Phyllis Johnson v. Rodney Johnson

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 1/07/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 2090699 Phyllis Johnson v. Rodney Johnson Appeal from Morgan C i r c u i t Court (DR-09-900018) THOMAS, J u d g e . Phyllis Johnson ("the m o t h e r " ) a n d Rodney J o h n s o n ("the f a t h e r " ) were m a r r i e d i n 1999. a s o n who was b o r n 2005. The p a r t i e s h a v e two c h i l d r e n , i n 2 0 0 2 a n d a d a u g h t e r who was b o r n i n I n a p p r o x i m a t e l y S e p t e m b e r 2008, t h e p a r t i e s separated, 2090699 and, i n March divorce and 2009, custody the mother of the p a r t i e s ' counterclaimed f o r a divorce children. the The 2009. 2010, the among o t h e r t h i n g s , legal of the c h i l d r e n , of the The evidence employed. 5:00 typically trial This court t o 3:00 work order i n entered t h e mother the a joint physical father physical appeals. was sparse. Both p a r t i e s The m o t h e r w o r k s f o r I l p e a I n d u s t r i e s . a.m. agreement awarded t h e p a r t i e s awarded The m o t h e r at trial awarded d a u g h t e r , and custody of the son. agreement, c o u r t ' s pendente l i t e judgment t h a t , custody father sought custody of the custody of the son. I n March a c u s t o d y o f t h e d a u g h t e r and t h e was l a t e r s e t o u t i n t h e t r i a l are seeking Pursuant to the p a r t i e s ' out-of-court f a t h e r had pendente l i t e custody children. and a l s o mother had pendente l i t e October sued the f a t h e r , p.m. four on F r i d a y s . The are Her h o u r s d a y s a w e e k ; she d o e s not mother her testified that f a t h e r , 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 f a t h e r , w o u l d meet h e r a t her house would take preschool. on Mondays, the T u e s d a y s , and daughter to his T h u r s d a y s and home to get that ready he for The m o t h e r s a i d t h a t she w o u l d t a k e t h e d a u g h t e r 2 2090699 t o t h e f a t h e r ' s m o t h e r on Wednesdays a n d when she w o r k e d on Fridays. The father dealership. that works f o r h i s father H i s h o u r s a r e 9:00 a.m. he w o u l d p i c k at a used-automobile t o 5:00 p.m. up t h e s o n f r o m s c h o o l He and t h a t said t h e son w o u l d s t a y a t t h e a u t o m o b i l e d e a l e r s h i p w i t h h i m u n t i l 5:00. According to dealership included toys, a kitchen became father, the a play area area, office at the automobile f o r the son, complete and a p l a c e mother caregiver f o r t h e s o n t o nap i f he contended that she h a d b e e n f o r both c h i l d r e n during had a l s o worked outside the primary t h e m a r r i a g e even t h e home. She s a i d though that the f a t h e r w o u l d come home f r o m w o r k a n d t h e n go a n d p l a y games with tired. The she the with h i s friends. father's family her like feel interfered he s i d e d w i t h The mother indicated "a l o t " a n d t h a t h i s family video that the the father made over h e r . She a l s o c o m p l a i n e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r d i d n o t do h i s f a i r s h a r e o f t h e w o r k a r o u n d t h e home, n o t i n g t h a t she w o r k e d o u t s i d e t h e home, took work. care of the c h i l d r e n , cleaned t h e home, a n d d i d y a r d The f a t h e r d e n i e d s p e n d i n g c o n s i d e r a b l e 3 t i m e away f r o m 2090699 the home t o p l a y time w i t h his video games and s a i d t h a t he f a m i l y most e v e n i n g s s a i d t h a t b o t h he and the had a f t e r work. m o t h e r had provided spent The care his father for both c h i l d r e n d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e , d e p e n d i n g l a r g e l y on t h e i r w o r k schedules. After child they the in his had parties or found general. d a r k room. son custody. fault with However, t h e once p u n i s h e d the her not The the separated, son Neither the other cared party for the testified parent's that caregiving f a t h e r d i d t e s t i f y t h a t the mother by s p a n k i n g him and l o c k i n g him in had in a T h i s a c t i o n by t h e m o t h e r , s a i d t h e f a t h e r , c a u s e d t o want t o v i s i t mother admitted t h e s o n ' s b e d t i m e , she had o f f the light. She the mother f o r a that m i s b e h a v i n g on t h e o c c a s i o n turned each parent she a t i s s u e and s e n t him t h a t the explained that d o o r was she spanked sometimes used son t o h i s room, where she the cracked the for t h a t , b e c a u s e i t was d e n i e d t h a t she d a r k room, s t a t i n g i n s t e a d t h a t l o c k and had time. l o c k e d him d o o r had open. The time-outs no in doorknob mother and had the or further sometimes s p a n k e d t h e c h i l d r e n w i t h h e r h a n d on t h e i r b o t t o m s as methods of discipline but that time-outs 4 were a more effective 2090699 discipline method f o r the daughter than f o r the son. r e c o r d does n o t c o n t a i n any t e s t i m o n y r e g a r d i n g discipline The the father's methods. record i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e mother had had difficulty w i t h her l i v i n g arrangements d u r i n g the pendente l i t e She first The lived w i t h the f a t h e r ' s mother. period. She t h e n r e n t e d a h o u s e t h a t r e q u i r e d f a i r l y s u b s t a n t i a l i m p r o v e m e n t s , w h i c h she had had made to the house. That December 2 0 0 9 , a n d t h e m o t h e r was coworker at the time of t r i a l house flooded temporarily in early living i n J a n u a r y 2010. with a However, t h e m o t h e r s a i d t h a t she w o u l d be m o v i n g b a c k i n t o h e r h o u s e s o o n . The f a t h e r l i v e d w i t h h i s f a t h e r a f t e r t h e f o r e c l o s u r e o f t h e mortgage on the m a r i t a l residence, a f t e r the p a r t i e s ' separation. own residence which occurred sometime The f a t h e r c u r r e n t l y has h i s on l a n d owned b y h i s g r a n d p a r e n t s . As n o t e d a b o v e , t h e p a r t i e s h a d a g r e e d t o a s p l i t - c u s t o d y arrangement pendente l i t e . allowed the t h a t she h a d t h e son t o l i v e w i t h t h e f a t h e r p e n d e n t e l i t e son residence after The m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d was and enrolled she was the separation. in a living The school near the former f a r t h e r away f r o m t h a t daughter, s a i d 5 because marital school the mother, was 2090699 enrolled i n preschool a t the time been e n r o l l e d i n s c h o o l a t t h e time The t r i a l the siblings been i n i t s judgment. living custody the p a r t i e s appeal, judgment However, should p r i n c i p l e that a t r i a l for separating the t r i a l The father told be court d i d him t h a t apart f o r approximately t h e mother separated. c o n c e r n i n g how l o n g t h e c h i l d r e n separately. c h i l d r e n had been l i v i n g On b u t she had n o t court d i d not s p e c i f y i t s reason question the father at t r i a l had of t r i a l , argues that reversed. the She two trial the years. court's relies on court should not enter a custody the award t h a t serves t o separate s i b l i n g s absent a compelling reason t o do so and t h a t s u c h a c u s t o d y a w a r d w i l l be a f f i r m e d o n l y i f the s e p a r a t i o n i s i n the best i n t e r e s t of the c h i l d r e n . Dunn v. Dunn, 972 So. 2d 810, 814-15 ( A l a . C i v . App. As we e x p l a i n e d i n Dunn, " ' [ a ] s a g e n e r a l r u l e , t h i s c o u r t does not f a v o r a custody d e t e r m i n a t i o n where s i b l i n g s a r e s e p a r a t e d . J e n s e n v. S h o r t , 494 So. 2d 90 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 6 ) . I f , however, after receiving ore tenus evidence, the t r i a l court determines there i s a compelling reason f o r the s e p a r a t i o n , t h e n we a r e r e q u i r e d t o r e v i e w i t s d e c i s i o n with a strong presumption of correctness. Kennedy v. Kennedy, 517 So. 2d 621 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1987) . The t r i a l c o u r t i s a l s o guided by the i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p 6 See 2007) . 2090699 b e t w e e n e a c h c h i l d and p a r e n t , and interpersonal r e l a t i o n s h i p between c h i l d r e n . C o l e v. C o l e , 442 So. 2d ( A l a . C i v . App. 1983). the the 120 " ' I t i s also well established that i n an initial custody determination, the p a r t i e s s t a n d on e q u a l f o o t i n g , w i t h o u t a favorable presumption f o r e i t h e r party. S a n t m i e r v. S a n t m i e r , 494 So. 2d 95 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 6 ) . We have a l s o h e l d t h a t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p of the c h i l d to each p a r e n t i s one of the factors that should be c o n s i d e r e d . Murph v. Murph, 570 So. 2d 692 (Ala. C i v . App. 1990). The paramount consideration of the court in a child c u s t o d y case, however, i s the c h i l d ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t . J e n s e n , 494 So. 2d 90.' "'Phomsavanh v. Phomsavanh, 666 C i v . App. 1995)." 972 So. 2d determination at 814-15. of custody case are the "the the [ c h i l d r e n ' s ] emotional, and Other best sex, age, C i v . App. The separating Mardis v. 2d 537, factors interest of 539 (Ala. relevant the to a in a children and h e a l t h o f t h e [ c h i l d r e n ] ; s o c i a l , m o r a l , and m a t e r i a l n e e d s ; the p a r t i e s ' ages, c h a r a c t e r , environment." So. Mardis, stability, 660 So. h e a l t h and 2d 597, 599 home (Ala. 1995). mother the argues children e v i d e n c e does n o t that no exists in establish a basis 7 compelling this case reason for and that the for determining that the 2090699 s e p a r a t i o n of these s i b l i n g s record contains no i s i n t h e i r best i n t e r e s t . evidence concerning The the i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e c h i l d r e n , and i t r e v e a l s v e r y little about the child. The r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the p a r e n t s only indication the m o t h e r and t h e son i s t h e t e s t i m o n y t h a t , f o r a t i m e , t h e son not w i s h which dark to v i s i t a stressed relationship each between did of and w i t h the mother a f t e r the mother a l l e g e d l y p u n i s h e d room. The r e c o r d suggests him by the i n c i d e n t i n l o c k i n g him t h a t the parents had in a agreed p e n d e n t e l i t e t h a t t h e s o n ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t w o u l d be f u r t h e r e d b y k e e p i n g h i m i n t h e s c h o o l i n w h i c h he was trial c o u r t may e n r o l l e d , and the w e l l h a v e c o n s i d e r e d t h e f a c t t h a t t h e son had a t t e n d e d t h a t s c h o o l f o r a t l e a s t t h r e e y e a r s by the time trial when i t d e c i d e d t o p l a c e t h e son i n t h e c u s t o d y o f of the father. However, b a s e d concerning the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the c h i l d r e n or between the c h i l d r e n and t h e p a r e n t s , we of t h e s e two See 1976) Pettis on cannot the Pettis, of d i s c e r n any s i b l i n g s , who v. lack 334 evidence reason f o r the s e p a r a t i o n a r e o n l y t h r e e y e a r s a p a r t i n age. So. 2d 913, 914 (Ala. Civ. App. ( r e v e r s i n g a c h i l d - c u s t o d y award s e p a r a t i n g t h r e e - y e a r - 8 2090699 old and five-year-old siblings, noting "the further c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e n e e d o f t h e c h i l d r e n t o be t o g e t h e r " a n d stating should, that "[a] separation of i n t h e judgment o f t h i s of extreme n e c e s s i t y " ) . evidence relating determination, we two such young children c o u r t , be p e r m i t t e d only out I n s h o r t , because of the dearth of to the factors cannot conclude relevant that to the the t r i a l judgment s e p a r a t i n g these s i b l i n g s i s i n t h e i r best The t r i a l judgment i s t h e r e f o r e court's custody custody court's interest. reversed. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Thompson, P . J . , and Pittman, concur. Thomas, J . , c o n c u r s specially. 9 Bryan, and Moore, J J . , 2090699 THOMAS, J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g Although (Ala. I authored C i v . App. specially. Alverson i n which 2009), v. A l v e r s o n , 28 So. I a p p l i e d the although I r e s u l t i n A.B. issued a v. J.B., special 40 So. 3d 723, 2 0 0 9 ) (Thomas, J . , c o n c u r r i n g result), in which I separating siblings, that t h a t "our separated i f the i n the record, that the Because requirement trial i s "a concurring a maintain guiding court i n determining whose c u s t o d y to I separate especially principle the best i t must d e c i d e , " i n p a r t and burden convincing the 40 concurring upon 10 for determined will A.B., be sufficient serve 40 So. 3d the at compelling-reason to assist i n t e r e s t of the 3d a t 736 i n the the reason judgment designed So. the a custody separation that in required b a s e d on b e s t i n t e r e s t s of the c h i l d r e n at i s s u e . " 729. App. t h a t s i b l i n g s may concludes, the law c o u r t has c a s e l a w more a c c u r a t e l y h o l d s evidence concurring Alabama a m a j o r i t y of t h i s court in 735-36 ( A l a . C i v . reason to support trial siblings, concurring i n p a r t and maintained evidence of a compelling writing 784 "compelling- reason" requirement t o a custody judgment s e p a r a t i n g and 3d court a judgment children (Thomas, J . , result), trial the as to opposed have an separating 2090699 siblings, I will conform t o the m a j o r i t y ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t no reason" "compelling siblings from requirement now one is another. i m p o s e d -- required in However, I do that order to believe the r e c o r d r e f l e c t separate that evidence t h a t a s e p a r a t i o n of the s i b l i n g s i s i n t h e i r best i n t e r e s t i s s i m p l y a n o t h e r way the -¬ o f r e q u i r i n g t h a t a judgment s e p a r a t i n g s i b l i n g s be s u p p o r t e d by a c t u a l e v i d e n c e t h a t a s e p a r a t i o n i s warranted children as opposed among two to being a convenient d i v o r c i n g p a r e n t s based c h i l d r e n o r t h e i r age or gender. 11 on division of t h e number o f

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.