S.O. and N.O. v. K.B.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 07/26/2013 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS SPECIAL TERM, 2013 2120415 S.O. and N.O. v. K.B. Appeal from Etowah J u v e n i l e Court (JU-08-405.02) PER CURIAM. S.O. a n d N.O. ("the m a t e r n a l grandparents") appeal F e b r u a r y 5, 2013, j u d g m e n t a w a r d i n g v i s i t a t i o n w i t h A.B. child"), o f whom t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s t h e c h i l d ' s f a t h e r , K.B. ("the f a t h e r " ) . a ("the have c u s t o d y , t o 2120415 This child involving mother. this has been the maternal the subject of a previous grandparents a n d C.O., appeal the child's I n C.O. v . S.O., 85 So. 3d 460 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 1 ) , c o u r t r e v i e w e d a judgment a w a r d i n g custody of the c h i l d to t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s and d e n y i n g t h e mother's r e q u e s t for v i s i t a t i o n with the c h i l d ; that appeal i s discussed l a t e r in this opinion. juvenile We n o t e t h a t t h e E t o w a h J u v e n i l e C o u r t ("the c o u r t " ) o r d e r e d t h a t t h e r e c o r d from the action i n C.O. v. S.O., s u p r a , be i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l in this case. The r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h e f o l l o w i n g facts. I n September 2008, t h e E t o w a h C o u n t y D e p a r t m e n t o f Human Resources ("DHR") filed a dependency remove t h e t h e n t w o - m o n t h - o l d c h i l d petition from seeking to the custody of the p a r e n t s because o f d o m e s t i c v i o l e n c e by t h e f a t h e r a g a i n s t t h e mother. In October 2008, the juvenile court entered a j u d g m e n t f i n d i n g t h e c h i l d d e p e n d e n t as a r e s u l t o f d o m e s t i c v i o l e n c e i n t h e home. the child t o DHR, w h i c h grandparents. charges The j u v e n i l e c o u r t a w a r d e d c u s t o d y o f placed the c h i l d with the maternal S h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r , t h e f a t h e r was a r r e s t e d on o f m a n u f a c t u r i n g methamphetamine a n d p o s s e s s i o n o f a controlled substance. 2 2120415 In J a n u a r y return of 2011, t h e m o t h e r f i l e d a p e t i t i o n s e e k i n g t h e custody of the c h i l d ; asserted a c l a i m f o r custody in that action. The the maternal grandparents d u r i n g t h e h e a r i n g on t h e m e r i t s j u v e n i l e court conducted an o r e t e n u s h e a r i n g ; t h e f a t h e r was n o t p r e s e n t a t t h a t h e a r i n g b e c a u s e he was i n p r i s o n . judgment child, On May awarding denying On a p p e a l the maternal the o r d e r i n g t h a t DHR 16, 2011, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d a mother grandparents visitation at that c l o s e i t s s u p e r v i s i o n of the of the time, matter. she argued only of the c h i l d to the that the maternal j u v e n i l e court e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o award h e r v i s i t a t i o n w i t h the c h i l d . v. S.O., supra. although the determination and f r o m t h e May 16, 2011, j u d g m e n t , t h e m o t h e r d i d not c o n t e s t t h e award o f c u s t o d y grandparents; custody This facts that court reversed, supported the mother's the had C.O. concluding that, juvenile court's conduct had had a negative i m p a c t on t h e c h i l d , g i v e n t h e f a c t s , t h e m o t h e r ' s v i s i t a t i o n s h o u l d n o t have been s u s p e n d e d e n t i r e l y . 2d a t 866. from A u g u s t 24, prison v. S.O., 85 So. On remand, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t a w a r d e d t h e m o t h e r one h o u r o f s u p e r v i s e d v i s i t a t i o n On C.O. 2012, on A u g u s t on a l t e r n a t i n g t h e f a t h e r , who 13, 2012, 3 filed weeks. h a d been released a verified petition 2120415 s t a t i n g t h a t he was on p a r o l e child. and s e e k i n g In that v e r i f i e d p e t i t i o n , v i s i t a t i o n with the the father stated that the m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s "have e x h i b i t e d s u c h a r o u t i n e pattern of d e n i a l o f v i s i t a t i o n t h a t t h e development and n u r t u r i n g o f the father's threatened." loving The f a t h e r 1 order; i n requesting allege that existed. Civ. relationship See Ex p a r t e App. 2012) requested t h a t ex p a r t e the c h i l d with was an e x p a r t e relief, i n danger Norlander, (the only h i s daughter or that emergency to the rule c a n be d e p r i v e d temporarily, i s when t h e r e that the c h i l d an 90 So. 3d 183, 185 ( A l a . exception notice visitation the father d i d not c u s t o d i a l parent or custodian without is that a o f c u s t o d y , even i s an a l l e g a t i o n i s i n danger). On A u g u s t 24, 2012, t h e same day t h e f a t h e r r e q u e s t e d ex parte relief, awarding the j u v e n i l e court the father five hours entered of v i s i t a t i o n a l t e r n a t i n g S a t u r d a y s and o r d e r i n g next day, S a t u r d a y , August order made no p r o v i s i o n an ex p a r t e order at a mall on that v i s i t a t i o n begin the 25, 2012. The A u g u s t f o r any s u p e r v i s i o n 24, 2012, of the father's The f a t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n f o r v i s i t a t i o n was s u p p o r t e d b y h i s a f f i d a v i t i n w h i c h he t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e a l l e g a t i o n s i n h i s p e t i t i o n were t r u e a n d c o r r e c t . 1 4 2120415 visitation and, grandparents privacy end the the specified child minor visit" that to and are that the allow father is visitation undisputed with the that maternal j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s ex p a r t e A u g u s t 24, a motion seeking 10, to v i s i t a t i o n 2012, the contempt ordering 24, S e p t e m b e r 8, j u v e n i l e court motion for a ex p a r t e order September 14, stay visitation response enforcement entered hearing i n the 2012, order and of pending motion to at on On and the 2012. Also order October on September failure an were v i s i t a t i o n order on 10, maternal to b r i n g the September scheduling the 19, and 2012, the August interim. the m a t e r n a l grandparents f i l e d r e s p o n s e t o t h e f a t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n f o r v i s i t a t i o n and to timely i n the m a l l the m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s t o comply w i t h 2012, On on i s to t o have t h e g r a n d p a r e n t s h e l d i n contempt f o r t h e i r child parties visitation o f F r i d a y , September 7, 2012. father f i l e d the grandparents 2012, the father's the for the a f t e r n o o n maternal period. petition 2012, "[t]he c h i l d to a s p e c i f i e d meeting place of the It served of during r e t u r n the the instead, the an August 24, evidentiary stay, the 2012, maternal a motion ex hearing. a In parte their grandparents d e t a i l e d the f a t h e r ' s p a s t conduct, which formed the b a s i s f o r 5 2120415 their concerns maternal attempt for the grandparents to contact child's argued them safety. that for the h i s r e q u e s t f o r ex p a r t e had provided no his p e t i t i o n before reason f o r f a i l i n g the parte four-year-old child d i d not filing and that an ex p a r t e o r d e r . one f a t h e r had had y e a r o l d and t h a t know t h e father; the no his father them n o t i c e order, m a t e r n a l grandparents a l s o argued t h a t the c o n t a c t w i t h t h e c h i l d s i n c e she was made t h a t the to provide ex had before relief, emergency s i t u a t i o n e x i s t e d w a r r a n t i n g now addition, father visitation p e t i t i o n and seeking In of no The no the therefore, they contended, the v i s i t a t i o n arrangement e s t a b l i s h e d i n the A u g u s t 24, 2012, ex parte order was not i n the c h i l d ' s best interests. On September 18, 2012, the juvenile o r d e r s p e c i f y i n g t h a t t h e f a t h e r was one that h o u r on that grandparents. and The was to be O c t o b e r 19, at a l o c a l mall supervised 2012, entered hearing by the was The on J a n u a r y 16, rescheduled, on 2013. evidence from t h a t h e a r i n g M o n i c a F r a z i e r , t h e DHR and maternal the j u v e n i l e c o u r t e v e n t u a l l y h e a r d ore tenus e v i d e n c e the m e r i t s an to receive v i s i t a t i o n for a l t e r n a t i n g Thursday n i g h t s visitation court i n d i c a t e s the s o c i a l worker assigned 6 following. to the c h i l d ' s 2120415 c a s e b e t w e e n O c t o b e r 2008 a n d O c t o b e r 2010, t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e child h a d been removed f r o m t h e p a r e n t s ' domestic violence by the father. custody because o f The father had n o t c o o p e r a t e d w i t h DHR's o f f e r o f r e u n i f i c a t i o n s e r v i c e s a n d h a d not visited r e g u l a r l y with the c h i l d . t e s t i m o n y from t h e r e c o r d Further, t h e mother's i n t h e 2011 a p p e a l i n d i c a t e d i s s u e s o f d o m e s t i c v i o l e n c e between t h e p a r e n t s had a f t e r t h e c h i l d was removed f r o m t h e i r c u s t o d y . that continued C.O. v. S.O., 85 So. 3d a t 462. F r a z i e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t , when she i n i t i a l l y b e g a n t o work with the parents personnel of i n 2008, the father the Veterans had informed her t h a t Administration ("VA") w a n t e d t o h o s p i t a l i z e h i m f o r some u n d i s c l o s e d condition. Frazier stated hospitalization b u t began hospital. father records The that the attending refused father DHR refused a t t h e VA access to h i s t h r o u g h t h e VA, s o , F r a z i e r s a i d , DHR was u n a b l e t o determine the nature of the counseling w h i c h t h e f a t h e r was t r e a t e d . for psychological counseling to allow hospital or the condition f o r The f a t h e r a t t e n d e d counseling o n l y a few months b e f o r e h i s arrest i n late 2008. At matter, denied the hearing i n this the father that anyone a t t h e VA h o s p i t a l h a d w a n t e d t o h o s p i t a l i z e h i m f o r 7 2120415 any c o n d i t i o n o t h e r t h a n when he h a d h a d a b a d r e a c t i o n t o t h e p r e s c r i p t i o n medication P a x i l or Prozac. that he was diagnosis" "going t o t h e VA The f a t h e r testified [ f o r counseling] b u t t h a t he was a r r e s t e d b e f o r e to get a any d i a g n o s i s was reached. The f a t h e r was a r r e s t e d i n December 2008 on c h a r g e s o f m a n u f a c t u r i n g methamphetamine a n d p o s s e s s i o n substance. sentenced The father testified t o an 18-month split that sentence of a c o n t r o l l e d he was initially on t h o s e charges. However, w h i l e s e r v i n g t h a t s e n t e n c e , t h e f a t h e r e s c a p e d f r o m the Etowah County j a i l for several from j a i l , her days. i n F e b r u a r y 2010 a n d r e m a i n e d a t l a r g e when he escaped t h e f a t h e r t e l e p h o n e d h e r a n d made t h r e a t s against a n d two o t h e r Frazier testified DHR e m p l o y e e s . that, Therefore, t h e DHR e m p l o y e e s f i l e d a m o t i o n s e e k i n g Frazier stated, a r e s t r a i n i n g order. On F e b r u a r y 17, 2010, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d order p r o h i b i t i n g the father intimidating, molesting, from a restraining "annoying, interfering with attempting t o engage i n t h a t c o n d u c t , w i t h employees, the maternal grandparents, telephoning, o r menacing," o r regard t o t h e DHR and t h e c h i l d . o r d e r a l s o s p e c i f i e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r was p r o h i b i t e d f r o m within 500 feet o f t h e DHR office, 8 t h e homes That being o f t h e DHR 2120415 employees mentioned i n t h e r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r , a n d t h e home o f the m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s and t h e c h i l d . It i s undisputed during h i s escape initially against that the father i n t h e home will. several o f t h e mother. i n f o r m e d DHR w o r k e r s t h a t her spent However, days The m o t h e r t h e f a t h e r had h e l d h e r the father disputed that a l l e g a t i o n and t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e mother had i n f o r m e d him t h a t DHR was p r e s s u r i n g she had refused The her t o press charges against him but that t o do s o . father t e s t i f i e d t h a t , upon h i s c a p t u r e , charged w i t h a c r i m i n a l count o f escape. he was n o t The f a t h e r explained t h a t , b e c a u s e he h a d e s c a p e d a f t e r j a i l p e r s o n n e l h a d l e t h i m leave jail considered charged violence, to obtain an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n a "breach of t r u s t . " and convicted of and h i s p r e v i o u s card, Regardless, resisting split arrest t h e e s c a p e was t h e f a t h e r was and domestic s e n t e n c e was r e v o k e d ; t h e f a t h e r was t h e n s e n t e n c e d t o a 1 0 - y e a r p r i s o n s e n t e n c e on t h e o r i g i n a l f e l o n y d r u g c h a r g e s a n d on t h e new c h a r g e s t h a t a r o s e as a r e s u l t o f t h e e s c a p e . The f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t , w h i l e he was i n p r i s o n , he h a d completed a long-distance contacted the c h i l d parenting c l a s s b u t t h a t he h a d n o t from p r i s o n ; t h e f a t h e r r e p r e s e n t e d 9 that 2120415 the February o r d e r p r e v e n t e d him from c o n t a c t i n g t h e c h i l d o r t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s i n any way. The 17, father substance-abuse 2010, also restraining testified program in that he The prison. had father charged w i t h d r i v i n g under the i n f l u e n c e he was his As arrested prison a part on t h e sentence f e l o n y drug b e f o r e he was of a d e l a y e d p r o s e c u t i o n completed had a been ("DUI") i n 2007, b u t charges tried that on t h a t of that resulted in DUI charge. 2007 DUI charge, upon h i s r e l e a s e f r o m p r i s o n , t h e f a t h e r a g r e e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n random d r u g t e s t i n g ; t h e f a t h e r s t a t e d t h a t d o i n g so " e r a s e " t h e DUI charge from h i s r e c o r d . The father t h a t t h e d r u g t e s t i n g h a d s t a r t e d i n November 2012 had not t e s t e d p o s i t i v e The f a t h e r was f o r t h e use o f any released and he b e g a n r e s i d i n g w i t h a son was a l s o removed f r o m t h e p a r e n t s ' maternal father's sister. 13, ("the case. c u s t o d y , and he was We note grandfather") t e s t i f i e d that, while that the he drugs. 2012, h i s m o t h e r and h e r h u s b a n d . i s younger than the c h i l d at i s s u e i n t h i s the and t h a t illegal who home o f testified f r o m p r i s o n on A u g u s t m o t h e r and t h e f a t h e r have a s e c o n d c h i l d , in would The son"), The son placed S.O. father ("the was i n c a r c e r a t e d , the f a t h e r ' s s i s t e r had worked w i t h the m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s t o a r r a n g e v i s i t s so t h a t t h e c h i l d c o u l d see h e r 10 2120415 sibling. The f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d that h i s s i s t e r had r e c e n t l y r e t u r n e d c u s t o d y o f t h e s o n t o h i m a n d t h a t t h e s o n now l i v e d with him i n the p a t e r n a l grandmother's home; t h e f a t h e r d i d n o t c l e a r l y a n s w e r w h e t h e r he h a d n o t i f i e d DHR o r t h e c h i l d ' s mother about t h e p u r p o r t e d change i n c u s t o d y o f t h e s o n . The f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t , s i n c e h i s r e l e a s e f r o m p r i s o n , he h a d w o r k e d " o f f a n d o n " f o r a f r i e n d i n t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n industry. The f a t h e r a d m i t t e d t h a t he h a d n o t c o n t r i b u t e d t o the support of the c h i l d . The contrary f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d a t t h e h e a r i n g on t h i s m a t t e r t o h i s statements visitation, in his verified he h a d made no a t t e m p t grandparents that, petition for to contact the maternal t o n o t i f y them o f h i s r e l e a s e from p r i s o n o r t o r e q u e s t v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e c h i l d b e f o r e he f i l e d h i s p e t i t i o n for visitation. In v i s i t a t i o n with explaining his failure to t h e c h i l d b e f o r e f i l i n g h i s August request 24, 2012, p e t i t i o n , t h e f a t h e r c i t e d t h e F e b r u a r y 17, 2010, r e s t r a i n i n g order, which intimidating prohibits the father the maternal grandparents from harassing or o r c o m i n g w i t h i n 500 f e e t o f t h e i r home, as p r o h i b i t i n g h i m f r o m c o n t a c t i n g them a t all; the father d i d not explain 11 the a l l e g a t i o n s inhis 2120415 v e r i f i e d p e t i t i o n a s s e r t i n g t h a t the m a t e r n a l grandparents refused requests The t h a t he maternal be allowed grandfather to v i s i t testified the that child. the maternal g r a n d p a r e n t s ' r e c e i p t of the s e r v i c e of the f a t h e r ' s and the t h e ex p a r t e v i s i t a t i o n o r d e r was father had grandfather and been t e s t i f i e d that, t h r e a t s , he was from given and the prison. the did not take scheduled for September contacted their attorney. d u r i n g the q u e s t i o n i n g hearing on the The child, who was merits the 8, 2012, to and Comments by b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e A u g u s t 24, the that the 2012, the ex p a r t e with provision. The the child; the order maternal grandfather maternal maternal visitation they immediately juvenile court during the juvenile court visitation order r e q u i r e d the m a t e r n a l grandparents to s u p e r v i s e visitation the of the m a t e r n a l g r a n d f a t h e r indicate conduct four years o l d . said, child that maternal father's past t h a t reason, the m a t e r n a l g r a n d f a t h e r grandparents petition their f i r s t notice f r i g h t e n e d f o r the s a f e t y of the grandmother, h i m s e l f , For released had the contains explained that father's no such because t h e ex p a r t e v i s i t a t i o n o r d e r s p e c i f i e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r was be afforded "privacy" with the 12 child, he interpreted to that 2120415 order as r e q u i r i n g child alone w i t h the f a t h e r . The occurred maternal the maternal grandfather pursuant grandparents t o leave the described the v i s i t a t i o n s t o t h e September 18, 2 0 1 2 , o r d e r , that which a f f o r d e d t h e f a t h e r one h o u r o f s u p e r v i s e d v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e child. The m a t e r n a l g r a n d f a t h e r s t a t e d t h a t t h e c h i l d h a d n o t s e e n t h e f a t h e r i n more t h a n three years a n d t h a t she b e e n hesitant to i n t e r a c t with the father during v i s i t a t i o n s . stated, however, t h a t t h e f a t h e r had engaged t h e c h i l d effectively merits. The m a t e r n a l grandparents of at the l a s t before the hearing more on t h e grandfather t e s t i f i e d that the maternal u s u a l l y a l l o w e d t h e f a t h e r more t h a n t h e 1 h o u r visitation set forth because i t u s u a l l y took up" t o t h e f a t h e r . any visit He of the v i s i t s i n t h e September the c h i l d 18, 2012, order 30 t o 45 m i n u t e s t o "warm When a s k e d why he d i d n o t b r i n g t h e s o n t o and whether h a v i n g h e r s i b l i n g have made t h e c h i l d more c o m f o r t a b l e , there might the father testified t h a t he h a d n o t b r o u g h t t h e s o n t o h i s v i s i t a t i o n s with the c h i l d b e c a u s e " i t i s my t i m e " w i t h t h e c h i l d . The maternal grandparents for grandfather testified that the maternal oppose a n y t h i n g o t h e r than s u p e r v i s e d v i s i t a t i o n the father. The m a t e r n a l grandfather 13 s t a t e d t h a t he h a s 2120415 c o n c e r n s a b o u t t h e f a t h e r ' s t r u t h f u l n e s s and p o t e n t i a l concerns, based not on only based on the father's his current situation. The history maternal safety but also grandfather c i t e d as an e x a m p l e t h a t t h e f a t h e r , i n r e q u e s t i n g a d d i t i o n a l Christmas visitation with the child, had provided two d i f f e r e n t e x p l a n a t i o n s r e g a r d i n g where he p l a n n e d t o t a k e t h e child. The father kept maternal from grandfather February testified the maternal grandparents had c u s t o d y of the c h i l d ' s On also 22, the that fact that he sibling. 2013, the juvenile court entered j u d g m e n t n o t i n g t h a t t h e f a t h e r had l o s t c u s t o d y o f t h e because of h i s c r i m i n a l the history and finding t h a t the a child "[t]he f a t h e r needs an o p p o r t u n i t y t o e s t a b l i s h a r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h his [child]. Such w i l l supervised visitation Therefore, the j u v e n i l e never for one occur i f h i s only access hour every c o u r t awarded the other father week." a standard schedule of u n s u p e r v i s e d , a l t e r n a t i n g - w e e k e n d v i s i t a t i o n 6:00 p.m. addition, on the Fridays father v i s i t a t i o n w i t h the In juvenile through i t s February was 6:00 awarded p.m. on is Sundays. unsupervised from In holiday child. 22, 2013, judgment on c o u r t a p p o i n t e d a g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m 14 the m e r i t s , f o r the the child, 2120415 and i t ordered support. In 2 enforcement pursuant The 2013, the of f a t h e r to addition, the to Rule pay the February 62, A l a . R. $25 per juvenile 22, 2013, Civ. month in child court stayed the judgment f o r 14 days P. f a t h e r f i l e d a postjudgment motion. On F e b r u a r y 15, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d an amended j u d g m e n t m o d i f y i n g some o f the provisions pertaining father's v i s i t a t i o n periods. to the s c h e d u l i n g of the T h a t amended j u d g m e n t c o n t a i n e d a p r o v i s i o n a g a i n s t a y i n g t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f t h a t o r d e r f o r 14 days p u r s u a n t The to Rule 62. maternal grandparents grandparents t i m e l y appealed. The maternal s u c c e s s f u l l y moved t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t f o r a s t a y The g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m has f i l e d i n t h i s c o u r t a r e s p o n s e to the maternal grandparents' appeal. However, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t d i d n o t a p p o i n t t h e g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m u n t i l a f t e r t h e h e a r i n g on t h e m e r i t s and i t s r e s o l u t i o n o f t h e p a r t i e s ' p o s i t i o n s on t h e i s s u e o f v i s i t a t i o n . Therefore, t h i s court, b e c a u s e i t c a n n o t d e t e r m i n e upon what i n f o r m a t i o n t h e g u a r d i a n ad litem bases her response, may not consider her recommendation. F u r t h e r , because the j u v e n i l e c o u r t f i r s t a p p o i n t e d t h e g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m i n i t s j u d g m e n t on t h e m e r i t s o f t h e v i s i t a t i o n d i s p u t e , i t i s c l e a r t h a t i t c o u l d n o t have r e l i e d on any r e c o m m e n d a t i o n o f t h e g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m i n r e a c h i n g i t s judgment. T h i s c o u r t may n o t c o n s i d e r f a c t s , e v i d e n c e , or arguments not p r e s e n t e d t o the t r i e r of f a c t . See 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 , o u r 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 a r g u m e n t s c o n s i d e r e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . " ) . 2 15 2120415 o f i t s F e b r u a r y 22, 2 0 1 3 , j u d g m e n t , as amended, so t h a t c o u l d seek a s t a y i n t h i s c o u r t . On M a r c h 8, 2 0 1 3 , t h i s granted, of the court, pending grandparents' f u r t h e r orders motion t o stay v i s i t a t i o n filed stay of the j u v e n i l e court's judgment court the maternal i n this On M a r c h 14, 2013, t h i s c o u r t e n t e r e d a n o t h e r o r d e r the they court. extending pending further order o f t h i s c o u r t and o r d e r i n g t h a t t h e b r i e f i n g process and appeal be On juvenile expedited. appeal, court the maternal erred alternating-weekend grandparents i n awarding argue the father that the unsupervised and h o l i d a y v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e c h i l d . t h i s court noted i n the previous appeal involving this child: "The d e t e r m i n a t i o n w h e t h e r t o g r a n t v i s i t a t i o n i s a matter w i t h i n the d i s c r e t i o n of the j u v e n i l e c o u r t , and t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s p r i n c i p l e o b j e c t i v e in determining v i s i t a t i o n i s the best i n t e r e s t s of the c h i l d . § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 1 4 ( a ) ( 4 ) , A l a . Code 1975; Y.N. v. J e f f e r s o n C n t y . Dep't o f Human Res., 67 So. 3d 76 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 1 ) ; P r a t t v. P r a t t , 5 6 So. 3d 638, 641 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 0 ) ; a n d Minchew v. M o b i l e C n t y . D e p ' t o f Human R e s . , 504 So. 2d 310, 311 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1987) . This c o u r t has explained: "'[T]he g u i d i n g p r i n c i p l e i n determining v i s i t a t i o n w i t h a dependent c h i l d , o r w i t h a c h i l d who i s t h e s u b j e c t o f a v i s i t a t i o n d i s p u t e between p a r e n t s , i s t h e c h i l d ' s best i n t e r e s t s . Alabama s t a t u t o r y l a w and caselaw precedent e s t a b l i s h that a j u v e n i l e c o u r t may s u s p e n d a p a r e n t ' s rights of 16 As 2120415 v i s i t a t i o n w i t h h i s or her dependent c h i l d if visitation with the parent is d e m o n s t r a t e d t o be n o t i n t h e c h i l d ' s b e s t interests.'" C.O. v. S.O., 85 So. 3d at C n t y . Dep't o f Human Res., 2011). 465 67 (quoting So. 3d 76, Y.N. 83 v. Jefferson (Ala. Civ. App. 3 In t h i s removed against mother's that domestic v i o l e n c e from the parents' judgment c o n t a i n e d custody testimony continued custody. when she i n the a f t e r the The October a f i n d i n g t h a t the was was because the f a t h e r committed a c t s of domestic v i o l e n c e the parents' child infant mother; the evidence i n d i c a t e s t h a t the an the from case, the record indicates c h i l d was 2008 c h i l d was removed dependency dependent as The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t the p r e v i o u s judgments removing t h e c h i l d f r o m t h e f a t h e r ' s c u s t o d y , and m a i n t a i n i n g that arrangement, contained no e x p r e s s p r o v i s i o n r e g a r d i n g the f a t h e r ' s v i s i t a t i o n w i t h the c h i l d . B e f o r e the father's i n c a r c e r a t i o n , w h i l e DHR had l e g a l c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d , DHR a f f o r d e d the f a t h e r o n l y s u p e r v i s e d v i s i t a t i o n , which he exercised occasionally. The May 16, 2011, j u d g m e n t , e n t e r e d w h i l e t h e f a t h e r was i n p r i s o n , d i d n o t a d d r e s s t h e f a t h e r ' s v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s . G i v e n t h o s e u n i q u e f a c t s , and b e c a u s e none o f t h e p a r t i e s has a l l e g e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r ' s a c t i o n amounts t o an a c t i o n s e e k i n g a m o d i f i c a t i o n o f v i s i t a t i o n , we d e c l i n e t o r e v i e w t h e f a t h e r ' s c l a i m as one s e e k i n g a m o d i f i c a t i o n o f a p r e v i o u s judgment p e r t a i n i n g t o v i s i t a t i o n . See H.H.J. v. K . T . J . , 114 So. 3d 36, 41 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2012) (explaining t h a t v i s i t a t i o n may be m o d i f i e d o n l y upon a s h o w i n g 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 ) . 3 17 2120415 a r e s u l t of the f a t h e r ' s a c t s of domestic v i o l e n c e . As p a r t of parents its reunification supervised attended visitation only protective services, DHR with child, the occasionally. custody, the While father offered which the escape from restraining threatening order DHR on father, in activity During a February father t h a t the j u v e n i l e the workers, the father remained engaged i n c r i m i n a l incarceration, t h r e a t e n i n g b e h a v i o r such the child that r e s u l t e d i n h i s being sent to p r i s o n . 2010 the engaged in c o u r t imposed a prohibiting him the maternal grandparents, from and the child. I n h i s A u g u s t 24, 2012, v e r i f i e d p e t i t i o n f o r v i s i t a t i o n , the f a t h e r a l l e g e d t h a t the m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s had him v i s i t a t i o n w i t h the c h i l d . denied A t t h e h e a r i n g on t h e m e r i t s , t h e f a t h e r a d m i t t e d t h a t he h a d made no a t t e m p t t o c o n t a c t t h e maternal filing grandparents his claim or their seeking attorney visitation of record before and making those a l l e g a t i o n s a g a i n s t them. The maternal grandparents cite the Alabama C u s t o d y and D o m e s t i c o r F a m i l y Abuse A c t , § 30-3-130 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975, as s u p p o r t f o r t h e i r a r g u m e n t s on a p p e a l . maternal grandparents d i d not e x p r e s s l y c i t e 18 Although the t h a t a c t to the 2120415 j u v e n i l e c o u r t , the m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s , i n t h e i r to the child, Ala. j u v e n i l e court identified Code 1975, concerning the the best same f a c t o r s s e t arguments i n t e r e s t s of forth in § the 30-3-132, s p e c i f i c a l l y , w h e t h e r t h e c h i l d w o u l d be safe w i t h t h e f a t h e r , as w e l l as t h e f a t h e r ' s h i s t o r y o f c o m m i t t i n g domestic of engaging 30-3-132 p r o v i d e s , Section violence and in threats to others. in part: "(a) I n a d d i t i o n t o o t h e r f a c t o r s t h a t a c o u r t i s r e q u i r e d to c o n s i d e r i n a p r o c e e d i n g i n which the c u s t o d y o f a c h i l d o r v i s i t a t i o n by a p a r e n t i s a t i s s u e and i n w h i c h t h e c o u r t has made a f i n d i n g o f domestic or f a m i l y v i o l e n c e the c o u r t s h a l l c o n s i d e r each of the f o l l o w i n g : "(1) The s a f e t y and w e l l - b e i n g c h i l d and o f t h e p a r e n t who i s t h e of f a m i l y or domestic v i o l e n c e . of the victim "(2) The perpetrator's history of causing physical harm, bodily injury, a s s a u l t , or c a u s i n g reasonable fear of p h y s i c a l harm, b o d i l y i n j u r y , o r a s s a u l t , to another person." In response regarding the young juvenile second the to the maternal grandparents' f a t h e r ' s p a s t c o n d u c t and child court chances. might observed We F u r t h e r , we r e c o g n i z e not be that agree safe people with that arguments the p o s s i b i l i t y with do the father, that the change and deserve sentiment in general. the d i s c r e t i o n a f f o r d e d a t r i a l c o u r t i n 19 2120415 m a t t e r s of v i s i t a t i o n . (Ala. Civ. App. visitation C a r r v. B r o y l e s , 1994). issue circumstances, However, must but be 652 "[e]very decided on So. 2d 299, case its 303 involving a own facts and the p r i m a r y c o n s i d e r a t i o n 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 n o n c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t i s always the best interests B r o y l e s , 652 So. Thompson, 51 and welfare 2d a t 303 So. 3d 265, of the child." Carr ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) ; see a l s o Ex 272 ( A l a . 2010) ("A trial consider c h i l d and, the best i n t e r e s t s and where a p p r o p r i a t e , on v i s i t a t i o n We the welfare as i n t h i s t h a t p r o t e c t the of case, set parte court establishing v i s i t a t i o n p r i v i l e g e s for a noncustodial must v. in parent the minor conditions child."). agree w i t h the m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s ' arguments f a t h e r ' s mere a s s e r t i o n s t h a t he has t o t h r e e months' w o r t h o f n e g a t i v e c h a n g e d and that his two d r u g t e s t s do n o t e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e f a t h e r has overcome and a l t e r e d h i s p a s t c o n d u c t s u c h that a small child, r e c o l l e c t i o n o f him, unsupervised, who should overnight has little be turned relationship with over to the weekend v i s i t a t i o n . father for Under t h e o f t h i s c a s e , t h a t v i s i t a t i o n a w a r d does n o t e n s u r e t h e of the child. 20 or facts safety 2120415 "As a l w a y s , t h e a noncustodial b e s t i n t e r e s t s of the c h i l d ; our recently reiterated that '[a] V s ^ ^ - l - C.O. v. The allows T-S -I- ^ ^ S.O., 85 So. 2d a t j u v e n i l e court the supreme c o u r t trial court ^ - I - ^ father 466. may to has in fashion a visitation demonstrate that suitability his award for v i s i t a t i o n and a r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e c h i l d i n a manner t h a t does n o t place reverse the remand this the child risk juvenile court's cause for unsupervised v i s i t a t i o n The at o f harm. judgment as i t to to the Accordingly, we visitation and to reconsider its award father. maternal grandparents a l s o contend t h a t the j u v e n i l e c o u r t f a i l e d t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e R u l e 32, A l a . R. Jud. c h i l d - s u p p o r t g u i d e l i n e s i n o r d e r i n g t h e f a t h e r t o pay month i n c h i l d support s u p p o r t forms i n the Jud. of Admin., requires f o r the child. r e c o r d on appeal. that the There are record no Rule 32(E), contain the Admin., $25 per childAla. R. Rule 32 c h i l d - s u p p o r t f o r m s and t h a t t h e f o r m s be deemed i n c o r p o r a t e d into the juvenile court's judgment. 21 Bradford v. James, 879 2120415 So. 2d 1184, 1187 Landis, 709 So. (Ala. 2d C i v . App. 2003) 1299, 1300 (citing ( A l a . C i v . App. W i l k e r s o n v. W a l d r o p , 895 So. 2d 347, 348-49 2004). Therefore, this court Nelson i s unable 1998)); ( A l a . C i v . App. t o determine manner i n w h i c h t h e t r i a l c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h e f a t h e r ' s support obligation. Accordingly, we v. reverse the the child- juvenile c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t as t o c h i l d s u p p o r t a n d remand t h i s c a u s e f o r c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e R u l e 32 c h i l d - s u p p o r t guidelines. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d Thomas, J . , c o n c u r . Moore, J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t , w i t h o u t w r i t i n g . Donaldson, J . , c o n c u r s i n p a r t and d i s s e n t s i n p a r t , w r i t i n g , which Pittman, J . , j o i n s . 22 with 2120415 DONALDSON, J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g I the i n p a r t and concur i n that p o r t i o n juvenile court's of dissenting in part. the as judgment main o p i n i o n to remanding the case f o r a d e t e r m i n a t i o n child dissent reversing the order and h i s minor A.B., In case, that portion of v i s i t a t i o n and child Jud. Admin. I the opinion of b e t w e e n K.B., the father, child. c o n d u c t e d an evidentiary hearing t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r v i s i t a t i o n s h o u l d be established between the heard this from support o f t h e amount o f s u p p o r t t o be p a i d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 32, A l a . R. respectfully reversing father sworn finding of the order that the trial and testimony credibility visitation the the specific child, from the witnesses, upon the father visitation personally adult child, and and judged the the rendered impact a of decision unsupervised In the w r i t t e n order establishing and terms, the trial court acknowledged the arguments a g a i n s t u n s u p e r v i s e d v i s i t a t i o n d e c l i n e d to a c c e p t those arguments. principle in 460, "'the 465 i n a c a s e s u c h as t h i s one child's best i n t e r e s t s . ' " ( A l a . C i v . App. a limited schedule have observed parties, considered should v i s i t a t i o n with his child. the court 2011) I agree t h a t the guiding i s t o d e t e r m i n e what i s C.O. ( q u o t i n g Y.N. 23 but v. S.O., 85 So. 3d v. J e f f e r s o n C n t y . 2120415 Dep't o f Human Res., From my review hearing, 67 So. 3d 76, 83 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2011)). of the r e c o r d , i n c l u d i n g the t r a n s c r i p t of I disagree with the trial court's the d e c i s i o n because s u p e r v i s e d v i s i t a t i o n w o u l d seem t o be i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t o f the c h i l d . to But make, and t h a t i s a f i n d i n g of f a c t f o r the t r i a l a f i n d i n g t h a t an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t i s p r o h i b i t e d f r o m m a k i n g . Ex 2000) (noting fact-finding judgment or for R.T.S., 771 the appellate "reweigh that of without To court the reverse "'"committed 2007) q u o t i n g the between wrong and before us. father and his So. trial clear not (Ala. engage or trial court's So. 244 child A l a . 10, clearly 12, 24 took into that be App. 13 and visitation palpably i n j u s t i c e " b a s e d on t h e court 795 I cannot h o l d unsupervised was will (Ala. Civ. 453). by error, injustice 462 limited 2d 793, palpable State, in substitute i t s A 2d 459, v. creates a "manifest The 476-77 must d e t e r m i n e ( q u o t i n g 16 C . J . d e c i s i o n to permit the court"). a i n turn Clayton that and which manifest J.E.H., 984 (1942), must t h a t r u l i n g , we c o r r e c t i o n of 422 court 475, Ex p a r t e D W W , 717 . . . v. 2d 420, 2d a f f i r m e d i f i t i s supported done."'" D.B. So. So. evidence trial r u l i n g must be 1998). trial the the c r e d i b l e evidence." (Ala. the parte that discretionary "any court record consideration the 2120415 father's past maternal grandparents the father, and weighed and the does child. not the trial State, o t h e r g r o u n d s , 244 law around that limited decided f a t h e r t o have t h i s bounds 110, A l a . 10, places the of 13 So. 13 So. 2d 411, a l l 2d 420 responsibility of making "who t o make a p a r t e D W W , 717 . . . So. the witnesses decision than 2d a t 796-97. has [and] an rev'd on (1942)). the shoulders of the t r i a l judge, the C l a y t o n v. 415, and v i s i t a t i o n qualified visitation reason, d e c i s i o n s regarding c h i l d custody h e a r d t h e p a r t i e s and the c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the best i n t e r e s t s the 106, by behavior ... b e i n g c o n s i d e r e d . " ' I d . ( q u o t i n g 31 A l a . App. Our advanced child's court P e r m i t t i n g the "'exceed[] circumstances arguments r e g a r d i n g the u n s u p e r v i s e d v i s i t a t i o n was of the difficult squarely a c t u a l l y seen is infinitely and more appellate court." Because I f i n d the on Ex trial c o u r t ' s v i s i t a t i o n o r d e r t o be w i t h i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n a f f o r d e d to t h a t c o u r t , I r e s p e c t f u l l y d i s s e n t from the r e v e r s a l of the visitation order. Pittman, J . , concurs. 25

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.