J u l y 1 1 , 2012, o r d e r . During the J u l y 9, 2012, h e a r i n g , t h e f a t h e r f i l e d h i s " m o t i o n t o e x c l u d e misjoined objection non-party," i n which he renewed t o DHR's p r e s e n c e i n t h e a c t i o n . his The t r i a l earlier court s u m m a r i l y d e n i e d t h a t m o t i o n d u r i n g t h e J u l y 9, 2012, h e a r i n g , stating t h a t DHR was a p a r t y t o t h e a c t i o n a n d h a d b e e n f o r some t i m e . We n o t e t h a t , d u r i n g t h e h e a r i n g on t h e f a t h e r ' s " p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , " an a t t o r n e y f o r DHR r e p r e s e n t e d t o t h e trial court that t h e mother had c o n t a c t e d 19 DHR requesting 2111244 assistance f r o m DHR i n e n f o r c i n g the father's child-support o b l i g a t i o n ; t h a t s t a t e m e n t i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h a l l e g a t i o n s made by the f a t h e r i n motions the mother's filed contacting DHR i n the t r i a l court f o r assistance regarding on t h e child- support issue. It i s c l e a r from t h e r u l i n g s o f t h e t r i a l considered court that i t t h e " n o t i c e o f l i m i t e d a p p e a r a n c e " f i l e d b y DHR t o be a m o t i o n t o i n t e r v e n e a n d t h a t t h e c o u r t i m p l i c i t l y t h a t m o t i o n on F e b r u a r y 9, 2 0 1 1 , b y o v e r r u l i n g t h e f a t h e r ' s January 28, 2 0 1 1 , o b j e c t i o n action. See S i d w e l l v. Wooten, 473 So. 2d 1036, 1985) t o DHR's p a r t i c i p a t i o n ( i n t e r p r e t i n g a " t h i r d - p a r t y complaint" i n t e r v e n e t h a t was g r a n t e d b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t ) . to take the 2012, an a c t i v e p a r t i n t h e l i t i g a t i o n issue of c h i l d support. ore tenus granted hearing, 1037-38 ( A l a . as a m o t i o n t o DHR continued below p e r t a i n i n g t o In addition, during the t r i a l i n the court t h e J u l y 9, overruled the f a t h e r ' s r e n e w a l o f h i s o b j e c t i o n t o DHR as a p a r t y b y s t a t i n g that DHR was a p a r t y and had been Accordingly, considering the t o t a l i t y we c o n c l u d e that the t r i a l court a party f o r some o f t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l , determined that DHR was a p a r t y through i n t e r v e n t i o n i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g s below. 20 time. 2111244 The father also argues on a p p e a l e r r e d i n a l l o w i n g DHR t o i n t e r v e n e . 24(a) and ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., that the t r i a l The f a t h e r r e l i e s on R u l e governing i n t e r v e n t i o n by r i g h t a n d t h e p r o c e d u r e b y w h i c h a p a r t y may i n t e r v e n e action, 6 and c a s e l a w intervened instances by r i g h t under Rule 24(a), In S t a t e 6 addressing court when i n an a party A l a . R. C i v . P. ex r e l . T e n n e r v. T e n n e r , 668 So. 2d 838 R u l e 24, A l a . R. C i v . P., p r o v i d e s , i n pertinent (Ala. part: "(a) Intervention of Right. Upon timely a p p l i c a t i o n , anyone s h a l l be p e r m i t t e d t o i n t e r v e n e in an a c t i o n : (1) when a s t a t u t e confers an u n c o n d i t i o n a l r i g h t t o i n t e r v e n e ; o r (2) when t h e applicant claims an i n t e r e s t r e l a t i n g to the property or t r a n s a c t i o n which i s the subject of the a c t i o n a n d t h e a p p l i c a n t i s so s i t u a t e d t h a t t h e d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e a c t i o n may as a p r a c t i c a l m a t t e r i m p a i r o r impede t h e a p p l i c a n t ' s a b i l i t y t o p r o t e c t that i n t e r e s t , unless the applicant's i n t e r e s t i s a d e q u a t e l y r e p r e s e n t e d by e x i s t i n g p a r t i e s . " "(c) Procedure. A person d e s i r i n g t o i n t e r v e n e s h a l l s e r v e a m o t i o n t o i n t e r v e n e upon t h e p a r t i e s as p r o v i d e d i n R u l e 5 [ , A l a . R. C i v . P . ] . The m o t i o n s h a l l s t a t e t h e g r o u n d s t h e r e f o r a n d s h a l l be accompanied by a p l e a d i n g s e t t i n g f o r t h t h e c l a i m o r defense f o r which i n t e r v e n t i o n i s sought. The same p r o c e d u r e s h a l l be f o l l o w e d when a s t a t u t e g i v e s a right to intervene." 21 has 2111244 Civ. to App. 1995), the t r i a l intervene appeal was in a and had a right i n the on to intervene pursuant to court had a "direct a c t i o n b e c a u s e i t had f o r the the w i f e ' s r i g h t to c o l l e c t c h i l d support. this only reversed DHR issue c e r t a i n b e n e f i t s i n exchange Accordingly, The T h i s c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t DHR substantial interest" the w i f e a m o t i o n f i l e d by child-support action. w h e t h e r DHR Rule 24(a)(2). court denied the 668 paid assignment So. 2d a t judgment of of 839. the trial court. Similarly, 194 of did i n S t a t e ex r e l . W i l s o n ( A l a . C i v . App. P e n s i o n s and v. W i l s o n , that, S e c u r i t i e s ("DPS"), t h e a c t i o n under Rule 2 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) . in benefits that to the So. 2d 1985), t h i s c o u r t h e l d t h a t the Department predecessor n o t have an u n c o n d i t i o n a l r i g h t t o i n t e r v e n e support 475 case, because mother the f o r the to in a child- However, t h e c o u r t State was c h i l d r e n , the r i g h t to intervene pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2). paying State The DHR, noted support had court stated: " T h i s c o u r t has p r e v i o u s l y s t a t e d i n a d i v o r c e case i n which c h i l d support was an i s s u e t h a t [ t ] h e r e a p p e a r s no e l e m e n t f o r an i n t e r v e n t i o n o f r i g h t [by D.P.S.] u n d e r R u l e 2 4 ( a ) . ' S t a t e v. L i t t l e , 389 So. 2d 944, 946 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1980). T h i s s t a t e m e n t i s d i c t a , h o w e v e r , as no m o t i o n t o 22 the then 2111244 i n t e r v e n e was f i l e d i n L i t t l e . Moreover, i n making t h i s statement, t h i s c o u r t d i d not i n t e n d that [D.P.S.] may n e v e r have a r i g h t t o i n t e r v e n e u n d e r R u l e 24(a) i n a s u i t to e n f o r c e or c o l l e c t c h i l d s u p p o r t payments. I t c l e a r l y has s u c h a r i g h t t o i n t e r v e n e i n the present case." S t a t e ex r e l . Wilson S t a t e ex r e l . T e n n e r v. The v. W i l s o n , 475 Tenner, So. 2d a t 197. See also supra. c a s e s d i s c u s s i n g DHR's r i g h t t o i n t e r v e n e i n a c h i l d - support a c t i o n i n v o l v e v a r i o u s p r o v i s i o n s of the C h i l d Support Act of 1979 ("the C S A " ) , § 38-10-1 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975. In each of the cases d i s c u s s e d above, the r e c i p i e n t p a r e n t assigned her rights to collect child exchange f o r f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e not, i n h i s b r i e f submitted that DHR could not f r o m DHR. intervene does not indicate the mother. assistance to absence evidence of CSA to intervene that The i n the DHR has father contend However, DHR paid contends has says, S e c t i o n 3 8 - 1 0 - 7 ( a ) o f t h e CSA 23 We the financial that paid in the financial does n o t have t h e r i g h t u n d e r action. in does n o t have a d i r e c t a c t i o n b e c a u s e , he i n d i c a t i n g that b e n e f i t s t o t h e m o t h e r , DHR DHR f a t h e r does under Rule 2 4 ( a ) ( 2 ) . s u b s t a n t i a l i n t e r e s t i n the record The to to t h i s court, e x p l i c i t l y t h e f a t h e r does b r i e f l y a l l e g e t h a t DHR or support had the disagree. e x p l a i n s when DHR may take 2111244 action t o enforce a parent's child-support o b l i g a t i o n : "(a) Whenever anyone o w i n g t h e o b l i g a t i o n o f support has failed to provide support, and a p p l i c a t i o n i s made t o [DHR] f o r s u p p o r t s e r v i c e s as may be p r o v i d e d p u r s u a n t t o t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f T i t l e IV-D o r f o r a i d , [DHR] , a n d i n c l u d i n g t h e d i s t r i c t a t t o r n e y when p r o v i d i n g s e r v i c e s f o r [DHR], may t a k e a p p r o p r i a t e a c t i o n u n d e r t h i s a r t i c l e , o r any o t h e r a p p r o p r i a t e s t a t e a n d f e d e r a l s t a t u t e s , to assure t h a t the r e s p o n s i b l e person or persons owing t h e o b l i g a t i o n o f support p r o v i d e s u p p o r t , i n c l u d i n g , but not l i m i t e d t o , c i v i l or c r i m i n a l a c t i o n s t o determine parentage or t o e s t a b l i s h , modify, or enforce support o b l i g a t i o n s . A l l a c t i o n s to determine parentage or t o e s t a b l i s h , modify, or e n f o r c e s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n s may be b r o u g h t i n e i t h e r the j u v e n i l e c o u r t o r d i s t r i c t c o u r t o r the c i r c u i t court or appropriate federal court, and a l l p r e s e n t l y e x i s t i n g s t a t u t e s a r e h e r e b y amended t o p r o v i d e t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t s and d i s t r i c t c o u r t s and t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t s s h a l l have t h e c o n c u r r e n t jurisdiction of actions involving parentage, d e s e r t i o n , nonsupport, or support." [7] (Emphasis added.) Thus, § 3 8 - 1 0 - 7 ( a ) p r o v i d e s t h a t DHR may t a k e a c t i o n t o e n f o r c e a p a r e n t ' s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n when a r e c i p i e n t parent asks i t f o r support services p a r e n t asks f o r f i n a n c i a l a i d . o r when the recipient I n t h i s case, i t i s undisputed t h a t t h e f a t h e r has n o t c o m p l i e d w i t h p r i o r support o r d e r s and We r e j e c t t h e f a t h e r ' s a r g u m e n t t h a t t h e CSA l i m i t s DHR t o i n i t i a t i n g a c t i o n s i n i t s own name r a t h e r t h a n a l l o w i n g i t t o i n t e r v e n e o r t a k e o t h e r a c t i o n as n e c e s s a r y t o e n s u r e t h e c o l l e c t i o n o f c h i l d s u p p o r t from p a r e n t s . 7 24 2111244 has p a i d no c h i l d s u p p o r t , d e s p i t e being required the lite November According for DHR, services 18, 2010, p e n d e n t e child-support to the a l l e g a t i o n s of the father the from mother requested t o do s o b y order. and t h e a t t o r n e y child-support-enforcement DHR. This court quoted with approval the f o l l o w i n g explanation o f t h e manner i n w h i c h DHR may a s s i s t a p a r e n t i n e n f o r c i n g child-support o b l i g a t i o n or i n obtaining child support: T i t l e IV-D o f t h e S o c i a l S e c u r i t y A c t , 42 U.S.C. §§ 651, e t s e q . , p r o v i d e s f o r s t a t e p l a n s f o r c h i l d s u p p o r t and s e t s f o r t h t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h e state plan. The A l a b a m a C h i l d S u p p o r t A c t o f 1979, §§ 3 8 - 1 0 - 1 , e t s e q . , Code o f A l a b a m a 1975, was e n a c t e d p u r s u a n t t o t h e f e d e r a l s t a t u t e , and t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s was d e s i g n a t e d t o o p e r a t e c h i l d s u p p o r t p r o g r a m s as may be r e q u i r e d u n d e r t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f T i t l e IV-D. [T]he A l a b a m a l e g i s l a t u r e h a s e x p l i c i t l y adopted and i n c o r p o r a t e d the requirements of the S o c i a l S e c u r i t y A c t i n t o the C h i l d Support A c t of 1979. § 3 8 - 1 0 - 2 ( a ) ( 8 ) , Code o f A l a b a m a , 1975. "'Both t h e f e d e r a l and s t a t e a c t s [ p r o v i d e ] f o r automatic assignment of support r i g h t s t o the s t a t e where an i n d i v i d u a l r e c e i v e s A i d t o Dependent Children (ADC) o r A i d t o F a m i l i e s w i t h Dependent C h i l d r e n (AFDC). 42 U.S.C. § 6 0 2 ( a ) ( 2 6 ) ; 45 C.F.R. § 232.11-12; § 38-10-6, Code o f A l a b a m a 1975. "'The S o c i a l S e c u r i t y A c t a l s o r e q u i r e s that state plans shall provide that "child support collection or p a t e r n i t y determination services e s t a b l i s h e d u n d e r t h e p l a n s h a l l be made a v a i l a b l e 25 a 2111244 t o any i n d i v i d u a l n o t o t h e r w i s e e l i g i b l e f o r s u c h s e r v i c e s upon a p p l i c a t i o n f i l e d b y s u c h i n d i v i d u a l with the state, including support collection s e r v i c e s f o r t h e s p o u s e ( o r f o r m e r spouse) w i t h whom t h e a b s e n t p a r e n t ' s c h i l d i s l i v i n g ... " 42 U.S.C. § 6 5 4 ( 6 ) ; C.F.R. § 302.33. As p a r t of the a p p l i c a t i o n f o r non-ADC s e r v i c e s , t h e s t a t e IV-D agency (DHR) "may t a k e an a s s i g n m e n t o f s u p p o r t r i g h t s f r o m an i n d i v i d u a l " , 45 C.F.R. § 3 0 2 . 3 3 ( e ) , although the assignment i s not a condition of e l i g i b i l i t y o f s e r v i c e s , a n d , t h e s t a t e , as o f October 1, 1985, "may have i n e f f e c t and use p r o c e d u r e s f o r t h e payment o f s u p p o r t t h r o u g h t h e s t a t e IV-D a g e n c y (DHR) o r e n t i t y d e s i g n a t e d b y t h e s t a t e t o a d m i n i s t e r t h e s t a t e s ' w i t h h o l d i n g system (DHR) (§ 3 8 - 1 0 - 3 ( b ) , Code o f A l a b a m a 1975) upon t h e r e q u e s t o f e i t h e r p a r e n t , r e g a r d l e s s o f whether o r n o t a r r e a r a g e s e x i s t o r w i t h h o l d i n g p r o c e d u r e s have been i n s t i t u t e d . " 45 C.F.R. § 3 0 2 . 5 7 ( a ) . " ' A c c o r d i n g l y , an a s s i g n m e n t o f s u p p o r t r i g h t s i n non-ADC c a s e s i s p e r m i s s i b l e u n d e r T i t l e IV-D, w h e t h e r o r n o t a r r e a r a g e s e x i s t , upon a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h e s t a t e IV-D a g e n c y (DHR) b y e i t h e r p a r e n t , a n d t h e same r i g h t i s i m p l i c i t l y i f n o t e x p l i c i t l y incorporated into the state a c t , pursuant to § 3 8 - 1 0 - 3 ( a ) a n d ( b ) , Code o f A l a b a m a , 1975, a n d t h a t t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s i s t h e p r o p e r c o l l e c t i o n a g e n t when t h e r e h a s b e e n an a s s i g n m e n t o f r i g h t s or; a p p l i c a t i o n f o r T i t l e IV-D s e r v i c e s . § 3 8 - 1 0 - 3 ( b ) , Code o f A l a b a m a 1975, 45 C.F.R. § 302.57(a).'" Blackston v. S t a t e ex r e l . B l a c k s t o n , 585 So. 2d 58, 58-59 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1991) ( q u o t i n g t r i a l c o u r t ' s o r d e r ) e x c e p t on " s h a l l , " Under § (emphasis, added). 38-10-7, there i s no requirement that the r e c i p i e n t p a r e n t be r e c e i v i n g f i n a n c i a l a i d f r o m DHR i n o r d e r 26 2111244 to avail h e r s e l f or enforcing The the trial intervene v. of child-support court has that agency's o b l i g a t i o n of discretion under Rule 24(a). East Walker Cnty. App. in himself in Black the other granting Warrior Sewer A u t h . , assistance 979 a parent. motion 24(a)). whether Accordingly, 8 demonstrated intervene in that the the a party So. we cannot CSA action may 2d 69 d i d not in intervene say that provide order to to RiverKeeper, Civ. consider under the DHR Inc. (Ala. 2007) ( s e t t i n g f o r t h f a c t o r s t h e t r i a l c o u r t may determining in Rule father the has right mother a s s i s t the to in e n f o r c i n g the c h i l d ' s fundamental r i g h t to b a s i c c h i l d support from the f a t h e r or t h a t the t r i a l to intervene The i n the father concerning intervene his also court erred i n allowing action. briefly p o s i t i o n that asserts DHR a due-process should as a p a r t y t o t h e a c t i o n . The not be argument allowed f a t h e r d i d not t h a t d u e - p r o c e s s argument b e f o r e the n o t a s s e r t t h a t argument f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e on a p p e a l . v. J.F. Drake S t a t e DHR Tech. C o l l . , 854 trial So. 2d court, 1151, and 1157 to raise he may Davis (Ala. T h e f a t h e r has f a i l e d t o a s s e r t any argument p e r t a i n i n g to those f a c t o r s i n h i s b r i e f submitted to t h i s court, and, t h e r e f o r e , s u c h a r g u m e n t s a r e w a i v e d . Ex p a r t e R i l e y , 464 So. 2d 92, 94 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) . 8 27 2111244 C i v . App. 2002). The father determining next his accordingly, argues child-support continued of the part of the trial this in limiting hearing action court's arrearage rights. The any has e r r o r the t r i a l the issues were h a r m l e s s . in and, father's and custody r e f u s a l to consider hearing. that erred i s s u e i s p r e m i s e d l a r g e l y on The p e r t a i n i n g to those issues Therefore, court arguments p e r t a i n i n g t o v i s i t a t i o n c h i l d and claims trial o b l i g a t i o n and to t h i s i s s u e s a t t h e J u l y 9, 2012, his the v i o l a t e d h i s due-process d u e - p r o c e s s argument as his that f a t h e r has those withdrawn t h a t were a s s e r t e d been pending since 2006. c o u r t m i g h t a r g u a b l y have made addressed R u l e 45, during A l a . R. the App. July 9, 2012, P. A g r e a t p o r t i o n o f t h e f a t h e r ' s a r g u m e n t s on t h e i s s u e child support i s dedicated court demonstrated bias as to h i s against contention him. On that appeal, the the of trial father a c c u s e s t h e t r i a l c o u r t o f h a v i n g ex p a r t e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s w i t h counsel trial to f o r DHR court the "had or the The The t o have ex p a r t e calculation arrearage. mother. of father his father alleges that communications" child-support offers 28 no evidence, the pertaining obligation just his and own 2111244 speculation, i n support of that a l l e g a t i o n . alleges the t r i a l that j u d g e was b i a s e d The f a t h e r against numerous r u l i n g s o r comments made b y t h e t r i a l also him, citing judge during e a r l i e r h e a r i n g s i n t h i s m a t t e r as s u p p o r t f o r h i s a l l e g a t i o n s of b i a s . The f a t h e r r e f e r s t h i s c o u r t t o h i s J u l y 16, 2012, m o t i o n to recuse, a n d he a r g u e s recused himself on t h e b a s e s submitted i n t h i s the trial that appeal. j u d g e who the t r i a l argued presided parte Davis d i d recuse a p p e a r t o be t h a t t h e t r i a l before entering himself. over this brief action arguments have r e c u s e d himself t h e A u g u s t 3, 2012, o r d e r . However, t h e f a t h e r ' s July 16, 2012, m o t i o n t o recuse, f i l e d one week a f t e r t h e J u l y 9, 2012, o r e t e n u s h e a r i n g , not mention the bases his b r i e f to this court. motion pertain on of our o p i n i o n i n The f a t h e r ' s judge should have on A u g u s t 7, 2012, remand f r o m D a v i s I I and a f t e r t h e i s s u a n c e Ex should i n h i s appellate We n o t e t h a t , initially judge does f o r r e c u s a l t h e f a t h e r now a s s e r t s i n The a r g u m e n t s i n t h a t J u l y 16, 2012, s o l e l y to the father's a l l e g a t i o n that t r i a l j u d g e h a d a c o n f l i c t o f i n t e r e s t a n d was p r o b a b l y b e c a u s e t h e f a t h e r h a d i n i t i a t e d an a c t i o n a g a i n s t 29 the biased the t r i a l 2111244 judge and o t h e r s mention i n federal i n h i s motion e i t h e r during or before court. t o recuse The father the adverse fails to r u l i n g s made t h e J u l y 9, 2012, h e a r i n g t h a t he now c o n t e n d s d e m o n s t r a t e b i a s on t h e p a r t o f t h e t r i a l judge, and he d i d n o t a l l e g e i n t h a t m o t i o n h i s a l l e g a t i o n t h a t t h e r e h a d been ex p a r t e attorneys communications representing between the mother's the t r i a l interests. arguments t h e f a t h e r a s s e r t s i n h i s b r i e f impermissibly J.F. Drake r a i s e d f o r the f i r s t State Tech. Coll., court Thus, t h e to this court are t i m e on a p p e a l . supra; see a l s o and Davis v. Andrews v. M e r r i t t O i l Co., 612 So. 2d 409, 410 ( A l a . 1992) ("This C o u r t c a n n o t c o n s i d e r a r g u m e n t s r a i s e d f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e on a p p e a l ; r a t h e r , our r e v i e w i s r e s t r i c t e d t o t h e e v i d e n c e and arguments considered The the father b r i e f l y trial merits by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . " ) . court entered i t s of the child-support father alleges the t r i a l the mentions i n h i s a p p e l l a t e b r i e f dispute 3, 2012, o r d e r on t h e same date the against him and o t h e r s T h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l when t h e t r i a l on t h e judge r e c e i v e d s e r v i c e o f process o f federal action initiated father. August that by t h e as t o j u d g e r e c e i v e d n o t i c e o f t h e a c t i o n o r as t o 30 2111244 whether r e c e i p t of the n o t i c e o c c u r r e d b e f o r e August 3, 2012, judgment. alleges i n h i s b r i e f to t h i s 3, 2012, there accomplished before t h a t the trial father was him court entered the August i n d i c a t i o n that that service c o m p l e t i o n or e n t r y was of t h a t order or of the c h i l d - s u p p o r t i s s u e . of b i a s i s not the judge i s no the as a f f e c t e d the t r i a l c o u r t ' s c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h a t i t i n any way A mere a c c u s a t i o n of the possibility s u f f i c i e n t to warrant the r e c u s a l of the judge. Tatum v. C a r r e l l , 2004). The The court, on t h e same d a t e t h e t r i a l order, to these assuming, the father's federal action against s e r v e d w i t h n o t i c e of the and o t h e r s Even the e n t r y of f a t h e r has 897 So. 2d 313, 325 trial (Ala. Civ. f a i l e d to demonstrate e r r o r with App. regard arguments. father child-support next challenges obligation. In the Davis determination I I , supra, of this his court e x p l a i n e d t h a t , i n e n t e r i n g i t s S e p t e m b e r 1, 2006, j u d g m e n t on the i s s u e of c h i l d support, "[t]he t r i a l court attached a Form CS-42 C h i l d S u p p o r t G u i d e l i n e s s t a t e m e n t , see R u l e 32, A l a . R. J u d . A d m i n . , t o i t s S e p t e m b e r 1, 2006, j u d g m e n t . B a s e d on t h e p a r t i e s ' i n c o m e s , t h e t r i a l court d e t e r m i n e d t h e b a s i c c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n t o be $540. The t r i a l c o u r t t h e n added c h i l d - c a r e c o s t s o f $364, r e s u l t i n g i n a $904 t o t a l child-support obligation. The f a t h e r ' s p e r c e n t a g e s h a r e o f t h e 31 2111244 parties' income i s 48.13%, and the mother's p e r c e n t a g e s h a r e i s 51.87%. T h e r e f o r e , t h e m o t h e r ' s s h a r e o f t h e $904 t o t a l c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n i s $469, and t h e f a t h e r ' s s h a r e i s $435. I t appears that the t r i a l court i n a d v e r t e n t l y ordered the f a t h e r t o p a y t h e amount o f c h i l d s u p p o r t that, a c c o r d i n g t o i t s c a l c u l a t i o n s , t h e m o t h e r w o u l d have been o b l i g a t e d t o p a y h a d t h e f a t h e r been a w a r d e d primary p h y s i c a l custody of the c h i l d . Thus, we conclude that the t r i a l c o u r t ' s award o f c h i l d support i s i n e r r o r . " Davis I I , 47 although So. 3d a t 817. the t r i a l health insurance court This court had o r d e r e d f o r the c h i l d , the t r i a l and Accordingly, this noted t h e mother t o include the cost of that h e a l t h insurance determination. then that, provide c o u r t had f a i l e d t o i n i t s child-support c o u r t r e v e r s e d t h e judgment remanded t h e c a s e f o r t h e t r i a l court "to r e c a l c u l a t e the father's c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n i n accordance with Rule and this The and opinion." opinion this 2010. the part with part of I I , 47 So. 3d a t 817. I I was certificate However, t h e t r i a l pending that i n Davis court's child-support 2010, t h e t r i a l in Davis r e l e a s e d on A p r i l o f judgment issued court's i t s earlier, 2, issue. Rather, on 2010, April court d i d not immediately c o u r t entered a pendente l i t e this 32 r u l e on November order 21, 18, complying a p p e l l a t e mandate t h a t i t c o r r e c t September 32 1, 2006, judgment to 2111244 r e f l e c t t h a t the child-support f a t h e r was amount t o pay reflected the p r o p e r p o r t i o n of on the child-support the forms i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e September 1, 2006, j u d g m e n t - - i . e . , $435 per month i n c h i l d 2010, to support. However, i n that November order, the t r i a l c o u r t d i d not r e c a l c u l a t e c h i l d include child; the cost rather, regarding i t of providing set the health matter the cost of h e a l t h i n s u r a n c e . a The S e p t e m b e r 1, determination the obligation November that was trial 18, 2010, month. order, to various During received the court of child care also arrearage, Following the action the was entry of largely the stayed for appellate courts. July evidence incomes, the hearing child-support pending the r e s o l u t i o n of the f a t h e r ' s requests review the 2006, j u d g m e n t , b a s e d on i t s f a t h e r ' s pendente l i t e $435 p e r for further e s t a b l i s h e d the f a t h e r ' s then c u r r e n t c h i l d - s u p p o r t d a t i n g back to the support insurance for 18, 9, 2012, concerning hearing, the cost of h e a l t h - i n s u r a n c e at e v i d e n c e f r o m DHR support arrearage. that time. concerning The the parties' trial then c o v e r a g e , and trial court also current the 33 cost received t h e amount o f t h e f a t h e r ' s In a s s e r t i n g a c h i l d - s u p p o r t court child- arrearage, 2111244 DHR agreed to c a l c u l a t e the b a s e d on DHR a child-support amount o f based on inclusion coverage f o r the At the July f a t h e r had child. 9, See 2012, paid of had paid 2008. any month, no child cost hearing, child support support f o r the of mother assist basic support testified her The September the child the that she Tina has a p p r o x i m a t e l y $500 p e r t h e f a t h e r has the 200 6 t h r o u g h f a t h e r has not in providing Smith, the 2008. sister and The her f o r the child's mother's sister, provided month i n f i n a n c i a l May contributed s i n c e a t l e a s t May consistently f a t h e r had the mother c h i l d provided of the mother assistance because f a i l e d t o pay m o n t h l y c h i l d s u p p o r t ; S m i t h a l s o a l l e g e d t h a t the The entry that f a t h e r s t a t e d , however, t h a t from financially needs. be health-insurance the mother t e s t i f i e d support since I t i s undisputed that child the mother p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t her pay although Davis I I . S e p t e m b e r 1, 2006, j u d g m e n t . he $435 p e r arrearage b e l i e v e d t h a t the f a t h e r ' s monthly c h i l d support should higher the father's child-support father t h a t he w o u l d n e v e r support. presented some c l o t h e s once t o l d h e r evidence f o r the child, 34 indicating t h a t he has that paid he has for a 2111244 summer camp t h a t t h e c h i l d h a s a t t e n d e d , the c h i l d ' s s c h o o l lunches. a n d t h a t he p a y s f o r The f a t h e r a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t he i s c o n t r i b u t i n g t o t h e payment f o r t h e c h i l d ' s b r a c e s ; we n o t e that t h e S e p t e m b e r 1, 2006, j u d g m e n t a d d r e s s e d t h e p a r t i e s ' sharing that of the cost addressing Comment, R u l e recommended of braces the basic i n a p r o v i s i o n separate child-support 32, A l a . R. J u d . Admin. child support awards educational expenses i f t h e c o u r t such c h i l d ' s best f o r extraordinary See ("In a d d i t i o n t o t h e o b l i g a t i o n , the court additional the determination. from medical, may dental, make and f i n d s s u c h awards t o be i n i n t e r e s t or i f the parents have a g r e e d t o awards."). On a p p e a l , t h e f a t h e r has taken evidence submitted hearing concerning parties' incomes. purportedly support points some o f t h e t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t d u r i n g t h e J u l y 9, 2012, the current cost of child He c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e t r i a l care and t h e court erred i n r e l y i n g on c e r t a i n e v i d e n c e i n d e t e r m i n i n g i n i t s August out i n h i s b r i e f determining issue with child 3, 2012, j u d g m e n t . on a p p e a l support based i t s determination that i n i t s August The f a t h e r the t r i a l then court, i n 3, 2012, j u d g m e n t , on t h e c h i l d - s u p p o r t g u i d e l i n e s 35 child that 2111244 became e f f e c t i v e on utilized related January 1, 2009, t h e p a r t i e s ' 2011 o r 2012 costs. We hold that, and, i n doing income l e v e l s and i n so d o i n g , so, child- the t r i a l court erred. In Davis obligation I I , this set forth court ordered that i n t h e September the 1, 2006, r e c a l c u l a t e d i n compliance with that opinion. the trial father court was to correct i t s mistake t o p a y t h e amount o f c h i l d been a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e m o t h e r . child-support support judgment Specifically, of ordering that cost of health-insurance The August mother 28, had have court to include undisputed upon w h i c h evidence t h e September j u d g m e n t was b a s e d t h a t t h e c o s t o f h e a l t h - i n s u r a n c e was the coverage i n t h a t c a l c u l a t i o n . presented 2006, h e a r i n g should In a d d i t i o n , the t r i a l was t o r e c a l c u l a t e t h e c h i l d - s u p p o r t d e t e r m i n a t i o n the be $33.95 p e r week, o r $147.12 p e r m o n t h . cost of p r o v i d i n g health insurance 9 at 1, the 2006, coverage Thus, when that f o r t h e c h i l d i s added t o t h e p a r t i e s ' 2006 c o m b i n e d c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 32, A l a . R. J u d . Admin., t h e p a r t i e s ' c o m b i n e d s u p p o r t $ 3 3 . 9 5 x 52 weeks p e r y e a r , d i v i d e d b y 12 months p e r year, r e s u l t s i n a monthly health-insurance-coverage cost of $147.12. 9 36 2111244 obligation 817 (noting insurance obligation see App. increases that, without See Davis considering I I , 47 the cost So. of 3d at health- coverage, the p a r t i e s ' t o t a l combined c h i l d - s u p p o r t under the also Fuller 2012) insurance t o $1,051. v. September 1, Fuller, 93 ( d i s c u s s i n g the coverage in a 2006, j u d g m e n t was So. 3d inclusion 961, 968-70 of the child-support $904); (Ala. Civ. cost of health- determination). c h i l d - s u p p o r t forms i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o the S e p t e m b e r 1, The 2006, judgment i n d i c a t e t h a t , g i v e n the p a r t i e s ' incomes, the f a t h e r is r e s p o n s i b l e f o r 48.13% o f t h e needs. The Davis I I , 47 trial establishing the So. court 3d a t has father's child's total basic support 817. not correct yet entered a judgment child-support obligation u n d e r t h e 2006 j u d g m e n t i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s on remand s e t f o r t h i n D a v i s I I , supra. "'The i s s u e s d e c i d e d by an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t become t h e law o f t h e c a s e on remand t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t , and t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s n o t f r e e t o r e c o n s i d e r t h o s e i s s u e s . ' Ex p a r t e S.T.S., 806 So. 2d 336, 341 ( A l a . 2001) ( c i t i n g M u r p h r e e v. M u r p h r e e , 600 So. 2d 301 (Ala. C i v . App. 1 9 9 2 ) ) . M o r e o v e r , on remand, ' " t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s duty i s t o comply w i t h the a p p e l l a t e mandate ' a c c o r d i n g t o i t s t r u e i n t e n t and m e a n i n g , as d e t e r m i n e d by the d i r e c t i o n s given by the reviewing c o u r t E x p a r t e J o n e s , 774 So. 2d 607, 608 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2000) (quoting Walker v. C a r o l i n a M i l l s Lumber Co., 441 So. 2d 980, 982 ( A l a . 37 2111244 C i v . App. 1 9 8 3 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n Ex p a r t e A l a b a m a Power Co., 431 So. 2d 1 5 1 , 155 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) ) . " Brown v. Brown, 20 So. 3d 139, 141 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) . T h i s m a t t e r has b e e n p e n d i n g f o r more t h a n s i x y e a r s . recognize rulings the father's right of the courts We t o l i t i g a t e and d i s p u t e t h e l e g a l of t h i s state. However, during the y e a r s t h i s m a t t e r has been p e n d i n g , t h e f a t h e r has c o n t r i b u t e d little, i f any, c h i l d support f o r the child's basic support needs. A child her p a r e n t s . 517, has a fundamental r i g h t of support S t a t e ex r e l . S h e l l h o u s e from h i s o r 666 So. 2d The c h i l d - s u p p o r t 518 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 5 ) . v. B e n t l e y , guidelines a r e d e s i g n e d t o a d d r e s s t h e b a s i c s u p p o r t needs o f t h e c h i l d . See C a s w e l l v. C a s w e l l , 2012); also see 101 So. 3d 769, 774 Comment, Rule 32, ( A l a . C i v . App. A l a . R. J u d . Admin. (explaining that the child-support g u i d e l i n e s are designed to prevent the c h i l d the from b e i n g p e n a l i z e d by t h e d i s s o l u t i o n m a r r i a g e and t o ensure t h a t level the c h i l d receives o f s u p p o r t as i f t h e f a m i l y h a d r e m a i n e d The f a t h e r a r g u e d b e f o r e the t r i a l to t h i s court, that the c h i l d ' s financial of t h e same intact). c o u r t , a n d he i n s i s t s needs a r e b e i n g met. The f a t h e r i s c o r r e c t t h a t t h e m o t h e r , w i t h t h e a s s i s t a n c e o f 38 2111244 her s i s t e r and mother, has p r o v i d e d f o r a l l t h e c h i l d ' s b a s i c n e c e s s i t i e s , i n c l u d i n g food, s h e l t e r , and t h e m a j o r i t y o f h e r c l o t h e s and o t h e r e s s e n t i a l s , that are a part of the c h i l d ' s fundamental r i g h t from both State of support ex r e l . S h e l l h o u s e v. B e n t l e y , of her parents. supra. 1 0 See The f a t h e r argues t h a t "the c h i l d i s i n v o l v e d i n e x t r a o r d i n a r y a c t i v i t i e s t h a t the f a t h e r pays f o r , s c h o o l lunches, braces ... , etc., w h i c h i s above t h e o r d i n a r y a n d n e c e s s a r y needs o f t h e c h i l d . " We recognize that, i n addition to providing basic housing, f o o d , a n d c l o t h i n g , most p a r e n t s want a n d t r y t o p r o v i d e c h i l d r e n w i t h n o n e s s e n t i a l b e n e f i t s and e x p e r i e n c e s , extracurricular activities, their s u c h as summer camps, a n d b r a c e s . This I n h i s b r i e f on a p p e a l , t h e f a t h e r a r g u e s t h a t t h e m o t h e r m i s r e p r e s e n t e d h e r income b y f a i l i n g t o i n c l u d e i n h e r s t a t e m e n t o f income t h e amounts h e r s i s t e r a n d m o t h e r h a v e g i v e n h e r ; he c l a i m s t h o s e amounts a r e " g i f t s " t o be i n c l u d e d i n t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f a p a r e n t ' s g r o s s income u n d e r t h e R u l e 32, A l a . R. J u d . Admin., c h i l d - s u p p o r t g u i d e l i n e s . We n o t e t h a t the u n d i s p u t e d testimony o f T i n a Smith, t h e mother's s i s t e r , was t h a t s h e h a d a s s i s t e d t h e m o t h e r b e c a u s e t h e f a t h e r had f a i l e d t o pay c h i l d support. We make no determination i n t h i s appeal as t o w h e t h e r t h e amounts contributed to a c u s t o d i a l parent by o t h e r s to offset f i n a n c i a l needs c r e a t e d when t h e n o n c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t f a i l s t o p a y c h i l d s u p p o r t s h o u l d be i n c l u d e d i n a p a r e n t ' s gross income o r as t o w h e t h e r t h o s e amounts s h o u l d be i n c l u d e d i n t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e g r o s s income o f t h e n o n c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t as amounts p a i d on b e h a l f o f t h a t p a r e n t o r g i f t e d t o that noncustodial parent. 1 0 39 2111244 court commends t h e n o n c u s t o d i a l meeting the children basic support parent needs of his t h o u g h t h e payment o f r e g u l a r with the c u s t o d i a l parent to supply benefits. who, i n addition or child her child support, or works the c h i l d with a d d i t i o n a l However, i n t h e a b s e n c e o f a n o n c u s t o d i a l contribution to to h i s or her c h i l d ' s b a s i c parent's support needs, the p r o v i s i o n o f o n l y e x t r a b e n e f i t s i n d i c a t e s a c t i o n on t h e p a r t of the n o n c u s t o d i a l parent designed t o " a l l o w the n o n c u s t o d i a l parent to win favor i n the eyes nonessential 'extras,' potentially struggling necessities, such as a l l while to food, absence of c o u r t - o r d e r e d Caswell, of the c h i l d the custodial provide clothing, by the and providing parent child's shelter, c h i l d - s u p p o r t payments." is basic i n the Caswell v. fails to 101 So. 3d a t 776. The trial court's August 3, 2012, judgment c o r r e c t l y e s t a b l i s h t h e f a t h e r ' s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n due under the September Davis II. (Ala. C i v . App. 2004) See 1, 2006, judgment, C i t y o f Gadsden v. as was Johnson, required 891 So. 2d by 903 ( r e v e r s i n g a judgment on remand b e c a u s e the t r i a l c o u r t had c o n s i d e r e d a d d i t i o n a l evidence r a t h e r than e n t e r i n g a c o r r e c t e d judgment b a s e d on t h e e v i d e n c e 40 originally 2111244 presented Civ. t o i t ) ; a n d Ex p a r t e W h i s e n a n t , 898 So. 2d 761 ( A l a . App. 2004) (the trial court erred by conducting a d d i t i o n a l p r o c e e d i n g s a f t e r a remand t h a t c o n t a i n e d i n s t r u c t i o n s to the t r i a l this court). Given the unique f a c t s of case and t h e l e n g t h o f time t h e c h i l d has been b a s i c s u p p o r t by o n l y one o f h e r p a r e n t s , for specific 60 d a y s f o r the entry properly we remand t h e c a u s e o f a judgment i n c o m p l i a n c e D a v i s I I and t h i s o p i n i o n : judgment provided specifically, determining the f o r the entry of a father's child-support o b l i g a t i o n b a s e d on t h e e v i d e n c e p r e v i o u s l y p r e s e n t e d trial c o u r t and r e i t e r a t e d i n t h i s evidence of the t o t a l child-support order. hearing DHR amount submitted an e x h i b i t generated document into ("Exhibit 1") purported child-support arrearage the c o u r t , DHR an trial arrearage obligation. at the J u l y consisting of a the amount of 9, o r DHR 2012, computerfather's as o f J u l y 9, 2012. c a l c u l a t e d upon t h e $435 m o n t h l y 41 18, 2010, the i n d i c a t e d t h a t i t was w i l l i n g However, a p a r e n t , DHR b a s e d on t h e $435 i n t h e November evidence detailing from t h e f a t h e r , arrearage established to the opinion. In s e e k i n g a c h i l d - s u p p o r t a r r e a r a g e presented with Before to accept child-support a c t i n g on b e h a l f of a 2111244 parent, may not forgive, arrearage; any attempt Wilson, So. 2d 809, 793 F r a s e m e r , 578 So. reduce, to 810 do or so is a 1348-49 a child-support nullity. ( A l a . C i v . App. 2d 1346, Wilson v. 2 0 0 1 ) ; F r a s e m e r v. ( A l a . C i v . App. I t i s c l e a r t h a t , when t h e t r i a l r e c a l c u l a t e s the waive 1991). c o u r t on remand p r o p e r l y f a t h e r ' s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n under the S e p t e m b e r 1, 2006, j u d g m e n t i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e mandate o f t h i s c o u r t i n D a v i s I I and i n t h i s o p i n i o n , t h a t child-support obligation the will change. The establishment of father's c o r r e c t c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n u n d e r t h e September 1, judgment will necessarily child-support the trial arrearage arrearage court i s calculated. r e c a l c u l a t e the note t h a t E x h i b i t 1 d i d not father claimed and t h a t , he which Accordingly, father's his direct child-support The should be f o r any credited against his determination a child-support arrearage the account amounts t o have p a i d f o r t h e b e n e f i t o f t h e asserted, support arrearage. within f i g u r e upon remand. the is the b a s e d on h i s c o r r e c t e d c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n as e s t a b l i s h e d on We to alter 2006, child child- of such c r e d i t s a g a i n s t i s a m a t t e r t o be d e t e r m i n e d by, d i s c r e t i o n of, the 42 trial court. Caswell and v. 2111244 Caswell, (Ala. 101 So. 3d a t 773; K i n g C i v . App. 1993). v. K i n g , The father 620 So. 2d 56, 57 presented evidence r e g a r d i n g t h e amounts b y w h i c h he c l a i m s h i s a r r e a r a g e be offset. This opinion should n o t be should i n t e r p r e t e d as commenting on t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e f a t h e r ' s c l a i m s f o r a c r e d i t against h i s child-support consider, what arrearage. The t r i a l b a s e d on t h e e v i d e n c e a l r e a d y p r e s e n t e d extent, i f any, t h e f a t h e r against the child-support arrearage i s entitled court may to i t , to a to credit f o r amounts he i n d i c a t e d he p a i d f o r t h e b e n e f i t o f t h e c h i l d . For trial r e a s o n s s t a t e d above, t h i s court to enter mandate i n D a v i s trial a judgment c a u s e i s remanded t o t h e i n conformance with our I I and our i n s t r u c t i o n s i n t h i s o p i n i o n . The c o u r t s h a l l make due r e t u r n t o t h i s c o u r t w i t h i n 60 d a y s of t h e r e l e a s e o f t h i s opinion. REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , and Pittman and Donaldson, J J . , concur. Thomas, J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t , Moore, J . , r e c u s e s himself. 43 without 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.