Tina Lang v. Michael Lang
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 10/29/2010 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e Reporter of Decisions, Alabama A p p e l l a t e Courts, 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 2090490 T i n a Lang v. Michael Lang Appeal from Pickens C i r c u i t Court (DR-04-16.01 and DR-04-16.02) THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . Tina modifying Lang custody ("the m o t h e r " ) appeals from of the p a r t i e s ' three c h i l d r e n . had b e e n a w a r d e d p r i m a r y p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y a judgment The m o t h e r o f t h e c h i l d r e n when she a n d M i c h a e l L a n g ("the f a t h e r " ) d i v o r c e d i n December 2004. 2090490 I n t h e judgment a t i s s u e , t h e t r i a l court awarded c u s t o d y o f t h e two y o u n g e r c h i l d r e n t o t h e f a t h e r ; i t a w a r d e d c u s t o d y o f the o l d e s t c h i l d t o t h e c h i l d r e n ' s m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s . children trial. are were 1 6 , n i n e , and s i x y e a r s The y o u n g e s t c h i l d o l d at the time of i s a boy; the older father f i l e d a petition seeking for staying overnight the c h i l d r e n were p r e s e n t , judgment. hold the father i n contempt s u p p o r t and f o r h i s f a i l u r e children. The m o t h e r one child admitted then filed a motion for his failure to exercise asserted and t o o k t o pay visitation that only seeking to child with a l l the father visited child f o r summer The m o t h e r a n d t h e f a t h e r s e t t l e d their differences and t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n c o r p o r a t e d t h e i r i n t o a judgment e n t e r e d trial of the divorce one at t h a t time, the sex while The f a t h e r a l s o r e q u e s t e d c u s t o d y o f t h e p a r t i e s ' The m o t h e r vacation. t o h o l d t h e mother i n contempt i n contravention children. only I n A u g u s t 2006, t h e w i t h a member o f t h e o p p o s i t e three with two c h i l d r e n girls. The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h e f o l l o w i n g . the The court also violation of on A u g u s t 23, 2006. held t h e mother 2 I n t h a t judgment, i n contempt the cohabitation agreement provision f o r her of the 2090490 d i v o r c e judgment. court also I n the August 23, 2006, j u d g m e n t , t h e t r i a l s t a t e d : "The p a r t i e s custody p e t i t i o n s issue which have s h a l l be f i l e d agreed based that no future on t h e c o - h a b i t a t i o n i s b e i n g r e s o l v e d by t h i s o r d e r . " On M a r c h 26, 2007, t h e f a t h e r f i l e d another p e t i t i o n f o r a c u s t o d y m o d i f i c a t i o n , a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e mother had v i o l a t e d the August 23, 2006, order enforcing the p r o v i s i o n i n the d i v o r c e judgment f o r b i d d i n g t h e mother t o c o h a b i t a t e . In h i s petition, middle child the father and asked sought that custody custody of of the p a r t i e s ' the oldest and c h i l d r e n be a w a r d e d t o t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s . youngest The same d a y - - M a r c h 26, 2 0 0 7 - - t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d an e x p a r t e o r d e r awarding father pendente lite and a w a r d i n g pendente c h i l d r e n to the maternal During Four the this motions of the middle lite custody after order, the p a r t i e s f i l e d regarding child judge appeal, who to the o f t h e o t h e r two the e n t r y of the ex p a r t e support j u d g e s have p r e s i d e d o v e r t h i s trial child grandparents. t h e two y e a r s pendente l i t e and custody a number o f p e t i t i o n s and v i s i t a t i o n case. issues. As p o i n t e d o u t b y e n t e r e d t h e j u d g m e n t made t h e b a s i s o f i t appears from the record that 3 the p a r t i e s 2090490 reached agreements p e t i t i o n s before the March 26, on the issues raised h e a r i n g s c o u l d be h e l d . 2007, ex parte Since custody arrangement s e t f o r t h i n t h a t order i n their various the entry of order, the custody remained i n p l a c e . After p r o v i d i n g time f o r t h e p a r e n t s t o submit t o drug t e s t s and f o r a psychologist t o e x a m i n e t h e c h i l d r e n a n d a f t e r a number o f c o n t i n u a n c e s r e q u e s t e d by t h e a t t o r n e y s f o r b o t h p a r t i e s and by t h e g u a r d i a n a d l i t e m a p p o i n t e d t o r e p r e s e n t a trial 30, the c h i l d r e n , was h e l d on t h e i s s u e o f " p e r m a n e n t " c u s t o d y on J u l y 2009. The e v i d e n c e a d d u c e d a t t h e J u l y 30, 2009, t r i a l t o show t h e f o l l o w i n g . custody modification tended The f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he s o u g h t a because, at the time he filed the p e t i t i o n i n 2007, t h e m o t h e r was s p e n d i n g t h e n i g h t w i t h a man who was a user and m a n u f a c t u r e r o f methamphetamine. The m o t h e r a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t she h a d b e e n i n a r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the man, and she was aware he used and manufactured methamphetamine, b u t , she s a i d , she d i d n o t u s e d r u g s o r d r i n k alcohol. The older c h i l d r e n were upset over the mother's r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e man, who was i n j a i l a t t h e t i m e o f t h e trial. The m o t h e r a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t , w h i l e 4 she was i n t h a t 2090490 r e l a t i o n s h i p , she had put b e f o r e t h e needs o f h e r she d i d not believe lose the father testified after the said that, at the time, the relationship might cause her b e c a u s e , she said, to at "trying although trial She boyfriend children was that, r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h her children. that c u s t o d y of her that her court she get had entered back" her. c o n t i n u e d the the ex parte c u s t o d y o r d e r on M a r c h 26, man mother t e s t i f i e d that the e n d e d more t h a n a y e a r b e f o r e t h e 2009 believed She also relationship pendente lite trial. again. The At the she had dating time of the known a l l o f she time s a i d t h a t she of the grandparents. with trial, her her Her She She two of she mother t e s t i f i e d that t h e y had whom had she had 5 man been a four-bedroom, with the two- children; At been living with 2007 ex p a r t e a f u l l - t i m e job the maternal moved i n w i t h them t o m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s as a r e s u l t o f t h e The that living had had engaged to a children separated. m o t h e r was said that children, has the relationship accommodate a l l t h r e e d i d n o t want t h e the said fiancéenough t o trial, never "stayed" w i t h t h e m o t h e r was life. f o r s e v e n months. b a t h house, l a r g e 2007, she she to and be the order. could 2090490 support a l l three in school The studying test that that she c o u l d t o a drug t e s t , the r e s u l t s of which b u t she d i d n o t s u b m i t the t r i a l court drug i n the record, to the h a i r - f o l l i c l e requested. not a f f o r d the l a t t e r to a urine included She a l s o s a i d t h a t she was b a c k t o e a r n a d e g r e e as a r e g i s t e r e d n u r s e . mother s u b m i t t e d were n e g a t i v e , submit children. test. The m o t h e r testified test but that she d i d The r e s u l t s o f t h a t indicated that t h e mother test, was n o t u s i n g d r u g s o f any k i n d . The mother a l s o d i d n o t take examination of the c h i l d r e n . part i n the psychologist's She t e s t i f i e d t h a t she t h o u g h t she was t o make t h e c h i l d r e n a v a i l a b l e f o r t h e p s y c h o l o g i s t , but she d i d n o t t h i n k t h a t she was t o be t h e r e . The order r e q u i r i n g the c h i l d r e n t o submit t o the examinations s t a t e s : "[T]he court f i n d s t h a t i t i s i n the best i n t e r e s t o f t h e c h i l d r e n t h a t t h e y be e x a m i n e d b y a l i c e n s e d p s y c h o l o g i s t or p s y c h i a t r i s t i n order t o determine t h e i r c u r r e n t e m o t i o n a l s t a t e ; any u n d e r l y i n g c a u s e s o f d i s t r e s s ; and t o make r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s t o t h e c o u r t a n d t h e g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m c o n c e r n i n g future h a n d l i n g o f t h e c h i l d r e n ' s emotional needs." The father was ordered t o pay t h e cost sessions with the psychologist. 6 of the children's 2090490 Similarly, the guardian ad b e c a u s e , she to contact paid The l i t e m appointed children. guardian a ad The litem grandparents' father's mother the mother s a i d t h a t because, had house died a at she grandfather has one room, t h e m i d d l e c h i l d has the v i s i t e d with f a t h e r , he with the the children she said, testified c h i l d r e n , he that had had she was not never that of trial. The the has trial. The one room, and the had slept with received the father i n his in their custody sleeping t h e y w o u l d make use paternal youngest c h i l d When t h e grandparents i f he children's t h r e e bedrooms: the w o u l d have t o "work o u t " speculated time before father l a s t room. paternal the month p a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s ' h o u s e has He of l i v i n g w i t h h i s f a t h e r i n the paternal father behalf contact bill. f a t h e r was room o r on d i d not s a i d , she b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m the the received t h e m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t she of of room. The a l l three arrangements. "air mattresses, couches, whatever." The o n l y one to drive father testified that he had o f t h e c h i l d r e n b e c a u s e i t was the oldest and youngest 7 requested custody too d i f f i c u l t children to for school. of him The 2090490 o l d e s t c h i l d was i n h i g h s c h o o l i n G o r d o , and, father f i l e d his petition, Reform. The at the time t h e y o u n g e s t c h i l d was i n school f a t h e r l i v e d i n G r e e n e C o u n t y , more t h a n 30 away f r o m t h e children's schools. h o w e v e r , t h e m i d d l e c h i l d and same s c h o o l . At the time of the miles trial, the father s a i d that, i n a d d i t i o n to seeing The the a l s o sees the youngest c h i l d when he t a k e s t h e m i d d l e c h i l d t o s c h o o l o r p i c k s h e r school. The father c h i l d , a d a u g h t e r , had the oldest child, testified that although m i d d l e c h i l d was the trial. the father's custody. grade, she By he did i n the a l l a c c o u n t s , she lived first grade, speak with the that was mother. child teacher world." and Both the had with her oldest on the of a good s t u d e n t w h i l e in i n the father first called to t e s t i f y that, while m o t h e r and were i n v o l v e d i n h e l p i n g saw time The had up weeks. been inattentive, "seemed t o be 8 the He s e l d o m When t h e m i d d l e c h i l d was f r e q u e n t l y d a y d r e a m e d , and little and f o u r t h grade at the middle c h i l d ' s f i r s t - g r a d e teacher the he a strained relationship. t e l e p h o n e a p p r o x i m a t e l y once e v e r y two The in the youngest c h i l d a t t e n d e d y o u n g e s t c h i l d e v e r y o t h e r weekend, he from the the j u s t i n her f a t h e r met t o work w i t h with the the in had own the child. 2090490 The t e a c h e r a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t she r e c a l l e d " s o m e t h i n g a b o u t maybe t h e power was c u t o f f " when t h e m i d d l e c h i l d was with the mother; however, the teacher could s p e c i f i c a l l y where t h e power h a d been t u r n e d d o n ' t know t h a t i t was or house. I t may noted that three The father remember o f f , saying: "I [the middle c h i l d ' s ] mother's apartment have been someone e l s e ' s . " The teacher y e a r s had p a s s e d s i n c e the i n c i d e n t . conceded t h a t he had n o t made s u p p o r t payments i n t h e e i g h t months p r e c e d i n g f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was s e l f - e m p l o y e d fluctuated not living between $16,000 and $30,000 any child- the t r i a l . The and t h a t h i s income annually. Evidence i n t r o d u c e d a t t r i a l i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r ' s m o n t h l y income was $1,500 and t h a t t h e m o t h e r ' s m o n t h l y income was A p s y c h o l o g i s t who in the h a d met w i t h t h e two o l d e s t c h i l d r e n 2008 t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a t t h a t healthy, well adjusted oldest being in child a psychologist time, children. with b o t h were The p s y c h o l o g i s t a p p e a r e d t o be relationship with met $2,393.60. angry w i t h a man. At emotionally said that the mother f o r the time t h e c h i l d r e n , t h e mother would the still have b e e n i n t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e man who a l l e g e d l y u s e d and m a n u f a c t u r e d methamphetamine, 9 whom she was no longer 2090490 seeing a t the time of the t r i a l . Likewise, the psychologist s a i d , he t h o u g h t t h e o l d e s t c h i l d h a d d i s t a n c e d the father. oldest The p s y c h o l o g i s t ' s child thought that report the father's indicated affair f r i e n d of the f a m i l y " had caused h e r p a r e n t s ' On January 2 1 , 2010, t h e t r i a l herself court with that a from the "close divorce. entered an order f i n d i n g t h a t t h e f a t h e r was a f i t p a r e n t and t h a t t h e m o t h e r was " u n f i t " with f o r a number o f r e a s o n s , whom t h e m o t h e r h a d p r e v i o u s l y been c o h a b i t a t i n g was a methamphetamine time u s e r a n d m a n u f a c t u r e r who was i n p r i s o n a t t h e of the t r i a l . continued The m o t h e r to cohabitate with that r e l a t i o n s h i p before trial court mother with was had a d m i t t e d t h e man 2006 c o n t e m p t o r d e r was e n t e r e d , put i n c l u d i n g t h a t t h e man that she h a d even a f t e r t h e August s a y i n g t h a t , a t t h e t i m e , she t h e needs o f h e r c h i l d r e n . The f u r t h e r noted t h a t , a t the time of the t r i a l , the not "ready t o acknowledge t h a t [ t h e man had] t h r e a t e n e d the r e l a t i o n s h i p her custody of the c h i l d r e n . " As f u r t h e r g r o u n d s t h a t t h e m o t h e r was " u n f i t , " t h e t r i a l court stated that the p s y c h o l o g i s t t h e mother had f a i l e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e when h a d e x a m i n e d t h e c h i l d r e n ; t h a t she h a d n o t 10 2090490 submitted to a h a i r - f o l l i c l e drug t e s t ; contacted the c h i l d r e n ' s guardian g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m had and t h a t she had ad not litem 1 the although sought her i n p u t . B a s e d upon i t s f i n d i n g s , t h e t r i a l c o u r t awarded custody of t h e two y o u n g e r c h i l d r e n t o t h e f a t h e r and a w a r d e d custody of the o l d e s t c h i l d to the maternal grandparents. was awarded s u p e r v i s e d v i s i t a t i o n The w i t h the middle mother child and t h e y o u n g e s t c h i l d and u n 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 o l d e s t child. In addition to modifying the trial also determined the f a t h e r ' s c h i l d - s u p p o r t arrearage, ordered litem's and fee, requested. The the mother r i g h t t o due f a t h e r t o e a c h pay and The child-support court's judgment mother established custody, denied mother a l l other half of obligations, the the guardian the parties had court v i o l a t e d her relief ad appeals. contends t h a t the trial p r o c e s s when i t e n t e r e d t h e M a r c h 2007 ex parte c u s t o d y o r d e r and an o r d e r e x t e n d i n g t h e t e r m s o f t h a t o r d e r , The r e c o r d i n c l u d e s the r e s u l t s of u r i n e drug t e s t s a d m i n i s t e r e d t o t h e m o t h e r and t h e f a t h e r . The r e s u l t s o f b o t h t e s t s were n e g a t i v e f o r t h e p r e s e n c e o f i l l e g a l d r u g s . T h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t i n g t h a t e i t h e r t h e mother or the f a t h e r s u b m i t t e d t o a h a i r - f o l l i c l e drug t e s t . 1 11 2090490 w h i c h was e n t e r e d make "temporary" custody orders in April custody entered 2007. Both awards. i n this orders purported to The e x p a r t e c a s e were "temporary" i n the nature of p e n d e n t e l i t e o r d e r s b e c a u s e t h e y were " ' e f f e c t i v e o n l y d u r i n g the pendency o f t h e l i t i g a t i o n the e n t r y o f a f i n a l Evans v. E v a n s , ... a n d [were] ... r e p l a c e d b y judgment'" a t t h e end o f t h e l i t i g a t i o n . 978 So. 2d 42, 48 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007) ( q u o t i n g T.J.H. v . S.N.F., 960 So. 2d 669, 672 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2006)). The m o t h e r d i d n o t p e t i t i o n t h i s c o u r t f o r a w r i t o f mandamus to set aside parte Russell, 911 So. 2d 719 court issued a writ vacate ex p a r t e custody t h e ex p a r t e S e e , e . g . , Ex ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005) o f mandamus o r d e r i n g t h e t r i a l orders and f u r t h e r orders. granting ordering the father the t r i a l court to pendente court to hold e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g on t h e f a t h e r ' s m o t i o n f o r p e n d e n t e custody). trial The l i t i g a t i o n was h e l d (this lite an lite p r o c e e d e d and, on J u l y 30, 2009, a on t h e i s s u e of custody modification. The mother f u l l y p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h a t t r i a l , a f t e r which t h e t r i a l court entered effectively t h e judgment m o d i f y i n g custody. r e p l a c e d t h e ex p a r t e c u s t o d y That judgment orders. "'"The g e n e r a l r u l e i s , i f p e n d i n g an a p p e a l , an e v e n t o c c u r s w h i c h r e n d e r s i t 12 2090490 i m p o s s i b l e f o r the a p p e l l a t e c o u r t to grant any r e l i e f , t h e a p p e a l may be d i s m i s s e d . T h e r e a r e many i n s t a n c e s i n w h i c h s u c h c o n d i t i o n may a r i s e . . . . The c o n d i t i o n may ... a r i s e f r o m t h e a c t o f t h e c o u r t a quo, t h a t i s t o s a y , f r o m some o r d e r o r j u d g m e n t i n the case pending the appeal, which i s made by the court, which renders the d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e q u e s t i o n s p r e s e n t e d by the appeal unnecessary. Paris Electric L i g h t [ & Ry.] Co. v. M a r t i n (Tex. C i v . App. [1895]) 31 S.W. 243; 2 C e n t . D i g . A p p e a l and E r r o r , § 71 e t s e q . " ' " S i e g e l m a n v. A l a b a m a A s s ' n o f Sch. Bds., 819 So. 2d v. 568, 575-76 ( A l a . 2001) (quoting Caldwell ,. L o v e l e s s , 17 A l a . App. 381, 382, 85 So. 307, 307-08 (1920)) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d i n S i e g e l m a n ) . " Medical Assurance Co. Montgomery, P.C., In this 957 case, v. So. the custody m o d i f i c a t i o n and custody orders of ex the consider parte Health render parte 2d 459, the See Care Auth., the Auburn So. trial on the issue regarding court Med. 2d this erred Ctr., Med. of issue of 243, 245-46 i r r e l e v a n t t o t h e outcome o f 13 case). parte the p r o p r i e t y court will i n entering Inc. 2003) ( h o l d i n g t h a t a c o u r t w i l l n o t d e c i d e is Pain ( A l a . 2006). Accordingly, trial & j u d g m e n t r e p l a c i n g t h e ex moot any 908 463 intervening orders. whether orders. Anesthesiology v. East the not ex Alabama (Ala. Civ. App. a legal issue that 2090490 The mother contends that the t r i a l court applied the i m p r o p e r s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w i n m o d i f y i n g t h e c u s t o d y award s e t forth i n the p a r t i e s ' 2004 d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t . Specifically, t h e m o t h e r a s s e r t s , t h e r e i s no i n d i c a t i o n i n t h e r e c o r d o r i n the judgment t h a t the t r i a l f o r t h i n Ex p a r t e McLendon, The McLendon court applied 445 So. 2d 863 s t a n d a r d i s as the standard set ( A l a . 1984). follows: "A p a r e n t s e e k i n g t o m o d i f y a c u s t o d y j u d g m e n t awarding primary p h y s i c a l custody t o the other p a r e n t must meet t h e s t a n d a r d f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n o f c u s t o d y s e t f o r t h i n Ex p a r t e M c L e n d o n [ , 455 So. 2d 863 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) ] . Under t h a t s t a n d a r d , t h e p a r e n t seeking to modify custody of a child must d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t t h e r e has been 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 , t h a t t h e p r o p o s e d change i n c u s t o d y w i l l m a t e r i a l l y promote t h e c h i l d ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t s , and t h a t t h e b e n e f i t s o f t h e change w i l l more t h a n o f f s e t t h e i n h e r e n t l y d i s r u p t i v e e f f e c t caused by uprooting the c h i l d . Ex p a r t e McLendon, s u p r a . " Adams v. Adams, 21 So. 3d 1247, 1252 ( A l a . C i v . App. We f u r t h e r n o t e t h a t " [ a ] p e n d e n t e l i t e o r d e r a w a r d i n g to a parent party who does not create a presumption i s awarded pendente lite 2009). custody i n favor of the custody." T.J.H. v. S.N.F., 960 So. 2d a t 673. In i t s judgment, t h e t r i a l court modified custody upon i t s f i n d i n g t h a t t h e m o t h e r was " u n f i t . " a parent i s u n f i t i s r e q u i r e d i n cases 14 A finding i n which a based that nonparent 2090490 seeks custody o f a c h i l d . 632 ( A l a . 1986). Such a f i n d i n g i s n o t r e q u i r e d i n a c u s t o d y d i s p u t e between p a r e n t s . In asserted provision that supra. the father petition t h e mother was i n violation of a previous court order p r o h i b i t i n g cohabitating trial, See McLendon, h i s 2006 p e t i t i o n s e e k i n g a c u s t o d y m o d i f i c a t i o n , t h e father from See Ex p a r t e T e r r y , 494 So. 2d 628, with a member testified i n 2006 was b e c a u s e , the reason at the time, a t h e mother of the opposite that of sex. he At f i l e d the t h e m o t h e r was c o h a b i t a t i n g w i t h a man known t o be u s i n g a n d m a n u f a c t u r i n g methamphetamine. Furthermore, the maternal grandparents, were a w a r d e d c u s t o d y o f t h e o l d e s t trial child, court at the outset of the July who made c l e a r told the t r i a l court that t o the 30, 2009, t r i a l t h e y were n o t s e e k i n g c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d r e n . grandmother ultimately that The m a t e r n a l she "thought we were here t o g e t c u s t o d y between [the f a t h e r ] and [the m o t h e r ] " and t h a t t h e y were i n c o u r t t o be w i t n e s s e s f o r t h e m o t h e r and t o support her. that The m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s t h e y were grandmother not parties said, "[w]e're specifically i n the case, not here 15 stated and, t h e m a t e r n a l trying to petition 2090490 custody." In the judgment the trial court a l t h o u g h t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s had f i l e d Ex Parte R e l i e f 28, 2 0 0 8 , of 2 and M o d i f i c a t i o n the c o u r t had c l a r i f i e d t h e J u l y 30, 2009, t r i a l . m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s had at the t r i a l and The of F i n a l noted that, a "Petition for Decree" on August t h e i r s t a t u s at the o u t s e t judgment r e f l e c t e d t h a t the s a i d t h a t t h e y were o n l y w i t n e s s e s t h a t t h e a t t o r n e y who had filed the August 28, 2008, p e t i t i o n on b e h a l f o f t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s appeared at the b e g i n n i n g of the t r i a l " t o make c l e a r t h a t t h e [ m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s ] were n o t p a r t i e s and r e p r e s e n t them i n t h i s Based upon the had [ t h a t ] he d i d n o t matter." record, we conclude that this case i n v o l v e s a c u s t o d y d i s p u t e b e t w e e n t h e f a t h e r and t h e m o t h e r . T h e r e f o r e , t h e McLendon s t a n d a r d was the c o r r e c t standard to be a p p l i e d i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r t o m o d i f y c u s t o d y . after a review of the judgment and the r e c o r d , we However, find no i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t a p p l i e d t h e McLendon s t a n d a r d . T h e " P e t i t i o n f o r Ex P a r t e R e l i e f and M o d i f i c a t i o n o f F i n a l Decree" to which the t r i a l c o u r t r e f e r r e d i s not i n c l u d e d i n t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l . 2 16 2090490 The t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t m o d i f y i n g c u s t o d y i s b a s e d upon i t s f i n d i n g t h a t the mother i s "unfit." 3 We r e c o g n i z e t h a t t h e McLendon s t a n d a r d i s l e s s than the p a r e n t a l - u n f i t n e s s that when a judgment entered based than should affirmed on standard. awarding upon a p p l i c a t i o n have the been a that custody c o u r t has the the judgment trial ( A l a . C i v . App. v. ( A l a . C i v . App. Byrd, J.P.F., 689 668 So. So. 2d 191 2d 843 ( A l a . C i v . App. however, the mother a l s o support the t r i a l b a s i s t h a t she was is insufficient that be in R e h f e l d v. 2004), c i t i n g 1995). and Lawley I.M. In t h i s v. case, t h e e v i d e n c e does not c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t m o d i f y i n g c u s t o d y on the unfit. asserts to error court's 1997), is standard i s due a p p l y i n g t h e more s t r i n g e n t s t a n d a r d was h a r m l e s s . R o t h , 885 So. 2d 791, 794 held modification o f a more s t r i n g e n t applied, ground This stringent In f a c t , she a r g u e s , t h e evidence t o meet e v e n t h e McLendon s t a n d a r d . We r e c o g n i z e t h a t , i n a c u s t o d y d i s p u t e b e t w e e n a p a r e n t and a n o n p a r e n t , t o a w a r d c u s t o d y t o t h e n o n p a r e n t a t r i a l c o u r t must f i n d , by c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e , t h a t a parent i s u n f i t . Thus, h a d t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s b e e n s e e k i n g c u s t o d y o f any o f t h e c h i l d r e n , t o a w a r d c u s t o d y t o 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 t r i a l c o u r t w o u l d have h a d t o f i n d t h a t t h e m o t h e r was u n f i t . 3 17 2090490 "'When t h i s C o u r t r e v i e w s a t r i a l c o u r t ' s c h i l d - c u s t o d y d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t was b a s e d upon e v i d e n c e presented ore tenus, we presume t h e t r i a l court's decision i s c o r r e c t : "'A c u s t o d y d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d upon o r a l t e s t i m o n y i s a c c o r d e d a p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s on a p p e a l , and we w i l l n o t r e v e r s e u n l e s s t h e evidence so fails to support the determination that i t i s plainly and p a l p a b l y w r o n g . E x p a r t e P e r k i n s , 646 So. 2d 46, 47 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) , q u o t i n g P h i l l i p s v. P h i l l i p s , 622 So. 2d 410, 412 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1993) (citations omitted). This p r e s u m p t i o n i s b a s e d on t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s unique p o s i t i o n t o d i r e c t l y observe the w i t n e s s e s and t o a s s e s s t h e i r demeanor and credibility. This o p p o r t u n i t y to observe witnesses i s especially important in c h i l d - c u s t o d y cases. "In c h i l d custody cases especially, t h e p e r c e p t i o n o f an attentive trial judge is of great importance." W i l l i a m s v. W i l l i a m s , 402 So. 2d 1029, 1032 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 1 ) . ' "Ex p a r t e Fann, 810 So. 2d 631, 633 Ex p a r t e B l a c k s t o c k , , ( A l a . 2009) . applies not [Ms. 1061445, S e p t . to a the t r i a l presumption L a m i n a c k v. L a m i n a c k , 11, 2009] However, when a t r i a l the law t o the f a c t s , entitled ( A l a . 2001)." 675 So. of court improperly c o u r t ' s judgment i s correctness 2d 479, So. 3d 481 on appeal. ( A l a . C i v . App. 1996). The t r i a l were t h a t , c o u r t ' s grounds f o r f i n d i n g a t one t i m e , the mother " u n f i t " she h a d c o h a b i t a t e d w i t h a d r u g 18 user 2090490 and manufacturer, that she had failed to submit to a h a i r - f o l l i c l e d r u g t e s t , t h a t she had f a i l e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e c h i l d r e n ' s e x a m i n a t i o n s by t h e p s y c h o l o g i s t , and t h a t she had f a i l e d t o c o n t a c t t h e g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m . I n B.S.L. v. S.E., as in this filing entry of case, the 875 So. 2d 1215 a relatively petition of the f i n a l long for a judgment. ( A l a . C i v . App. time custody passed between modification I n B.S.L., t h i s 2003), the and court the reversed a j u d g m e n t m o d i f y i n g c u s t o d y b a s e d on t h e m o t h e r ' s h i s t o r y o f d r u g and a l c o h o l abuse when t h e m o t h e r had v o l u n t a r i l y s o u g h t t r e a t m e n t and h a d a b s t a i n e d f r o m a b u s i n g d r u g s and a l c o h o l f o r a l m o s t two y e a r s as o f t h e d a t e o f t r i a l . I n A.L. v. S.J., 827 So. 2d 828 Id. at 1224. ( A l a . C i v . App. 2002), the f a t h e r sought custody of the p a r t i e s ' 13-month-old and t h e c h i l d ' s p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r , who of the c h i l d , moved t o i n t e r v e n e . a l s o sought After a t r i a l , child, custody the trial c o u r t a w a r d e d t h e m o t h e r and t h e f a t h e r j o i n t l e g a l c u s t o d y o f the c h i l d but awarded p r i m a r y p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y of the c h i l d t o the p a t e r n a l grandmother. I d . a t 830. Evidence i n that i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e 1 9 - y e a r - o l d m o t h e r , among o t h e r t h i n g s , dated D.W., a 17-year-old who 19 admitted that he had case had used 2090490 illegal d r u g s and had consumed a l c o h o l i n t h e p a s t ; he also a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t he had o v e r d o s e d on d r u g s i n O c t o b e r 2000. At litigation one child, point during the allowed trial in the court D.W.'s temporary custody had regarding ordered presence and that had D.W. However, t h e r e c o r d i n t h a t case had even spent the apartment i n v i o l a t i o n of the t r i a l no e v i d e n c e , any the time l o n g e r d a t i n g D.W. primary be mother continued night at avoid included t o see the court's order. physical of harmful the or dangerous. trial i n A.L., mother's There was the Id. at 832-33. mother was custody of the child to the paternal the evidence indicated t h a t t h e m o t h e r had e x h i b i t e d p o o r j u d g m e n t , i t f e l l s h o r t establishing, by no T h i s c o u r t r e v e r s e d the judgment awarding grandmother, c o n c l u d i n g t h a t , although m o t h e r was D.W. h o w e v e r , t h a t t h e m o t h e r had p l a c e d t h e c h i l d i n s i t u a t i o n t h a t was At the the not child awarded e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e m o t h e r had that the of o f t h e c h i l d on t h e c o n d i t i o n t h a t she c o n t a c t w i t h D.W. and custody clear and convincing evidence, that of the an " ' " u n f i t o r i m p r o p e r p e r s o n t o be e n t r u s t e d w i t h t h e c a r e and u p b r i n g i n g of the c h i l d . " ' " 20 I d . a t 834 (quoting 2090490 Ex p a r t e Terry, 494 So. 2d a t 632, q u o t i n g Mathews, 428 So. 2d 58, 59 In t h i s testified ( A l a . 1983)). the and basis that for his the t r i a l request court b a s i s f o r f i n d i n g t h a t t h e m o t h e r was than a year before trial, her the t r i a l t h e m o t h e r was life. parte case, the mother's r e l a t i o n s h i p t h a t the f a t h e r was modification i n t u r n Ex used for as a custody the primary " u n f i t " h a d e n d e d more of t h i s case. e n g a g e d t o a man At the time of the she h a d known a l l o f T h e r e was no e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e m o t h e r ' s f i a n c e had engaged i n improper o r i l l e g a l conduct. T h e r e was no e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e m o t h e r was u s i n g i l l e g a l d r u g s at the time of the t r i a l . The m o t h e r ' s f i a n c e had already p u r c h a s e d a h o u s e l a r g e enough t o accommodate a l l t h r e e o f t h e mother's c h i l d r e n . returned to psychologist school who The m o t h e r h e l d to a registered h a d e x a m i n e d t h e two them b o t h t o be h e a l t h y the become a full-time older and w e l l a d j u s t e d . j o b and h a d nurse. The children found I t i s true that o l d e r c h i l d r e n were u p s e t w i t h t h e m o t h e r ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p a t t h e r o o t o f t h i s case; however, t h e p s y c h o l o g i s t a l s o f o u n d t h a t t h e o l d e r c h i l d was u p s e t w i t h t h e f a t h e r , t o o , b e c a u s e 21 2090490 o f h e r b e l i e f t h a t h i s a f f a i r w i t h a f a m i l y f r i e n d had the breakup of the p a r t i e s ' As was this the evidence i n indicated exercised that judgment i n the p a s t . the conclude mother's that she h e l d more t h a n two the At the was failed the to a may had father's petition w e l l have However, like to mother in which was the at the time of the t r i a l , The court's mother p r o v i d e d concerns hair-follicle drug that explanations the test, mother had failed f a i l e d to contact the guardian ad l i t e m . conclude that the mother's " ' u n f i t o r i m p r o p e r p e r s o n t o be upbringing of the So. as did not to Even i f t h e however, make h e r e n t r u s t e d w i t h the r e q u i r e d by Ex p a r t e an care and Terry, 494 632. 2d a t child'" conduct had children, t r i a l c o u r t d i d not accept the mother's e x p l a n a t i o n s , we was l e d one p a r t i c i p a t e i n the p s y c h o l o g i s t ' s examination of the and had poor years a f t e r the f a t h e r f i l e d h i s p e t i t i o n , trial take time the unfit. changed f o r the b e t t e r . regarding mother circumstances B.S.L., h e r c i r c u m s t a n c e s had marriage. t h e c a s e w i t h t h e m o t h e r i n A.L., case filed, caused A f t e r r e v i e w i n g t h e r e c o r d i n t h i s c a s e , we there conclude that i s i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence to support a f i n d i n g that 22 the 2090490 m o t h e r was u n f i t , to and, t h u s , t h e j u d g m e n t f i n d i n g t h e m o t h e r be u n f i t i s p l a i n l y and p a l p a b l y w r o n g . Because t h e r e i s i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e f i n d i n g t h a t the mother was unfit, the t r i a l c o u r t ' s award o f c u s t o d y o f t h e o l d e s t c h i l d t o t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s , w i t h whom t h e m o t h e r was l i v i n g so she c o u l d be w i t h t h e o l d e s t and y o u n g e s t was i m p r o p e r and must be r e v e r s e d . at 632. Our propriety of See Ex p a r t e T e r r y , 494 So. 2d holding precludes awarding child, custody the of the need to oldest address child the to the m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s on t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e y were n o t p a r t i e s in this matter. Furthermore, because the evidence does n o t s u p p o r t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t t h e m o t h e r was u n f i t , we c a n n o t s a y that application of the incorrect, albeit more s t a n d a r d of d e t e r m i n i n g whether t o modify custody harmless error. There judgment t o s u g g e s t change in constituted i s nothing i n the r e c o r d or i n the that t h e r e had been a m a t e r i a l proposed stringent, the t r i a l change custody c o u r t c o n s i d e r e d whether i n circumstances, that the would materially promote c h i l d r e n ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t s , and t h a t t h e b e n e f i t b r o u g h t the about b y t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n more t h a n o f f s e t t h e i n h e r e n t l y d i s r u p t i v e 23 2090490 e f f e c t c a u s e d by u p r o o t i n g t h e c h i l d r e n . reverse two the trial youngest court to court's children. consider the standard to parties' children i s judgment m o d i f y i n g remand t h i s evidence determine B e c a u s e we the We Therefore, whether in a change custody cause light of of the custody also of f o r the the trial McLendon of the warranted. r e v e r s e t h e judgment o f t h e t r i a l modification we of custody of a l l three c o u r t as children, to we p r e t e r m i t d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e o t h e r i s s u e s t h e m o t h e r r a i s e s on appeal. REVERSED AND Pittman, Moore, REMANDED. Bryan, and J . , concurs Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . i n part writing. 24 and dissents in part, with 2090490 MOORE, J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g i n p a r t a n d d i s s e n t i n g i n p a r t . When a circuit grandparent court awards custody of a c h i l d to a o v e r t h e o b j e c t i o n o f a n a t u r a l p a r e n t , i t may do so o n l y b a s e d upon an e x p r e s s f i n d i n g t h a t t h e p a r e n t i s u n f i t to e x e r c i s e custody of the c h i l d . 628, 632 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) . Ex p a r t e T e r r y , 494 So. 2d I n i t s f i n a l judgment, t h e t r i a l court awarded c u s t o d y o f t h e p a r t i e s ' o l d e s t c h i l d t o t h e c h i l d r e n ' s maternal grandparents a f t e r they had e x e r c i s e d pendente custody f o r o v e r two y e a r s . of that c h i l d lite Hence, t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t t h e m o t h e r was u n f i t was a n e c e s s a r y p a r t of i t s judgment, grandparents custody. regardless of the fact testified In other that words, they were that the maternal not p e t i t i o n i n g f o r the ultimate d i s p o s i t i o n custody of the oldest c h i l d made t h i s dispute between and t h e mother," the father opinion concludes. That being So. 3d a t said, I agree more t h a n unfit sufficient parent. I note that "a c u s t o d y as t h e m a i n . with t h e main c o n c l u s i o n t h a t , a t the time of t h e t r i a l , an of the opinion's t h e m o t h e r was n o t the unfitness of a parent t o deprive t h a t parent of h i s or her custody of a c h i l d must be p r o v e n b y c l e a r a n d c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e . 25 Terry, 2090490 supra. That evidence custody must disposition, show t h a t , the parent at the lacks See [Ms. 2090042, May , App. 2010) unfitness 28, 2010] (Moore, J . , equates to So. dissenting) a 3d of the ability the w i l l i n g n e s s to p r o p e r l y care f o r the c h i l d . time or J.W. v. T.D., (Ala. Civ. (noting t h a t a f i n d i n g of finding that a parent i s unable or u n w i l l i n g to discharge h i s or her p a r e n t a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s to and f o r t h e c h i l d ) ; and 30, 2010] J., concurring So. S t o c k s v. S t o c k s , 3d , i n part [Ms. 2080941, A p r i l ( A l a . C i v . App. and 2010) d i s s e n t i n g i n part) t h e u n f i t n e s s o f a p a r e n t must be (Moore, (noting a d j u d g e d as o f t h e that time of t h e c u s t o d i a l d i s p o s i t i o n ) ( c i t i n g Ex p a r t e P h i l l i p s , 266 A l a . 198, 200, 95 Ala. 522, 524, Mills, App. So. 2d 48 49 A l a . App. 1973)). 77, So. 79 2d 658, (1957); 771, 772 661-62, 275 Edwards v. (1950); So. part currently and 254 Borsdorf 340-41 v. (Civ. Hence, t h i s c o u r t w i l l a f f i r m a j u d g m e n t f i n d i n g c o u l d have c l e a r l y c o n v i n c e d children. and 2d 338, a p a r e n t u n f i t o n l y i f the evidence i n the was Sessions, unable Stocks, the t r i a l or u n w i l l i n g to So. 3d a t dissenting in part). record reasonably court that that parent properly parent (Moore, J . , c o n c u r r i n g I agree w i t h the main 26 the in opinion 2090490 t h a t the evidence proved unfit during paramour was no her t h a t t h e m o t h e r may relationship with have once b e e n her drug-abusing b u t t h a t she h a d s i n c e r e h a b i l i t a t e d so t h a t longer unable responsibilities to or u n w i l l i n g and f o r the to d i s c h a r g e her children. she parental Accordingly, I agree t h a t t h a t p a r t of the judgment awarding custody of the oldest is child reversed. The to the maternal mother c u s t o d y she had had obtained custody awarded the o n l y based McLendon, 445 So. on 2d 863 c o r r e c t l y summarizes. of to the of the two be younger v a l i d c u s t o d y judgment, not v o l u n t a r i l y c o u l d have children due 4 c h i l d r e n by v i r t u e o f a p r i o r , court grandparents forfeited. father Thus, t h e custody standard set of the forth which trial younger i n Ex parte ( A l a . 1984), which the main o p i n i o n So. 3d a t . Although a finding u n f i t n e s s of the c u s t o d i a l parent i s not r e q u i r e d i n order I a l s o note t h a t , at the time of the t r i a l , the mother was r e s i d i n g w i t h t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s . By awarding custody of the o l d e s t c h i l d to the maternal grandparents, the t r i a l c o u r t p l a c e d t h e c h i l d i n t h e home i n w h i c h t h e m o t h e r was r e s i d i n g and, p r e s u m a b l y , where t h e m o t h e r e x e r c i s e d a u t h o r i t y over the c h i l d . T h e r e f o r e , the l e g a l custody a r r a n g e m e n t c r e a t e d by t h e judgment w o u l d h a v e , i n a l l l i k e l i h o o d , r e s u l t e d i n t h e m o t h e r e x e r c i s i n g de f a c t o c u s t o d y of t h e c h i l d . 4 27 2090490 for a noncustodial parent t o meet t h e McLendon s t a n d a r d , n o n c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t can p r o v e s i n c e the l a s t meeting custody t h a t the c u s t o d i a l parent j u d g m e n t , become u n f i t the f i r s t prong The P.W., burden prove 628 remains, So. 2d 753, however, the remaining elements In has, as a means o f o f t h e McLendon s t a n d a r d , i . e . , t h a t a m a t e r i a l change o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s has H.J.B. v. on occurred. See, e.g., 754 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1993). the noncustodial parent the t r i a l c o u r t c o u l d have, and p r o b a b l y d i d , d e t e r m i n e t h a t a change o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s since the entry to o f t h e McLendon s t a n d a r d . f i n d i n g the mother u n f i t , occurred a of the last custody had judgment. However, t h a t change o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s had become i m m a t e r i a l by t h e t i m e o f t r i a l b e c a u s e t h e m o t h e r had r e h a b i l i t a t e d h e r s e l f so t h a t h e r p a s t c o n d u c t current mother fitness showed was no as a p a r e n t . virtually longer d e t e r m i n a t i v e of At the time the same of the t r i a l , capacity to parent her the the c h i l d r e n as she h a d d i s p l a y e d a t t h e t i m e o f t h e e n t r y o f t h e last c u s t o d y j u d g m e n t , o r t h e f a t h e r a t l e a s t f a i l e d t o show any m a t e r i a l change i n h e r p a r e n t i n g a b i l i t y t h a t p e r s i s t e d a t the time of trial. Hence, the 28 trial c o u r t c o u l d not have 2090490 r e l i e d on t h e m o t h e r ' s u n f i t n e s s t o s a t i s f y t h e f i r s t p r o n g o f t h e McLendon Our standard. caselaw holds that when a judgment omits express f i n d i n g s o f f a c t t h a t a r e n o t r e q u i r e d by law, t h i s c o u r t ordinarily assume t h a t t h e t r i a l findings necessary McCormick v. E t h r i d g e , 2008). In this to c o u r t i m p l i c i t l y made t h o s e support i t s judgment. 15 So. 3d 524, 529 case, the t r i a l See, e . g . , (Ala. C i v . t h e main o p i n i o n App. c o u r t made f i n d i n g s o f f a c t . Those f i n d i n g s , h o w e v e r , do n o t s u p p o r t i t s j u d g m e n t . with will that the t r i a l court I agree d i d n o t f i n d any a d d i t i o n a l f a c t s t h a t w o u l d have j u s t i f i e d a change o f c u s t o d y u n d e r t h e McLendon s t a n d a r d . 2d 8 8 1 , 891-93 of fact presume t h e t r i a l when e n t e r i n g record does Ramsey v . Ramsey, 995 So. ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) ( a r g u i n g t h a t , when a t r i a l findings See c o u r t v o l u n t a r i l y makes t o support i t s judgment, that judgment). not contain on this specific court must c o u r t r e l i e d on o n l y t h o s e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t I f u r t h e r conclude any e v i d e n c e change o f c u s t o d y u n d e r t h e McLendon Based (Moore, J . , d i s s e n t i n g ) the foregoing that would that the support a standard. analysis, I agree that the j u d g m e n t s h o u l d be r e v e r s e d , b u t I s e e no r e a s o n t o remand t h e 29 2090490 case. W i t h o u t e v i d e n c e o f a m a t e r i a l change o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s existing at the time of t r i a l , discretion to reconsideration standard could modify of the t r i a l custody the at evidence produce only one d e n i a l of the f a t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n c o u r t w o u l d have no a l l . In in light legally my of opinion, the valid render opinion a judgment f o r the mother. remands f o r t h e t r i a l respectfully 30 result a t h e judgment Because court to reconsider dissent. McLendon f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n of custody. Hence, I b e l i e v e t h i s c o u r t s h o u l d s i m p l y r e v e r s e and a the main the case, I
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.
