C.D.M. v. W.B.H.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 08/16/2013 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 Reporter of Decisions, Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , Alabama 36104-3741 ((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 2120520 C.D.M. v. W.B.H. Appeal from Madison D i s t r i c t (CS-06-135.04) Court PITTMAN, J u d g e . C.D.M. ("the m o t h e r " ) Madison D i s t r i c t Court, d e c l i n i n g t o f i n d W.B.H. appeals from a judgment of the f i n d i n g h e r i n contempt o f c o u r t and ("the f a t h e r " ) i n c o n t e m p t o f c o u r t 2120520 for violating a J a n u a r y 3, 2 0 1 2 , j u d g m e n t m o d i f y i n g custody and v i s i t a t i o n a r r a n g e m e n t s f o r t h e p a r t i e s ' m i n o r c h i l d . affirm i n part and r e v e r s e i n part. Procedural On December the trial parties court's joint "periods rights with of the filed a petition for f o r contempt s a n c t i o n s , original legal having History 1 1 , 2012, t h e f a t h e r c u s t o d y and a motion custody custody order child physical in asserting that had awarded t h e of the c h i l d secondary minor We with the father custody/visitation accordance with the ' V i s i t a t i o n / P h y s i c a l Custody S c h e d u l e ' " and t h a t t h a t o r i g i n a l order had been further order modified of the court by agreement of the p a r t i e s on J a n u a r y 3, 2 0 1 2 . 1 and The f a t h e r The p a r t i e s ' a g r e e m e n t t h a t was i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s J a n u a r y 3, 2012, j u d g m e n t c o n t a i n s t h e f o l l o w i n g l a n g u a g e w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e f a t h e r ' s C h r i s t m a s a n d summer v i s i t a t i o n with the c h i l d : 1 "The F a t h e r w i l l e m a i l t h e M o t h e r no l a t e r t h a n t h i r t y (30) d a y s p r i o r t o t h e d a y t h a t s a i d v i s i t s h a l l b e g i n , p r o v i d i n g t h e Mother w i t h t h e date and t i m e t h a t he i s a v a i l a b l e t o d e p a r t f r o m t h e Huntsville International A i r p o r t . I f the Father i s n o t t h e p e r s o n who w i l l be f l y i n g t o r e t r i e v e t h e m i n o r c h i l d , he w i l l e m a i l t h e M o t h e r w i t h i n t h e same t i m e f r a m e , p r o v i d i n g t h e M o t h e r w i t h t h e f u l l name a n d b i r t h d a t e o f t h e p e r s o n who w i l l be f l y i n g to A l a s k a t o r e t r i e v e t h e minor c h i l d , and t h e date 2 2120520 asserted judgment, that, since t h e mother the entry had r e f u s e d of the January t o schedule 3, 2012, and pay f o r t r a v e l arrangements f o r the f a t h e r t o v i s i t the c h i l d the s e t forth i n the summer a n d C h r i s t m a s v i s i t a t i o n p e r i o d s judgment. to during The f a t h e r s o u g h t a j u d g m e n t d i r e c t i n g t h e m o t h e r c o m p l y w i t h t h e t e r m s o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s J a n u a r y 3, 2012, j u d g m e n t a n d h o l d i n g t h e m o t h e r i n c o n t e m p t a n d an a w a r d o f and t i m e t h a t s a i d p e r s o n i s a v a i l a b l e t o d e p a r t from t h e H u n t s v i l l e I n t e r n a t i o n a l A i r p o r t . F a i l u r e t o e m a i l t h e M o t h e r w i t h t h e i n f o r m a t i o n no l a t e r t h a n t h i r t y (30) d a y s i n a d v a n c e o f t h e v i s i t s h a l l r e s u l t i n f o r f e i t u r e of the v i s i t . " The t r i a l c o u r t ' s " S t a n d a r d P a r e n t i n g C l a u s e s , " h o w e v e r , w h i c h were a l s o i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e j u d g m e n t , c o n t a i n e d t h e following language: "At a l l t i m e s h e r e a f t e r , e a c h p a r e n t s h a l l k e e p the o t h e r i n f o r m e d o f t h e r e s p e c t i v e b u s i n e s s and home t e l e p h o n e numbers a n d t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e s t r e e t and m a i l i n g a d d r e s s e s . B o t h p a r t i e s w i l l make themselves a v a i l a b l e f o r d i r e c t communications w i t h the other f o r t h e purposes o f d i s c u s s i o n p e r t a i n i n g to t h e minor c h i l d r e n ; p r o v i d e d , however, n e i t h e r parent will harass or burden the other with e x c e s s i v e o r a b u s i v e t e l e p h o n e c a l l s , o r any o t h e r such non-productive communication. Both parents s h a l l r e f r a i n from d e l e g a t i n g t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of communicating w i t h t h e other parent t o t h i r d p a r t i e s , e x c e p t i n bona f i d e e m e r g e n c i e s , a n d w i l l at reasonable times a n d p l a c e s make t h e m s e l v e s a v a i l a b l e t o communicate d i r e c t l y w i t h t h e o t h e r p a r e n t p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e needs a n d i n t e r e s t o f t h e children." 3 2120520 attorney f e e s ; he c h i l d and The child support. petition. J a n u a r y 24, 2013, 2013, The trial court entered specifying the courtroom was of February 11, 2013. the t o be the mother's motion to r e s e t , the t r i a l for an s e t t i n g the matter f o r a h e a r i n g courthouse i n which the h e a r i n g hearing the m o t h e r f i l e d an answer d e n y i n g t h e a l l e g a t i o n s i n t h e father's 26, a l s o sought " s o l e " p h y s i c a l custody of The order on February Madison held. on County Pursuant court rescheduled mother later to the filed an amended a n s w e r and a c o u n t e r p e t i t i o n and a m o t i o n f o r c o n t e m p t sanctions. I n her c o u n t e r p e t i t i o n , the mother a s s e r t e d the J a n u a r y 3, 2012, judgment r e q u i r e d the mother w i t h i n f i v e the father days of h i s o b t a i n i n g a job, c h i l d s u p p o r t c o u l d be r e c a l c u l a t e d and m o d i f i e d , father had failed to mother f u r t h e r a s s e r t e d comply with t h a t the those to notify so but t h a t use method o f n o t i f i c a t i o n " i n arranging mother requested t r a v e l plans that the the f a t h e r had 4 court, her trial f a i l e d t o comply w i t h been o r d e r e d f o r the c h i l d ' s v i s i t a t i o n . trial the The f a i l e d t o pay $296 i n p a s t - d u e m e d i c a l e x p e n s e s i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e "the that requirements. f a t h e r had c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t and t h a t t h e f a t h e r had that among o t h e r to The things, 2120520 h o l d t h e f a t h e r i n contempt f o r h i s f a i l u r e t o n o t i f y her of h i s employment, m o d i f y 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 , modify p r i o r judgments by r e q u i r i n g t h e f a t h e r t o bear the cost o f t r a v e l expenses f o r t h e c h i l d f o r v i s i t a t i o n purposes, modify the father's award h e r a t t o r n e y The trial visitation schedule with t h e c h i l d , and fees. court entered which s t a t e d , i n p e r t i n e n t a j u d g m e n t on F e b r u a r y 27, 2 0 1 3 , part: " A f t e r t a k i n g e v i d e n c e and t e s t i m o n y o r e tenus and upon c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f s a i d p l e a d i n g s , e v i d e n c e a n d t e s t i m o n y , t h e C o u r t makes t h e f o l l o w i n g f i n d i n g s r e g a r d i n g m a t e r i a l changes a f f e c t i n g t h e c h i l d ' s w e l f a r e s i n c e t h i s C o u r t ' s p r e v i o u s Order and i s s u e s i t s O r d e r s a n d F i n d i n g s as f o l l o w s : "1. The m o t h e r willfully avoided d i r e c t communication w i t h the f a t h e r , i . e . t e l e p h o n e a n d t e x t m e s s a g e s . As a r e s u l t o f the mother's w i l l f u l conduct, t h e f a t h e r was n o t a l l o w e d t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o e x e r c i s e h i s summer v a c a t i o n i n 2012 as o u t l i n e d i n t h i s C o u r t ' s O r d e r , d a t e d J a n u a r y 3, 2 0 1 2 . " 2 . On o r a b o u t O c t o b e r 14, 2012, t h e f a t h e r sent a c e r t i f i e d l e t t e r to the m o t h e r a d v i s i n g t h e m o t h e r t h a t he no l o n g e r had i n t e r n e t access and would l i k e t o c o r r e s p o n d v i a phone o r m a i l t o p l a n f o r Christmas v i s i t a t i o n . I t i s uncontroverted t h a t t h e mother r e c e i v e d t h e l e t t e r and d i d n o t make any a t t e m p t t o c o m m u n i c a t e w i t h the f a t h e r o t h e r t h a n e m a i l , even w i t h knowledge o f t h e f a t h e r ' s l a c k o f i n t e r n e t access. 5 2120520 " 3 . On o r a b o u t November 14, 2012, t h e f a t h e r sent a c e r t i f i e d l e t t e r to the m o t h e r a d v i s i n g t h e m o t h e r t h a t he no l o n g e r had i n t e r n e t access and would l i k e t o c o r r e s p o n d v i a phone o r m a i l t o p l a n f o r Christmas v i s i t a t i o n . I t i s uncontroverted t h a t t h e mother r e c e i v e d t h e l e t t e r and d i d n o t make any a t t e m p t t o c o m m u n i c a t e w i t h t h e f a t h e r o t h e r than e m a i l , even w i t h knowledge o f t h e f a t h e r ' s l a c k o f i n t e r n e t access. " 4 . As a r e s u l t o f the mother's w i l l f u l conduct i n a v o i d i n g d i r e c t c o n t a c t w i t h t h e f a t h e r , t h e f a t h e r was n o t a l l o w e d the o p p o r t u n i t y t o e x e r c i s e h i s Christmas vacation i n 2012 as o u t l i n e d i n this C o u r t ' s O r d e r , d a t e d J a n u a r y 3, 2 0 1 2 . " 5 . T h i s C o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e mother i s i n w i l l f u l contempt o f t h i s C o u r t ' s Standard Parenting Clauses; to wit, p a r a g r a p h 4, w h i c h was made p a r t o f t h i s C o u r t ' s O r d e r , d a t e d J a n u a r y 3, 2 0 1 2 ; t o w i t , t h e m o t h e r w i l l f u l l y f a i l e d t o make h e r s e l f a v a i l a b l e f o r d i r e c t communication w i t h the other [ p a r e n t ] f o r the purposes of d i s c u s s i o n p e r t a i n i n g t o the minor c h i l d . "6. T h i s C o u r t has p r e v i o u s l y found the mother to be in contempt. S p e c i f i c a l l y , as a d d r e s s e d i n p a r a g r a p h 1 o f t h e F i n a l O r d e r , d a t e d F e b r u a r y 25, 2010, "'The c o u r t h a s p r e v i o u s l y d e n i e d the mother's request for continuance. Regarding the m o t h e r ' s m o t i o n t o have t h e c o u r t withdraw i t s contempt o r d e r o f S e p t e m b e r 28, 2009, t h e c o u r t d e n i e s t h e same b u t m o d i f i e s t h e 6 2120520 j a i l s e n t e n c e by s p l i t t i n g t h e f i v e day s e n t e n c e f o r contempt t o s e r v e two d a y s . PROVIDED HOWEVER, s a i d remaining sentence f o r the m o t h e r o f t h r e e days i s s u s p e n d e d and she may p u r g e h e r s e l f f r o m said contempt by hereafter remaining i n complete compliance w i t h t h i s C o u r t ' s p r i o r o r d e r s as modified. The c o n t e m p t of the mother s h a l l remain purged from e n f o r c e m e n t as l o n g as t h e m o t h e r complies with a l l p r i o r , current and f u t u r e o r d e r s o f t h i s c o u r t and r e m a i n s i n s a i d c o m p l i a n c e . ' (emphasis added). "7. Therefore, pursuant to this C o u r t ' s O r d e r , d a t e d F e b r u a r y 25, 2010, a n d the mother's f a i l u r e t o a b i d e by a l l p r i o r , c u r r e n t and f u t u r e o r d e r s o f t h i s C o u r t and to remain i n c o m p l i a n c e , t h e mother i s t o surrender h e r s e l f t o the Madison County J a i l to serve the balance of her previous c o n t e m p t s e n t e n c e ; t o w i t , t h r e e (3) d a y s . "8. The f a t h e r i s a w a r d e d make-up v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e m i n o r c h i l d as f o l l o w s : " a . Summer v i s i t a t i o n , 2013, the father w i l l have two (2) a d d i t i o n a l weeks. "b. Christmas visitation, 2013, t h e f a t h e r w i l l have two (2) a d d i t i o n a l d a y s . " The trial petition. to require court denied the father's custody-modification I t f u r t h e r m o d i f i e d t h e J a n u a r y 3, 2012, j u d g m e n t the parents t o "make 7 themselves available for 2120520 direct communications discussion with the other to the minor pertaining visitation arrangements." judgment, "[d]irect communication, to father's The that there was a contempt mother to the means phone, l e t t e r , include trial court's or any of other obligation per $301 the by father and the father, $3,000 denied month, required resulting a l l other the trial on M a r c h 18, her 2013. n o t i c e of appeal to t h i s The the found the mother of the from her relief. m o t h e r f i l e d a p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n ; t h a t m o t i o n was court form t h e amount o f to of to t r i a l court modified committed behavior, purpose any i n s u f f i c i e n t p r o o f p r e s e n t e d by reimburse contemptuous text, the child, to communications child-support willful According include e l e c t r o n i c means." for The denied by mother t i m e l y filed in Huntsville, where court. Facts The he has father t e s t i f i e d lived married, that father t h a t her the parties' f o r 10 mother child, testified t h a t he years. He lives t e s t i f i e d t h a t the mother husband i s i n the and first that, her husband to V i r g i n i a once the 8 United had and States relocated then mother and Army, and with the to Alaska. the had child The had 2120520 relocated to Alaska, visitation with the c h i l d . time of the hearing, the child. contact issues had a r i s e n According regard to the father, toh i s at the i t h a d been o v e r a y e a r s i n c e he h a d s e e n The f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h e mother with t h a t , when he h a d t r i e d t o t o make t r a v e l arrangements and d i s c u s s d a t e s f o r t h e c h i l d ' s summer v i s i t a t i o n , she h a d i n f o r m e d h i m t h a t he was o u t s i d e t h e r e q u i r e d 30-day n o t i c e p e r i o d a n d t h a t the child Alabama. was n o t g o i n g He t e s t i f i e d to attend that, h e r summer v i s i t a t i o n i n i n an e f f o r t t o work out the c h i l d ' s t r a v e l a r r a n g e m e n t s , he h a d t e l e p h o n e d t h e m o t h e r on several occasions, b u t had had t o leave messages, a n d he t h o u g h t he h a d a l s o s e n t t h e m o t h e r a few t e x t m e s s a g e s . t e s t i f i e d that " i t took a l i t t l e my phone c a l l s a n d f i n a l l y t a l k t o me on t h e phone t o i n f o r m me that [the child] visitation." responded He would stated while He n o t be that, f o rher t o respond t o coming f o r h e r summer when t h e m o t h e r t o h i s c o m m u n i c a t i o n s , i t was after had f i n a l l y t h e 30-day n o t i c e p e r i o d had passed. The father testified that he h a s an e - m a i l a d d r e s s b u t t h a t he does n o t have a c c e s s t o e - m a i l on a r e g u l a r b a s i s . stated that he does n o t have 9 a computer and t h a t He he h a d 2120520 c o m m u n i c a t e d t h a t f a c t t o t h e m o t h e r and had resorted to telephone c a l l s the mother. and had had mother and t e x t messages t o He a l s o s t a t e d t h a t he had had to letters on h i s b e h a l f , b u t letters. The a c e r t i f i e d l e t t e r , d a t e d O c t o b e r 14, presented responded he contact sent c e r t i f i e d his attorney write letters not t h a t t h a t i s why those 2012, the father that he had w r i t t e n t o t h e m o t h e r r e q u e s t i n g t h a t she t e l e p h o n e him to p l a n f o r the c h i l d ' s C h r i s t m a s v i s i t a t i o n , he no longer had telephone or m a i l indicated 2012. that The Internet him that access, a response. letter had and A i n f o r m i n g her requesting f a t h e r s t a t e d t h a t he had that certified-mail been r e c e i v e d on that she receipt October spoken t o the 19, child t h e t e l e p h o n e t w i c e a week, t h a t he had t r i e d to speak to mother about s c h e d u l i n g visits made t h o s e calls, time, and t h a t , a t one t h e m o t h e r on t h e t e l e p h o n e , she d i d n o t want t o t a l k The mail or when he after he had at that asking the on the telephone child to h e a r d the mother say put that time. father admitted t h a t he had n o t s e n t t h e m o t h e r an e¬ a information be letter f l y i n g w i t h the with child f o r the v i s i t s . a " s m a r t p h o n e , " w h i c h he regarding He would s t a t e d t h a t he uses to access the 10 who Facebook has social- 2120520 n e t w o r k i n g Web s i t e . He s t a t e d , h o w e v e r , t h a t he d i d n o t know whether h i s smartphone had t h e c a p a b i l i t y t o send e - m a i l and t h a t he h a d n e v e r t r i e d t o u s e i t f o r e - m a i l . He s t a t e d that t h e l a s t t i m e he h a d u p d a t e d h i s F a c e b o o k p a g e , he h a d done s o from a f r i e n d ' s computer. have I n t e r n e t access but that s e n d an e - m a i l from t h e i r owns an AK-47 a s s a u l t use He s t a t e d t h a t he has f r i e n d s who computers. He t e s t i f i e d could that he a computer. f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d b e e n e m p l o y e d b y T u r n e r Beverage, d e l i v e r i n g beer, f o r over a y e a r . had i f he r i f l e t h a t he c o u l d p r o b a b l y s e l l a n d t h e p r o c e e d s t o buy h i m s e l f The he h a d n o t a s k e d told t h e mother that he h a d g o t t e n He s t a t e d t h a t he a j o b when i n f o r m e d h e r t h a t he w o u l d n o t be a b l e t o v i s i t spring break failed to inform obtained a i n 2012. job He t h e mother w i t h i n or to pay r e c a l c u l a t e d and a m o d i f i e d new c h i l d - s u p p o r t admitted, to have the c h i l d f o r however, five days his he h a d that he h a d after he h a d child support agreement d r a f t e d r e f l e c t i n g t h e amount, as r e q u i r e d b y t h e J a n u a r y 3, 2012, judgment. The mother testified that she w a n t e d t h e judgment t o s t a t e t h a t she a n d t h e f a t h e r w o u l d c o m m u n i c a t e b y e - m a i l t o 11 2120520 protect them so t h a t conversations. discrepancies they She could be testified accountable that or misunderstandings for their there i n the past had been and t h a t , i f e v e r y t h i n g i s i n an e - m a i l , t h e y c a n r e f e r b a c k t o t h e e - m a i l s instead of arguing she could a b o u t what t h e o t h e r s a i d . u s e an e - m a i l h e r s e l f a n d t o make s u r e do. i n case She s t a t e d t h a t of l i t i g a t i o n to protect she i s d o i n g what she i s s u p p o s e d t o She t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r h a d n e v e r e - m a i l e d h e r t h e i n f o r m a t i o n she w o u l d n e e d t o p u r c h a s e a i r l i n e t i c k e t s f o r h i s C h r i s t m a s o r summer v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e c h i l d . however, t h a t she h a d r e f u s e d She admitted, t o s p e a k t o t h e f a t h e r on t h e telephone. Discussion On a p p e a l , t h e mother f i r s t e r r e d by i s s u i n g s a n c t i o n s notice pursuant t o Rule argues t h a t t h e t r i a l against her without 70A(c)(2), 70A(c)(2) s t a t e s , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , A l a . R. first issuing C i v . P. that " t h e p e r s o n a g a i n s t whom t h e [ c o n t e m p t ] p e t i t i o n i s d i r e c t e d s h a l l be n o t i f i e d (1) o f t h e t i m e a n d p l a c e f o r t h e h e a r i n g on t h e p e t i t i o n a n d (2) t h a t f a i l u r e t o a p p e a r a t t h e h e a r i n g may r e s u l t i n t h e i s s u a n c e of a w r i t o f a r r e s t pursuant t o Rule 70A(d), [ A l a . R. C i v . P.,] t o c o m p e l t h e p r e s e n c e o f t h e a l l e g e d contemnor." 12 court Rule 2120520 The m o t h e r does n o t a r g u e t h a t the she h a d n o t been a p p r i s e d t i m e and p l a c e f o r t h e h e a r i n g on t h e f a t h e r ' s of petition; i n d e e d , she c o n c e d e s on a p p e a l t h a t t h e c a s e was r e s e t due t o a scheduling interpret court's conflict the mother's failure arrest requires the mother's argument to n o t i f y appear a t the h e a r i n g her of Thus, assertion that the failure to that her could r e s u l t i n a w r i t being r e v e r s a l of the contempt citation to of sanctions." authority in finding. of that The shows up have been The m o t h e r does n o t support we issued for of whether a p a r t y t h e R u l e 70A r e q u i r e m e n t s must s t i l l for the issuance any an t h e mother mother argues t h a t , " r e g a r d l e s s for t r i a l , as counsel. met provide assertion, h o w e v e r , and we a r e u n a b l e t o l o c a t e any a u t h o r i t y on p o i n t . " I t i s the a p p e l l a n t ' s burden to r e f e r [ a n appellate c o u r t ] to l e g a l a u t h o r i t y that supports i t s argument. R u l e 2 8 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) , A l a . R. App. P., r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e argument i n an a p p e l l a n t ' s b r i e f include ' c i t a t i o n s to the cases, s t a t u t e s , [ a n d ] o t h e r a u t h o r i t i e s ... r e l i e d o n . ' C o n s i s t e n t with R u l e 28, ' [ w ] e h a v e s t a t e d t h a t i t i s n o t t h e f u n c t i o n o f [ a n a p p e l l a t e ] c o u r t t o do a p a r t y ' s l e g a l r e s e a r c h . ' S p r a d l i n v. S p r a d l i n , 601 So. 2d 76, 78 ( A l a . 1992) ( c i t i n g H e n d e r s o n v. A l a b a m a A & M U n i v e r s i t y , 483 So. 2d 392, 392 ( A l a . 1986) ('"Where an a p p e l l a n t f a i l s t o c i t e any a u t h o r i t y , we may a f f i r m , f o r i t i s n e i t h e r o u r d u t y n o r f u n c t i o n t o p e r f o r m a l l t h e l e g a l r e s e a r c h f o r an a p p e l l a n t . " G i b s o n v. N i x , 460 So. 2d 1346, 1347 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1984).'))." 13 2120520 B o a r d o f W a t e r & Sewer Comm'rs o f t h e C i t y o f M o b i l e Harbert Constr. Co., 27 So. 3d 1223, 1254 v. Bill ( A l a . 2009) . B e c a u s e t h e m o t h e r has c i t e d no l e g a l a u t h o r i t y s u p p o r t i n g h e r argument t h a t t h e t r i a l court erred to reversal i n f a i l i n g to n o t i f y her that her f a i l u r e to attend the hearing could r e s u l t in the issuance of a writ a d d r e s s t h a t argument. We f o r her note, arrest, we decline to however, t h a t , because t h e m o t h e r was p r e s e n t a t t h e h e a r i n g and h a d been g i v e n n o t i c e o f the time was i s s u e d , i t appears, a t f i r s t in and d a t e the h e a r i n g Rule of the hearing n o t i c e amounted 45, A l a . R. App. Although the and no w r i t glance, f o r her a r r e s t t h a t any d e f i c i e n c y only to harmless e r r o r . See P. argument i s not properly developed, i t appears t h a t t h e mother i s a l s o a t t e m p t i n g t o a r g u e t h a t she was the denied referenced due and mother t o serve process relied to upon the t h e 2010 the suspended j a i l 817 So. 2d 711, 714 extent order time. trial court i n ordering I n F l u d d v. ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 1 ) , t h i s the Gibbs, court stated t h a t " [ a ] f i n d i n g o f c r i m i n a l c o n t e m p t i s a p p r o p r i a t e where a p a r t y has shown d i s o b e d i e n c e t o a c o u r t ' s o r d e r and where t h e a c t s c o m p l a i n e d o f were s p e c i f i c , i d e n t i f i a b l e v i o l a t i o n s f r o m 14 2120520 the p a s t . " The referenced that c o n t e m p t , and f a t h e r ' s contempt motion i n the p r e s e n t the mother had been i t i s c l e a r from the previously court's prior held orders case in and the f a t h e r ' s m o t i o n t h a t c r i m i n a l c o n t e m p t was contemplated. See Fludd, conclude that 817 So. 2d a t 714. L i k e i n F l u d d , we t h e m o t h e r had s u f f i c i e n t n o t i c e t h a t she was f o r c r i m i n a l contempt. The finding sanctions Id. mother next her contempt in facing argues that because, e l e m e n t s o f c o n t e m p t were n o t in the she trial says, court "the evidence." " ' R u l e 70A, A l a . R. C i v . P., g o v e r n s contempt p r o c e e d i n g s t h a t a r i s e out of civil actions. Rule 70A(a)(2)(C)(ii) d e f i n e s c r i m i n a l c o n t e m p t as "[w]illful d i s o b e d i e n c e o r r e s i s t a n c e o f any p e r s o n t o a court's lawful ... order, rule, or command, where t h e d o m i n a n t p u r p o s e o f t h e finding of contempt i s t o p u n i s h the contemnor." In order t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t a p a r t y i s i n c r i m i n a l contempt of a c o u r t o r d e r , a c o n t e m p t p e t i t i o n e r must p r o v e beyond a reasonable doubt t h a t the p a r t y a g a i n s t whom t h e y a r e s e e k i n g a f i n d i n g o f c o n t e m p t was s u b j e c t t o a " ' l a w f u l o r d e r o f reasonable s p e c i f i c i t y , ' " t h a t the p a r t y v i o l a t e d t h a t o r d e r , and t h a t t h e p a r t y ' s v i o l a t i o n o f t h e o r d e r was willful. Ex p a r t e F e r g u s o n , 819 So. 2d 626, 629 ( A l a . 2001) ( q u o t i n g U n i t e d S t a t e s v. T u r n e r , 812 F.2d 1552, 1563 (11th C i r . 1 9 8 7 ) ) . ' 15 erred in required 2120520 "L.A. v. R.H., 929 So. 2d 1018, 1019 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 5 ) . F u r t h e r m o r e , we have h e l d t h a t , ' [ a ] b s e n t an abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n , o r u n l e s s t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s u n s u p p o r t e d b y t h e e v i d e n c e so as t o be p l a i n l y o r p a l p a b l y wrong, t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f whether a p a r t y i s i n contempt i s w i t h i n t h e sound discretion of the t r i a l court.' Shonkwiler v. K r i s k a , 780 So. 2d 703, 706 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 0 ) . " Preston v. Saab, 43 So. 3d 595, 599 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 0 ) . The m o t h e r a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s J a n u a r y 3, 2012, j u d g m e n t was ambiguous b e c a u s e t h e p a r t i e s ' s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r an e - m a i l t o s c h e d u l e Christmas trial visitation court's with "Standard called t h e f a t h e r ' s summer a n d the p a r t i e s ' Parenting agreement child, Clauses" whereas t h e d i r e c t e d the p a r t i e s t o make t h e m s e l v e s a v a i l a b l e f o r d i r e c t c o m m u n i c a t i o n s w i t h each other f o r the purposes of d i s c u s s i o n p e r t a i n i n g t o the minor c h i l d . provisions conflict, specificity" mother. The m o t h e r a r g u e s t h a t , b e c a u s e t h o s e "there and, t h u s , was no no v i o l a t i o n order of that of two reasonable order by t h e I n Nave v . Nave, 942 So. 2d 372, 379 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005), t h i s c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e d i v o r c e judgment i n t h a t case was reasonably susceptible t h e r e f o r e , ambiguous. a n d was, This c o u r t determined t h a t , because the j u d g m e n t was a m b i g u o u s , " t h e t r i a l beyond a reasonable t o two m e a n i n g s c o u r t c o u l d n o t have f o u n d doubt t h a t t h e f a t h e r w i l l f u l l y 16 violated 2120520 a l a w f u l order of reasonable This specificity." 942 So. 2d a t 379. c o u r t s t a t e d i n Nave: "An a g r e e m e n t , i n c l u d i n g one merged i n t o a d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t , i s ambiguous when i t i s r e a s o n a b l y s u s c e p t i b l e t o more t h a n one m e a n i n g . Ex p a r t e L i t t l e p a g e , 796 So. 2d 298 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) . "'When a trial court adopts a s e p a r a t i o n a g r e e m e n t , i t i s merged i n t o t h e f i n a l judgment o f d i v o r c e . A judgment o f d i v o r c e i s t o be i n t e r p r e t e d o r c o n s t r u e d l i k e o t h e r w r i t t e n i n s t r u m e n t s . Whether an a g r e e m e n t i s ambiguous i s a q u e s t i o n o f l a w t o be d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t . I f t h e a g r e e m e n t i s s u s c e p t i b l e t o more t h a n one m e a n i n g , t h e n an a m b i g u i t y e x i s t s . I f o n l y one r e a s o n a b l e meaning c l e a r l y emerges, t h e n t h e agreement i s unambiguous.' "Wimpee v. Wimpee, 641 So. 2d 287, 288 App. 1994) ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) . " (Ala. Civ. 942 So. 2d a t 378. In the present case, we a g r e e w i t h t h e mother t h a t t h e J a n u a r y 3, 2012, j u d g m e n t was r e a s o n a b l y meanings with regard to the father's v i s i t a t i o n with the c h i l d . mother read the summer Specifically, judgment as s u s c e p t i b l e t o two and Christmas i t appears t h a t the requiring only e-mail communication w i t h regard t o t h a t v i s i t a t i o n ; the language o f t h e p a r t i e s ' a g r e e m e n t t h a t was i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e j u d g m e n t supports such a r e a d i n g . The t r i a l c o u r t , h o w e v e r , d e t e r m i n e d 17 2120520 t h a t t h e mother had v i o l a t e d t h e " S t a n d a r d P a r e n t i n g t h a t had a l s o been i n c o r p o r a t e d court the i n t o t h e judgment. Clauses" The t r i a l d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e mother had v i o l a t e d t h e p o r t i o n o f judgment regarding that the related father's to the p a r t i e s ' communication summer and Christmas visitation; h o w e v e r , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e j u d g m e n t was s u s c e p t i b l e t o two meanings about with regard the father's t o communication between summer a n d C h r i s t m a s the parents visitation. Thus, l i k e i n Nave, t h e j u d g m e n t i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e was n o t one o f reasonable s p e c i f i c i t y that the t r i a l beyond a reasonable violated. We doubt, therefore that reverse the father t h e mother had willfully t h e j u d g m e n t i n s o f a r as i t found t h e mother i n contempt w i t h communicate w i t h c o u r t c o u l d have f o u n d , respect t o her f a i l u r e t o i n a manner o t h e r than e-mails r e g a r d i n g h i s summer a n d C h r i s t m a s v i s i t a t i o n s w i t h t h e c h i l d . The failing mother to find last argues the father that i n contempt. asserts that the father should his failure to inform his resulting failure recalculated, the t r i a l court erred i n Specifically, she have b e e n h e l d i n c o n t e m p t f o r h e r t h a t he h a d g a i n e d employment a n d t o have for his failure 18 h i s child-support t o e-mail obligation her regarding h i s 2120520 summer a n d C h r i s t m a s v i s i t a t i o n failure her t o pay h e r f o r past testimony unrefuted. that he uninsured had failed court, the t r i a l contempt i s presumed c o r r e c t . " 2d 785, 791 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) . evidence indicating attempts to contact a b i l i t y t o e-mail otherwise court the c h i l d , medical t o pay and f o r h i s e x p e n s e s when that debt was "When e v i d e n c e i n a c o n t e m p t c a s e i s p r e s e n t e d o r e tenus t o the t r i a l to with court's finding G i l b e r t v. N i c h o l s o n , We n o t e t h a t t h e t r i a l her, that court heard t h e f a t h e r d i d n o t have t h e t h e mother, and t h a t t h e mother had r e f u s e d communicate w i t h the father. Thus, t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t b y t h e f a t h e r was n o t w i l l f u l . that the t r i a l decline to find 845 So. t h a t t h e mother had evaded t h e f a t h e r ' s c o u l d have d e t e r m i n e d t h a t any v i o l a t i o n therefore, regarding of the t r i a l We conclude, c o u r t was w i t h i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n t o t h e f a t h e r i n contempt. Conclusion We r e v e r s e t h e t r i a l in c o u r t ' s judgment f i n d i n g t h e mother c o n t e m p t , a n d we remand t h e c a u s e f o r t h e t r i a l 19 court to 2120520 e n t e r a judgment c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s o p i n i o n . judgment i n a l l o t h e r AFFIRMED We a f f i r m t h e respects. IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , a n d Thomas, Moore, concur. 20 and Donaldson, JJ.,

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.