Ex parte Marci L. Dean. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Marci L. Dean v. Scottie C. Jones)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 07/12/2013 Notice: This o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e Reporter of Decisions, Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS SPECIAL TERM, 2013 2120601 Ex p a r t e M a r c i L. Dean PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : M a r c i L. Dean v. S c o t t i e C. Jones) (Morgan C i r c u i t Court, DR-07-681.02) THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . Marci L. Dean ("the m o t h e r " ) a n d S c o t t i e C. J o n e s ("the f a t h e r " ) were d i v o r c e d b y a J a n u a r y 17, 2008, j u d g m e n t o f t h e Morgan Circuit Court ("the t r i a l court"). That divorce 2120601 judgment incorporated the terms of a settlement agreement r e a c h e d by t h e p a r t i e s i n w h i c h t h e f a t h e r a g r e e d t o f o r g o r i g h t s of v i s i t a t i o n w i t h the p a r t i e s ' minor c h i l d . t o t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t , t h e m o t h e r was p h y s i c a l custody of the minor c h i l d , p a r t i e s ' marriage, with visit with provided the the minor t h a t the "the f a t h e r had In no Pursuant a w a r d e d s o l e l e g a l and a daughter, born of f a t h e r not child." his h a v i n g any addition, right that child-support the to judgment obligation for child. The January t h a t the 17, 2008, divorce t e r m s o f an O c t o b e r 16, judgment also specified 2007, p r o t e c t i o n - f r o m - a b u s e order then i n p l a c e would remain i n e f f e c t f o r f i v e years from the date of the d i v o r c e . October 16, A u g u s t 21, an the initial, following an 2007, i n c i d e n t o f d o m e s t i c v i o l e n c e . According to s u b m i t t e d by 21, the July 2007, mother mother's o l d e r In obtained order August assaulted m o t h e r had 2007, p r o t e c t i o n - f r o m - a b u s e affidavit that The child 2011, the mother t o the i n c i d e n t , the in the presence from a p r e v i o u s the father father d e g r e e f e l o n y - a s s a u l t c h a r g e and 2 of trial and the court, his child in brother and the relationship. pleaded guilty to a g r e e d t o s e r v e 10 a secondyears i n 2120601 p r i s o n , b u t t h a t s e n t e n c e was s u s p e n d e d on t h e c o n d i t i o n the f a t h e r be p l a c e d on 3 y e a r s ' s u p e r v i s e d not c l e a r from the m a t e r i a l s the felony-assault submitted to t h i s court incident. whether 1 On June 18, 2012, t h e f a t h e r f i l e d seeking I t is c o n v i c t i o n was r e l a t e d t o t h e A u g u s t 2 1 , 2007, d o m e s t i c - v i o l e n c e petition probation. that t o modify i n the t r i a l the January judgment t o award him v i s i t a t i o n w i t h 17, 2008, the c h i l d . court a divorce The f a t h e r The mother a l l e g e s i n h e r b r i e f s u b m i t t e d t o t h i s c o u r t t h a t t h e f a t h e r ' s f e l o n y - a s s a u l t c o n v i c t i o n was a r e s u l t o f t h e a s s a u l t on h e r . An a f f i d a v i t s u b m i t t e d b y t h e m o t h e r t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t d o e s , as t h e f a t h e r c o n t e n d s , t e n d t o i m p l y t h a t t h e a s s a u l t c o n v i c t i o n was r e l a t e d t o t h e d o m e s t i c v i o l e n c e i n c i d e n t . I n h i s response t o the p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus, t h e f a t h e r does n o t s t a t e t h a t t h e m o t h e r was n o t the v i c t i m o f t h e i n c i d e n t t h a t r e s u l t e d i n h i s f e l o n y - a s s a u l t c o n v i c t i o n . R a t h e r , he s t a t e s , c o r r e c t l y , t h a t t h e c r i m i n a l sentencing order p e r t a i n i n g t o that c o n v i c t i o n , which the mother s u b m i t t e d t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t , n e i t h e r i m p l i e s n o r s t a t e s t h a t t h e m o t h e r o r t h e c h i l d was a v i c t i m o f t h a t assault. 1 However, i n s u p p o r t o f a m o t i o n t o q u a s h a s t a y e n t e r e d by this court i n this matter, the father's attorney "represents" t o t h i s court that the father's f e l o n y - a s s a u l t c o n v i c t i o n "has n o t h i n g t o do" w i t h any d o m e s t i c v i o l e n c e a g a i n s t t h e mother o r t h e c h i l d . The f a t h e r ' s a t t o r n e y c i t e s as s u p p o r t f o r t h a t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a l e t t e r he s a y s i s f r o m a d i s t r i c t attorney. The e x h i b i t r e f e r e n c e d , h o w e v e r , i s an u n a u t h e n t i c a t e d l e t t e r s i g n e d by a v i c t i m s ' s e r v i c e o f f i c e r ; t h a t l e t t e r i s one s e n t e n c e i n l e n g t h a n d s t a t e s : " [ t ] h e names [ o f t h e m o t h e r a n d t h e c h i l d ] a r e n o t i n d i c a t e d as h a v i n g any involvement i n the above-referenced c r i m i n a l case." 3 2120601 alleged simply occurred a material change i n circumstances had s u c h t h a t he "wants i n e v e r y way t o p a r e n t a n d s p e n d time w i t h was that the minor c h i l d . " willing and a b l e The f a t h e r a l s o s t a t e d t h a t he 2 to contribute to the support of the child. The seeking mother answered visitation counterclaimed, with seeking abuse o r d e r r e f e r e n c e d and opposed the the father's child. an e x t e n s i o n The of the petition mother also protection-from- i n t h e p a r t i e s ' d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t and an a w a r d o f an a t t o r n e y f e e . The that he unable properly father amended h i s m o d i f i c a t i o n i s disabled because t o w o r k ; however, care of the c h i l d of i l l health the father during petition to allege and t h a t alleged visitation. that The he i s he can mother moved t o s t r i k e t h a t amended p e t i t i o n o r , i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , for a more d e f i n i t e statement of the r e l i e f sought by the father. The f a t h e r , i n p u r s u i n g h i s p e t i t i o n to modify the v i s i t a t i o n p r o v i s i o n i n t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t , must d e m o n s t r a t e a m a t e r i a l change i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s a n d t h a t t h e p r o p o s e d change i s i n t h e c h i l d ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t s . B a i r d v . H u b b a r t , 98 So. 3d 1158, 1163 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 2 ) . 2 4 2120601 On March 8, 2013, t h e t r i a l court denying the mother's motion t o d i s m i s s but g r a n t i n g her motion t o the extent definite days, statement. the father The was an t h e amended order petition t h a t i t r e q u e s t e d a more court ordered file a to entered that, statement within seven "detailing the r e a s o n s why i t i s i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d t o m o d i f y the visitation o r d e r e d by t h e d i v o r c e [judgment]." Also i n 3 i t s M a r c h 8, 2013, o r d e r , the t r i a l court appointed a guardian ad and awarded litem f o r the c h i l d v i s i t a t i o n with 2013; the order supervised order then the father t h e c h i l d on two s p e c i f i c specified that Saturdays i n March the v i s i t a t i o n by t h e mother o r h e r a p p o i n t e e . stated that the p a r t i e s pendente l i t e e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g supervised were was t o be The M a r c h 8, 2013, t o appear at a s c h e d u l e d f o r A p r i l 9, 2013. The f a t h e r ' s amended p e t i t i o n i n r e s p o n s e t o t h a t o r d e r c o n t a i n s a more d e t a i l e d s t a t e m e n t o f t h e b a s i s f o r h i s c l a i m that a material change i n circumstances has occurred, a l l e g i n g , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t he now h a s more t i m e f o r the c h i l d because h i s other c h i l d r e n from other r e l a t i o n s h i p s a r e o l d e r a n d b e c a u s e he i s d i s a b l e d a n d u n a b l e t o w o r k ; t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a s moved b a c k t o A l a b a m a f r o m F l o r i d a , where she had moved a f t e r t h e 2007 d o m e s t i c - v i o l e n c e i n c i d e n t ; t h a t t h e c h i l d i s no l o n g e r an i n f a n t a n d he i s c a p a b l e o f c a r i n g f o r h e r ; a n d t h a t he i s a more s p i r i t u a l l y o r i e n t e d p e r s o n t h a n he used t o be. 3 5 2120601 The the mother f i l e d award of evidentiary a March visitation hearing to and 15, the 2013, father seeking to motion o b j e c t i n g i n the absence of suspend the to an visitation u n t i l a f t e r e v i d e n c e c o u l d be p r e s e n t e d a t t h e s c h e d u l e d A p r i l 9, 2013, past pendente l i t e h e a r i n g ; domestic child's violence safety request. and her the mother c i t e d the and her concern own safety as the I n s u p p o r t o f h e r M a r c h 15, 2013, s u b m i t t e d an a f f i d a v i t t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t . the mother d e s c r i b e d violence incident assaulted her. for that m o t i o n , the mother In that father testified for 2007, d o m e s t i c - and his the brother s e n t e n c e d on a c h a r g e o f s e c o n d - d e g r e e f e l o n y a s s a u l t , b u t she e x p l i c i t l y s t a t e t h a t t h a t c o n v i c t i o n was t h e A u g u s t 21, 2007, d o m e s t i c - v i o l e n c e supra. mother The cited s u b s t a n c e - a b u s e p r o g r a m as might continue t o be also t e s t i f i e d that has that affidavit, was not mother the the father did The which ensuring basis i n d e t a i l t h e A u g u s t 21, in father's never had a the father's a basis f o r her See concern The the child, who the note 1, of a that he attendance i n v o l v e d w i t h i l l e g a l drugs. relationship with stated that, given incident. r e l a t e d to mother was then f i v e years the father. The mother " h i s t o r y o f d o m e s t i c v i o l e n c e " by 6 old, the 2120601 father, she d i d n o t b e l i e v e v i s i t the f a t h e r . in Further, the c h i l d should be r e q u i r e d t h e m o t h e r a l l e g e d t h a t i t was n o t t h e c h i l d ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t s t o be i n t r o d u c e d to the f a t h e r i n a p u b l i c p a r k , as was r e q u i r e d i n t h e M a r c h 8, 2013, and t h a t s u c h a m e e t i n g p l a c e the child It order, could not ensure the s a f e t y of or the mother. does mother's not March appear 15, that 2013, pendente l i t e v i s i t a t i o n . visitation On occurred March the t r i a l motion to court suspend ruled the alleged that the father's I t i s u n d i s p u t e d t h a t a t l e a s t some p u r s u a n t t o t h e M a r c h 8, 2013, 25, 2013, on t h e mother filed order. a motion seeking c o n t i n u a n c e o f t h e A p r i l 9, 2013, p e n d e n t e l i t e h e a r i n g . motion to the mother's attorney had a a That scheduling c o n f l i c t and t h a t i t w o u l d be i n t h e c h i l d ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t s t o meet with hearing. the The guardian ad l i t e m before f a t h e r r e s p o n d e d on A p r i l the pendente lite 1, 2013, b y a l l e g i n g t h a t he d i d n o t oppose a c o n t i n u a n c e i f t h e c o u r t w o u l d a w a r d him a d d i t i o n a l v i s i t a t i o n w i t h the c h i l d i n the i n t e r i m . g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m f i l e d continue The a response t o the mother's motion t o i n which the guardian 7 ad l i t e m d i d n o t oppose the 2120601 r e q u e s t e d c o n t i n u a n c e b u t recommended t h a t v i s i t a t i o n be a w a r d e d t o t h e f a t h e r i f t h e c o n t i n u a n c e was On granting April the 4, 2013, mother's the trial request court for a should granted. entered an order continuance r e s c h e d u l i n g t h e p e n d e n t e l i t e h e a r i n g f o r J u n e 18, 2013. April 4, 2013, o r d e r t h e n states: "As t h e M a r c h 8, 2013, o r d e r a n t i c i p a t e d a hearing i n A p r i l , i t d i d not d e a l w i t h v i s i t a t i o n p a s t M a r c h 30, 2013. The c o u r t has t a k e n n o t i c e o f the arguments of the p a r t i e s i n t h e i r motions r e g a r d i n g v i s i t a t i o n , as w e l l as t h e i n p u t o f t h e g u a r d i a n a d l i t e m , and f i n d s t h a t t h e p a t t e r n o f v i s i t a t i o n e s t a b l i s h e d i n t h e M a r c h 8, 2013, o r d e r shall continue. The father will continue to exercise supervised v i s i t s every other Saturday afternoon at R i v e r s i d e Park i n Decatur, Morgan C o u n t y , A l a b a m a , f r o m 2:00 PM t o 3:30 PM, b e g i n n i n g on S a t u r d a y , A p r i l 13, 2013. The c h i l d i s t o be a c c o m p a n i e d a t e a c h v i s i t by t h e m o t h e r o r h e r a p p o i n t e e , and t h e m o t h e r o r h e r a p p o i n t e e s h a l l m o n i t o r and s u p e r v i s e t h e v i s i t i n i t s e n t i r e t y , t h o u g h t h e y n e e d n o t be a t t h e c h i l d ' s s i d e . The s u p e r v i s i n g p a r t y s h o u l d be w i t h i n s i g h t and h e a r i n g of t h e c h i l d . The c o u r t c o n t e m p l a t e s t h a t t h e s e v i s i t s w i l l keep b o t h t h e m o t h e r ( o r h e r a p p o i n t e e ) and t h e c h i l d s a f e , i n t h a t t h e y a r e s u p e r v i s e d , l i m i t e d i n d u r a t i o n , and h e l d i n an open, p u b l i c place during d a y l i g h t hours. I n the event of r a i n o r o t h e r i n c l e m e n t w e a t h e r , t h e v i s i t s s h a l l be h e l d at t h e McDonald's i n P r i c e v i l l e , Morgan County, Alabama. I f any s i t u a t i o n o c c u r s a t any o f t h e a f o r e m e n t i o n e d v i s i t s t h a t p u t s t h e c h i l d i n any p h y s i c a l o r e m o t i o n a l harm, t h e s u p e r v i s i n g p a r t y ( i f not the mother) i s t o r e p o r t i t immediately t o t h e m o t h e r , who shall r e p o r t t h e same t o h e r a t t o r n e y and t h e g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m . " 8 and The 2120601 On A p r i l 18, 2013, t h e m o t h e r f i l e d a w r i t o f mandamus i n t h i s court. a timely petition for 4 "'A w r i t o f mandamus i s an e x t r a o r d i n a r y remedy, and i t " w i l l be i s s u e d o n l y when t h e r e i s : 1 ) a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t i n the p e t i t i o n e r t o the order s o u g h t ; 2 ) an i m p e r a t i v e d u t y upon t h e r e s p o n d e n t t o p e r f o r m , a c c o m p a n i e d b y a r e f u s a l t o do s o ; 3 ) t h e l a c k o f another adequate remedy; and 4 ) p r o p e r l y invoked j u r i s d i c t i o n of the c o u r t . " ' " Ex parte (quoting Monsanto Ex p a r t e Co., 862 Butts, So. 2d 775 So. 2d 173, 176 q u o t i n g i n t u r n Ex p a r t e U n i t e d S e r v . 2d 5 0 1 , 503 ( A l a . The 595, 604 ( A l a . 2003) (Ala. S t a t i o n s , I n c . , 628 So. 1993)). mother argues t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t v i o l a t e d h e r due- process r i g h t s by awarding t h e f a t h e r pendente l i t e without first conducting an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g . c o u r t has h e l d t h a t , " e x c e p t a deprived parent having of that 2000), i n c e r t a i n narrow custody custody, of a minor even g i v e n adequate n o t i c e under Rules Our supreme circumstances child temporarily, visitation cannot without be being 4 a n d 5, A [ l a ] . R. C i v . P., T h e m o t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus i s t i m e l y w i t h r e s p e c t t o b o t h t h e M a r c h 8, 2013, o r d e r a n d t h e A p r i l 4, 2013, o r d e r . See Ex p a r t e F i b e r T r a n s p . , L.L.C., 902 So. 2d 98, 99-100 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2004) ( t h e p r e s u m p t i v e l y r e a s o n a b l e t i m e i n w h i c h t o f i l e a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus i s 42 days from t h e e n t r y o f t h e o r d e r b e i n g c h a l l e n g e d ) . 4 9 2120601 and an o p p o r t u n i t y t o be 2d 707, 710 ( A l a . 1985). heard." Ex p a r t e W i l l i a m s , 474 T h i s c o u r t has explained: " ' [ A ] p a r e n t i s e n t i t l e d t o due p r o c e s s in proceedings i n v o l v i n g the custody of a child.' S t r a i n v. M a l o y , 83 So. 3d 570, 571 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2011) . I n S t r a i n v. M a l o y , s u p r a , this court explained: "'"In d e a l i n g w i t h such a d e l i c a t e and d i f f i c u l t q u e s t i o n the w e l f a r e of a minor c h i l d d u e process of law in legal proceedings s h o u l d be observed. These settled courses of p r o c e d u r e , as e s t a b l i s h e d by our law, include due notice, a hearing or opportunity to be heard b e f o r e a c o u r t of competent jurisdiction." " ' D a n f o r d [v. D u p r e e ] , 272 A l a . [517,] 520, 132 So. 2d [734,] 735-36 [ ( 1 9 6 1 ) ] . As t h i s "'"[P]rocedural due process c o n t e mpl a t e s t he ba s i c requirements of a f a i r proceeding i n c l u d i n g an i m p a r t i a l hearing before a legally constituted c o u r t ; an o p p o r t u n i t y t o p r e s e n t evidence and arguments ; i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g the claims of the opposing party; a reasonable opportunity to controvert the opposition's claims; and representation by counsel i f i t i s desired." 10 So. 2120601 Crews v. H o u s t o n C n t y . Dep't o f P e n s i o n s & Sec., 358 So. 2d 451, 455 ( A l a . C i v . App. i c - r 1978) "83 Gilmore So. / I C C / - A 1 - , O - I T T - A , ^ , ^ (emphasis added).' 3d a t 571." v. Gilmore, 103 Ex parte So. 3d 833, 834-35 (Ala. Civ. App. (Ala. Civ. App. 2012). In 2005), pendente the trial lite Russell, 911 court awarded custody of 2d the father that case father's a l l e g a t i o n s t h a t the mother used i l l e g a l drugs, had committed allege that the endangered the c h i l d . based in the not child 719 on d o m e s t i c v i o l e n c e , and was a So. mentally unstable. mother's conduct or The father did situation Among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h i s c o u r t s t a t e d : " [ O u r ] Supreme C o u r t [has] h e l d t h a t , i n p o s t d i v o r c e p r o c e e d i n g s b r o u g h t by a p a r e n t i n a c i r c u i t c o u r t to modify custody, the g e n e r a l r u l e i s t h a t 'a p a r e n t h a v i n g c u s t o d y o f a m i n o r c h i l d c a n n o t be d e p r i v e d of t h a t c u s t o d y , even t e m p o r a r i l y , w i t h o u t b e i n g g i v e n a d e q u a t e n o t i c e u n d e r R u l e s 4 and 5, [ A l a . ] R. C i v . P., and an o p p o r t u n i t y t o be h e a r d . ' [Ex p a r t e W i l l i a m s , ] 474 So. 2d [707,] 710 [(Ala. 1985)]. The Supreme C o u r t f u r t h e r h e l d t h a t t h e only exception to t h i s general rule i s a s i t u a t i o n i n w h i c h t h e ' " a c t u a l h e a l t h and p h y s i c a l w e l l - b e i n g o f t h e c h i l d a r e i n d a n g e r . " ' 474 So. 2d a t 710 ( q u o t i n g T h o r n e v. T h o r n e , 344 So. 2d 165, 171 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1977)) ( e m p h a s i s o m i t t e d ) . " Ex p a r t e R u s s e l l , 911 had So. 2d a t 11 723. 2120601 In Ex parte Russell, supra, the father a l l e g a t i o n and had p r e s e n t e d no e v i d e n c e c h i l d ' s w e l f a r e was case maintained endangered. that the made the and father assertions a t t o r n e y i n support of h i s request f o r pendente l i t e were s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t t h e a w a r d . however, n o t i n g t h a t unsworn evidence. 911 So. 2d a t 725. due process requires that, "introduce pendente l i t e of the evidence assertions of child." Ex i n an action counsel parte Couey, parte Russell, 110 So. 3d 378 seeking insufficient to that to an 911 warrant a So. 2d at not modify custody award 725. 5 transfer of See 2012); 2012) f o r pendente l i t e of interest ( A l a . C i v . App. ( A l a . C i v . App. a l l e g a t i o n s i n the f a t h e r ' s motion were his custody are [or her i s ] i n the b e s t a l s o Ex p a r t e N o r l a n d e r , 90 So. 3d 183 Ex of This court also concluded that establishing c u s t o d y t o him i n that This court disagreed, c u s t o d y , t h e p a r t y s e e k i n g an a w a r d o f p e n d e n t e l i t e must no i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the Rather, arguments had (the custody pendente lite The c o u r t i n Ex p a r t e R u s s e l l , s u p r a , n o t e d t h a t i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t the requirement t h a t the f a t h e r p r e s e n t evidence p e r t a i n i n g to the c h i l d ' s best i n t e r e s t s w i t h r e g a r d to pendente l i t e c u s t o d y d i d "not s h i f t the e v i d e n t i a r y b u r d e n " t h e f a t h e r was r e q u i r e d t o meet i n p u r s u i n g h i s modification action. 911 So. 2d a t 725. 5 12 2120601 custody without opportunity In first t o be seeking filed a motion with affording notice a n d an heard). t o modify the c h i l d . t h e mother seeking the divorce judgment, t h e f a t h e r "emergency" p e n d e n t e l i t e However, i n that "emergency" visitation motion, the f a t h e r d i d n o t a l l e g e t h a t t h e c h i l d was i n any d a n g e r s u c h that the exception applied without t o award first opportunity s e t f o r t h i n t h e f o r e g o i n g c a s e s s h o u l d be him c u s t o d i a l p e r i o d s , affording to present t h e mother evidence due i.e., visitation, process on t h e i s s u e f a t h e r s h o u l d be a w a r d e d p e n d e n t e l i t e and whether the visitation. "This court has e x p l a i n e d the requirement of affording notice t o a parent of a threatened d e p r i v a t i o n o f h i s o r h e r c u s t o d y r i g h t s as f o l l o w s : "'Although t h e s t a t e has a c o m p e l l i n g i n t e r e s t i n determining the best i n t e r e s t and w e l f a r e o f a c h i l d , t h e i n t e r e s t i s n o t compelling enough to allow the d e t e r m i n a t i o n t o be made w i t h o u t n o t i c e t o the child's parents. The p u r p o s e o f requiring notice i s to preserve the f a i r n e s s o f t h e h e a r i n g ; and i t i s o f v i t a l i m p o r t a n c e t o t h e c h i l d , as w e l l as t h e p a r e n t , t h a t t h e h e a r i n g be f a i r . A p a r e n t must have n o t i c e o f t h e i s s u e s t h e c o u r t w i l l d e c i d e i n o r d e r t o adduce e v i d e n c e on those i s s u e s before the court, t o give the c o u r t a b a s i s from which a d e t e r m i n a t i o n most b e n e f i c i a l t o t h e c h i l d c a n be made. 13 an 2120601 Otherwise, the c h i l d , r a t h e r than h e l p e d , m i g h t e v e n be harmed.'" Ex parte Franks, 7 So. 3d 391, ( q u o t i n g T h o r n e v. T h o r n e , 344 394-95 So. being ( A l a . C i v . App. 2d 165, 170 2008) (Ala. Civ. App. 1977)). This shared i s not a custody noncustodial typical of a case child parent has i n which are parents divorcing been or exercising v i s i t a t i o n w i t h h i s or her c h i l d . who in have which of custody a or Rather, i n t h i s case, a f t e r c o m m i t t i n g d o m e s t i c v i o l e n c e a g a i n s t the mother i n the c h i l d ' s presence, the with the parties' f a t h e r agreed to waive h i s r i g h t of child, and January t h a t a g r e e m e n t was 17, 2008, judgment s p e c i f i e d t h a t the with the child, p e t i t i o n , the at l e a s t four modify child the and periods, and, the f a t h e r had not a half mother's to for obtain sole himself. t i m e he The a w a r d e d no filed into his The l e g a l and of Thus, father physical visitation, a decision visitation modification i s seeking custody of p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y of the 14 for to the i.e., custodial on the father's p e t i t i o n w i l l i m p a c t t h e c u s t o d y r i g h t s o f t h e m o t h e r , who s o l e l e g a l and the divorce seen the f i v e - y e a r - o l d c h i l d years. periods incorporated judgment. f a t h e r was at and divorce visitation child. has 2120601 The m o t h e r a p p e a r s t o have a v a l i d b a s i s s a f e t y c o n c e r n s f o r h e r s e l f and the c h i l d . supporting her f a t h e r has the The b u r d e n o f d e m o n s t r a t i n g a m a t e r i a l change i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n support of h i s m o d i f i c a t i o n So. 3d 1158, Before the 1163 petition. ( A l a . C i v . App. matter i s considered B a i r d v. 2 0 1 2 ) ; see on the the father pendente evidentiary that hearing visitation lite i s i n the best the to a w a r d e d , what m e a s u r e s s a f e t y of the In her argues child petition that the impermissible litem. and ex In their i t had trial its April motions and the on on "the an whether child and, visitation taken to ensure appears to 2013, have with order mother engaged is the the also in an guardian ad providing that t o be e x t e n d e d , t h e t r i a l c o u r t the award mother. communication 4, due child, the case, i f pendente l i t e court parte relied i n t e r e s t s of s h o u l d be can determine f o r a w r i t o f mandamus, t h e f a t h e r ' s v i s i t a t i o n was that to the 98 supra. however, court with conducted given be f a c t s of t h i s trial visitation must be n o t e 2, merits, p r o c e s s d i c t a t e s t h a t , even b e f o r e the Hubbart, stated arguments the parties asserted input guardian 15 of the ad the in litem," 2120601 w h i c h was e x p r e s s e d i n the guardian ad l i t e m ' s A p r i l 3, 2 0 1 3 , response t o t h e mother's motion t o c o n t i n u e . As 100, t h e mother p o i n t s out, i n Ex p a r t e R.D.N., 918 So. 2d 105 ( A l a . 2 0 0 5 ) , o u r supreme c o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e t r i a l court's consideration of the guardian r e c o m m e n d a t i o n on t h e i s s u e o f c u s t o d y ad litem's v i o l a t e d the father's d u e - p r o c e s s r i g h t s b e c a u s e t h e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n was made i n a private conference having an with opportunity recommendation i n c o u r t . t h e judge to and w i t h o u t question This court or the parties' contest explained: "The g u a r d i a n a d l i t e m ' s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n t h a t t h e c h i l d r e m a i n w i t h t h e m o t h e r was n o t p r e s e n t e d as e v i d e n c e p r o d u c e d i n open c o u r t a n d was b a s e d on i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t may o r may n o t have b e e n p r o p e r l y p r e s e n t e d t o t h e c o u r t . As a r e s u l t , t h e f a t h e r was denied the opportunity t o respond with rebuttal evidence and to present reasons why the recommendation o f t h e g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m s h o u l d n o t be followed. The m o t h e r was a l s o d e n i e d t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e s p o n d a n d p r e s e n t r e a s o n s why t h e guardian ad l i t e m ' s recommendation should be followed. "The g u a r d i a n a d l i t e m made no r e c o m m e n d a t i o n on the r e c o r d e i t h e r by t e s t i m o n y or i n a written r e p o r t b e f o r e o r d u r i n g t h e J u l y 2002 h e a r i n g . The g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m a p p a r e n t l y formed and expressed h e r o p i n i o n on t h e m e r i t s b e f o r e t h e c a s e was presented on t h e m e r i t s and s t a t e d conclusions openly h o s t i l e t o the f a t h e r ' s p o s i t i o n . There i s no evidence i n the record i n d i c a t i n g that the g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m had any r e c o g n i z e d q u a l i f i c a t i o n s 16 the 2120601 t h a t d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t she had a unique a b i l i t y t o make a recommendation on child custody. Consequently, the r i g h t t o contest the accuracy, substance, i m p a r t i a l i t y , and q u a l i t y o f t h e g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m ' s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n t o t h e c o u r t c o n c e r n i n g t h e c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d was a p r o c e d u r a l right denied the f a t h e r i n t h i s case." Ex p a r t e R.D.N., 918 So. 2d a t 104-05 Ex p a r t e R.D.N. i n v o l v e d a f i n a l However, t h e f a c t s i n t h a t case (footnotes omitted). custody are similar case i n t h a t t h e g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m determination. t o those of this i n t h i s case has n o t f i l e d a r e p o r t w i t h t h e t r i a l c o u r t o r been s u b j e c t e d t o q u e s t i o n i n g r e g a r d i n g t h e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s h e made i n h e r r e s p o n s e to the mother's motion t o c o n t i n u e . However, t h i s Ex p a r t e R.D.N. case does seem t o be d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m i n t h a t t h e g u a r d i a n a d l i t e m does n o t a p p e a r t o have e n g a g e d i n t h e t y p e o f ex p a r t e c o m m u n i c a t i o n a t i s s u e in Ex p a r t e R.D.N. trial the Rather, i t appears t o t h i s court t h a t t h e c o u r t , i n r e a c h i n g i t s A p r i l 4, 2 0 1 3 , r u l i n g , recommendation response the guardian asserted i nher t o t h e mother's motion t o c o n t i n u e t h e pendente hearing, i . e . , that the v i s i t s furthering ad l i t e m r e l i e d on lite s h o u l d c o n t i n u e as a method o f her investigation. 6 Regardless, arguments by I n t h a t r e s p o n s e , t h e g u a r d i a n a d l i t e m recommended t h a t visitation continue i n order to "reveal a pattern of 6 17 2120601 c o u n s e l , i n t h i s case by c o u n s e l to f o r the c h i l d i n a a motion t o continue, are not evidence c o u r t may r e l y i n m a k i n g a r u l i n g . response upon w h i c h a Ex p a r t e R u s s e l l , trial 911 So. 2d a t 725; Town o f W e s t o v e r v. Bynum, 68 So. 3d 840, 843 ( A l a . Civ. in App. 2 0 1 1 ) . A c c o r d i n g l y , we a g r e e w i t h t h e m o t h e r t h a t , t h i s case, the t r i a l of t h e guardian c o u r t e r r e d i n r e l y i n g on t h e " i n p u t " ad l i t e m . G i v e n t h e f a c t s o f t h i s c a s e , we c o n c l u d e t h a t due p r o c e s s d i c t a t e s t h a t t h e m o t h e r i s e n t i t l e d t o an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g on the i s s u e whether the father should be a w a r d e d pendente l i t e v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e c h i l d as he p u r s u e s h i s c l a i m t h a t a material should change be Williams, conclude awarded supra; visitation Ex p a r t e has o c c u r r e d with Russell, such the c h i l d . supra. t h a t he Ex parte Accordingly, we t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a s shown a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t t o t h e r e l i e f requested trial i n circumstances i n h e r p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus. The c o u r t i s o r d e r e d t o v a c a t e i t s M a r c h 8, 2013, o r d e r a n d i t s A p r i l 4, 2013, o r d e r a n d t o c o n d u c t an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g on t h e i s s u e o f p e n d e n t e l i t e i n t e r a c t i o n between visitation. [the f a t h e r ] and [the c h i l d ] . " 18 2120601 PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED. P i t t m a n , Thomas, Moore, a n d D o n a l d s o n , J J . , c o n c u r . 19

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.