M.H. v. H.N.M.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 2/11/11 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 R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , 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 OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 2091203 M.H. v. H.N.M. Appeal from Walker J u v e n i l e Court (JU-05-276.02) BRYAN, J u d g e . M.H. ("the father") appeals the Walker J u v e n i l e Court ("the from a judgment e n t e r e d b y j u v e n i l e court") custody o f h i s d a u g h t e r , M.J.H. ("the child's maternal aunt ("the maternal t h a t awarded c h i l d " ) , t o H.N.M., t h e aunt"). I n M.H. v . 2091203 H.N.M. , 46 So. 3d 967 (Ala. Civ. d i s m i s s e d the f a t h e r ' s i n i t i a l had visitation failed to w i t h the rule this n o n f i n a l because the on child. 2009), court appeal i n t h i s matter a f t e r c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e j u d g m e n t was court App. the request for the f a t h e r ' s a p p e a l , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r t h a t was to the maternal aunt this juvenile court dismissed i d e n t i c a l to the i n i t i a l After father's we order awarding except child custody of the t h a t i t a l s o awarded the visitation w i t h the every and a t any a d d i t i o n a l times to which it in detail the p a r t i e s month agreed. case can be v. H.N.M., s u p r a ; t h e r e f o r e , we w i l l n o t d i s c u s s here. However, we will briefly j u v e n i l e court's j u r i s d i c t i o n to determine c h i l d . T h i s p r o c e e d i n g was December 2007 when she filed a petition ("the m o t h e r " ) , were unknown. maternal December aunt's the the custody of the The I n May to the f o r custody of the mother of the the child r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t the 2007 p e t i t i o n proceeding presented the c h i l d ' s custody. address i n i t i a t e d by t h e m a t e r n a l a u n t i n c h i l d b e c a u s e t h e w h e r e a b o u t s o f E.D., second father o t h e r weekend o f e a c h A summary o f t h e p r o c e d u r a l h i s t o r y o f t h i s f o u n d i n M.H. child f o r custody juvenile was the court regarding 2005, an e m e r g e n c y p e t i t i o n f o r 2 2091203 custody cousin was was filed by t h e f a t h e r ' s apparently child at that court awarded custody 2006. had time. cousin, and t h e f a t h e r ' s awarded pendente l i t e However, after of the c h i l d custody a trial, of the the j u v e n i l e t o the mother i n August Because the r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t the j u v e n i l e c o u r t 1 p r e v i o u s l y decided the issue of custody of the child, f o r m e r § 12-15-32, A l a . Code 1975, w h i c h was a p p l i c a b l e a t t h e time the maternal child, applies. 2 aunt f i l e d of a child becomes 21 y e a r s order f o r custody Former § 12-15-32(a) p r o v i d e d , part: "[J]urisdiction case her p e t i t i o n shall obtained be o f age u n l e s s i n pertinent by t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t retained by i t until terminated of the judge of the j u v e n i l e court prior " of the the i n any child thereto by Accordingly, b e c a u s e 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 t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e court entered an o r d e r terminating i t sj u r i s d i c t i o n over the c h i l d , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t p r o p e r l y e x e r c i s e d T h a t j u d g m e n t does n o t a p p e a r i n t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l . T h i s p r o c e d u r a l h i s t o r y was g l e a n e d f r o m t e s t i m o n y presented at the ore tenus h e a r i n g i n the u n d e r l y i n g proceeding. 1 F o r m e r § 12-15-32 was r e p e a l e d on J a n u a r y 1, 2009, t h e d a t e t h e Alabama J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A c t , § 12-15-101 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975, became e f f e c t i v e . See A c t No. 2 0 0 8 - 2 7 7 ( a ) , A l a . A c t s 2008. 2 3 2091203 its continuing jurisdiction maternal aunt's p e t i t i o n On appeal, exceeded the over the of findings the of father child. fact in argues In the burden of proving that so, juvenile child. the i t awarded doing u n s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e , meet h e r in ruling f o r custody of the i t s d i s c r e t i o n when custody child the 3 juvenile the he on court maternal argues court's aunt that the judgment were t h a t the m a t e r n a l aunt f a i l e d that he was unfit, and that to the j u v e n i l e c o u r t e r r e d by c o n s i d e r i n g h i s p h y s i c a l a p p e a r a n c e i n making i t s custody d e t e r m i n a t i o n . The f a t h e r a l s o argues t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e x c e e d e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n by f a i l i n g t o a w a r d him l i b e r a l v i s i t a t i o n w i t h the The hearing testimony revealed never married, was born in presented the but child. at following. the The June 2008 m o t h e r and t h e y were l i v i n g t o g e t h e r December grandmother ("the mother, the f a t h e r , and 2004. D.G., the ore the when t h e child's tenus father child paternal p a t e r n a l grandmother"), t e s t i f i e d that the child moved i n t o h e r the home a f t e r Because of the adoption o f t h e new A l a b a m a J u v e n i l e Justice Act, there i s no precedential value to this j u r i s d i c t i o n a l a n a l y s i s f o r p r o c e e d i n g s i n i t i a t e d on o r a f t e r J a n u a r y 1, 2009. See, e.g., Ex p a r t e T.C., [Ms. 2090433, June 18, 2010] So. 3d ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 0 ) . 3 4 2091203 the the child was born. mother, However, and the the father t e s t i f i e d that child lived together until he, his r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e m o t h e r ended, a p p r o x i m a t e l y five a f t e r t h e c h i l d was b o r n , and t h a t , a t t h a t t i m e , the mother and the child grandmother. Jasper moved in According with mother, to the f a t h e r , the paternal t h e m o t h e r moved t o s h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r and l e f t t h e c h i l d w i t h h i s c o u s i n . The p a t e r n a l grandmother t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e mother c h i l d with the f a t h e r ' s cousin I n May 2005, lite cousin referenced p a r t i e s confirmed pendente around A p r i l the f a t h e r ' s custody of the c h i l d , the his weeks that custody filed child. the o f 2005. a petition for a b o v e , and t h e t e s t i m o n y the f a t h e r ' s of the o r May left cousin However, grandmother t e s t i f i e d t h a t the f a t h e r ' s c o u s i n was the of awarded paternal (her n i e c e ) had a c t u a l l y given her custody of the c h i l d during t h a t time. The maternal aunt's testimony indicated that the mother i m m e d i a t e l y t r i e d t o r e g a i n c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d and t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e court returned A u g u s t 2006. The m a t e r n a l a u n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t grandmother had a l l o w e d two o c c a s i o n s c u s t o d y o f the c h i l d t o t h e mother i n during the p a t e r n a l t h e m o t h e r t o v i s i t t h e c h i l d o n l y on the time t h a t 5 the p a t e r n a l grandmother 2091203 had custody of the c h i l d . The f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d a s s i s t e d h i s c o u s i n i n obtaining time, custody of the c h i l d i n May 2005 a n d t h a t , a t t h a t he h a d a g r e e d t o t e r m i n a t e child. However, anything t o terminate confirmed cousin's that he also stated that h i s parental the father 2005 p e t i t i o n h i s parental was a rights t o the he h a d n e v e r signed rights. A l t h o u g h i t was respondent listed f o r custody of the c h i l d , on h i s the father s t a t e d t h a t he was n o t i n v o l v e d i n t h e c u s t o d y a c t i o n . According his t o t h e f a t h e r , he saw t h e c h i l d e v e r y d a y when c o u s i n h a d c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d a n d he t e n d e d t o " 1 0 0 % o r more" o f t h e c h i l d ' s child's material physical needs, needs d u r i n g needs, such such as that time, as d i a p e r s , feeding and i n c l u d i n g the and t h e bathing child's the child. However, t h e f a t h e r a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d b e e n w o r k i n g i n H u n t s v i l l e d u r i n g t h a t c u s t o d y p r o c e e d i n g a n d t h a t he was home only on t h e w e e k e n d s . I t was u n c l e a r where t h e f a t h e r when he came b a c k f r o m H u n t s v i l l e on t h e w e e k e n d s . according with t o the maternal aunt, the c h i l d r e s t r a i n i n g order after May entered 2005 Further, t h e f a t h e r was n o t i n v o l v e d because against him. 6 lived h i s cousin had a 2091203 The p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e h a d c a r e d f o r t h e c h i l d d u r i n g t h e f i r s t 20 months o f t h e c h i l d ' s l i f e , after the father's cousin, the child. The p a t e r n a l attempted t o intervene obtain custody t r i e d t o stop h e r n i e c e , was a w a r d e d c u s t o d y o f grandmother admitted that she had i n t h e 2005 c u s t o d y a c t i o n i n o r d e r t o of the c h i l d , and she a d m i t t e d that she had t h e r e t u r n o f t h e c h i l d t o t h e mother i n August 2006 b y f i l i n g m o t i o n s a f t e r t h e c l o s e o f t h a t c u s t o d y A f t e r t h e mother o b t a i n e d 2006, even she d i d n o t a l l o w trial. custody o f t h e c h i l d i n August the father to v i s i t the c h i l d . f a t h e r s t a t e d t h a t t h e mother had a r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r The entered a g a i n s t h i m b u t t h a t he w o u l d o c c a s i o n a l l y go t o t h e m o t h e r ' s place o f employment t o t a l k before stated that, t h e m o t h e r d i s a p p e a r e d , he h a d n o t s e e n t h e c h i l d i n 16 months. The m a t e r n a l recognize in t o h e r . The f a t h e r aunt t e s t i f i e d that the c h i l d d i d not t h e f a t h e r when he came t o t h e m a t e r n a l a u n t ' s home November 2007, shortly after t h e mother disappeared, and t h a t t h e c h i l d d i d n o t a s k about t h e f a t h e r . At t h e time o f t h e mother's disappearance i n November 2007, t h e f a t h e r was l i v i n g a n d w o r k i n g i n G u l f S h o r e s . t h e f a t h e r l e a r n e d o f t h e m o t h e r ' s d i s a p p e a r a n c e , he 7 When returned 2091203 to Walker County the c h i l d . and asked the m a t e r n a l aunt f o r custody of However, t h e m a t e r n a l a u n t e x p r e s s e d h e r d e s i r e t o k e e p c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d u n t i l t h e m o t h e r was found, i n l i g h t of mother the previous father's custody family. The battle father between agreed the to a l l o w the and the child to r e m a i n w i t h t h e m a t e r n a l a u n t , and he a p p a r e n t l y r e t u r n e d t o G u l f S h o r e s . The m o t h e r was a b o u t December 11, d i s c o v e r e d t o be deceased w i t h t h r e e d i f f e r e n t f a t h e r s : E l . D . , who was was a t t h e t i m e o f t h e f i n a l h e a r i n g ; and J.D., o l d at the time of final hearing. After three years who the mother's fathers of the mother's t h a t she was a The amount custody w i t h the p e r m i s s i o n of c h i l d r e n . The of time two mother maternal aunt with the child the stated v e r y c l o s e t o t h e m o t h e r and t h a t she h a d significant mother's three children, was the d i s a p p e a r e d i n November 2007, t h e m a t e r n a l a u n t t o o k of children four years o l d at t h e t i m e o f t h e f i n a l h e a r i n g ; t h e c h i l d , who years or 2007. A t t h e time o f her d e a t h , the mother had t h r e e old on spent before the death. maternal a u n t , who was 29 years o l d at the time t h e h e a r i n g , t e s t i f i e d t h a t she l i v e d i n a t h r e e - b e d r o o m , 8 of two- 2091203 and-one-half-bathroom was five home. She h a d c u s t o d y o f h e r s o n , who y e a r s o l d a t t h e t i m e o f t h e f i n a l h e a r i n g , as w e l l as t h e m o t h e r ' s t h r e e c h i l d r e n . H e r b r o t h e r , who was 22 y e a r s old, lived worked a.m., Sunday through a n d she h i r e d children aunt's and i n t h e basement o f h e r home. Thursday a babysitter aunt 10:30 p.m. u n t i l from The m a t e r n a l 8:30 t o care f o r the mother's a n d h e r c h i l d w h i l e she was a t w o r k . child and t h e mother's o l d e s t child t h e m o t h e r ' s two y o u n g e r c h i l d r e n , remained a t home w i t h t h e m a t e r n a l The m a t e r n a l attended including aunt school, the c h i l d , on w e e k d a y s . The record indicated that the b a b y s i t t e r , friends of the maternal aunt, t h e m a t e r n a l aunt's b r o t h e r , and t h e aunt and u n c l e o f the maternal aunt helped the maternal aunt care c h i l d r e n d u r i n g t h e day w h i l e t h e m a t e r n a l aunt f o r the slept. The m a t e r n a l a u n t a d m i t t e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r o f h e r c h i l d , T.N., was imprisoned on d r u g charges a t the time of the h e a r i n g . She s t a t e d t h a t she was aware o f a p r i o r d r u g a g a i n s t T.N., a n d t h a t T.N. h a d f r e q u e n t l y come t o h e r home b e f o r e he was i m p r i s o n e d so t h a t he c o u l d v i s i t Before h i s incarceration, mother's oldest child T.N. to school 9 took their before charge their child child. and t h e the maternal aunt 2091203 returned from w o r k . The m a t e r n a l a u n t a l s o a d m i t t e d t h a t h e r brother had arrested been f o r possession a p p r o x i m a t e l y one y e a r b e f o r e the hearing, of marijuana b u t she t e s t i f i e d t h a t she h a d w a r n e d h i m t h a t i f he e v e r b r o u g h t d r u g s i n t o h e r home s h e w o u l d n o t a l l o w that she was t r y i n g him t o l i v e w i t h to help her brother h e r . She stated b e c a u s e he d i d n o t have anyone e l s e t o h e l p h i m . On cross-examination, her p e t i t i o n the maternal aunt testified that f o r c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d was b a s e d on h e r d e s i r e t o keep t h e mother's three c h i l d r e n i n t h e same household. She s t a t e d t h a t she d i d n o t b e l i e v e t h a t t h e f a t h e r was u n f i t , but she a l s o stated that the c h i l d d i d n o t know t h e f a t h e r because the f a t h e r had n o t spent time w i t h the c h i l d . m a t e r n a l aunt t e s t i f i e d t h a t the f a t h e r had not p r o v i d e d financial support relationship support f o r the c h i l d ended and t h a t f o r the c h i l d custody of the c h i l d The Florida record a t some after t o t h e mother after any their the f a t h e r had n o t p r o v i d e d she was The awarded pendente any lite i n December 2 0 0 7 . i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r had been l i v i n g i n time and t h a t 10 he h a d moved t o G u l f Shores 2091203 a p p r o x i m a t e l y 18 months b e f o r e f a t h e r , he had the h e a r i n g . moved b a c k i n t o h i s m o t h e r ' s home i n C o u n t y a p p r o x i m a t e l y two weeks b e f o r e t h a t h i s m o t h e r and for he able to the h e a r i n g . s t e p f a t h e r were w i l l i n g t h e c h i l d i f he was was According 4 care the Fayette He stated him care awarded c u s t o d y of the c h i l d but that for the child grandmother t e s t i f i e d t h a t the to help to himself. father stayed The paternal a t h e r home o n l y on weekends and t h a t d u r i n g t h e week he s t a y e d w i t h a c o w o r k e r i n a n o t h e r town so t h a t he c o u l d r i d e w i t h him t o work. When q u e s t i o n e d f u r t h e r about h i s l i v i n g a r r a n g e m e n t s , the father s t a t e d t h a t , i f he were a w a r d e d c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d , he live "full-time" The father w i t h h i s m o t h e r and testified that he i n d i c a t e d t h a t he his for transportation. driver's license was r e l i e d on h i s m o t h e r a m a s o n , and he s t a t e d t h a t he had b e e n e m p l o y e d " o f f and o n " by same company f o r 18 months. At The the father worked and as the coworkers stepfather. his s u s p e n d e d , and would time of the hearing, When he was a s k e d how l o n g he had b e e n b a c k i n A l a b a m a , t h e f a t h e r r e s p o n d e d , " n o t e v e n a y e a r - a n d - a - h a l f , " and he l a t e r a g r e e d w i t h c o u n s e l ' s s t a t e m e n t t h a t he had b e e n b a c k i n A l a b a m a f o r 18 months. The f a t h e r was a p p a r e n t l y r e f e r r i n g t o h i s move f r o m F l o r i d a t o G u l f S h o r e s , n o t a move f r o m F l o r i d a to the area near Walker County. 4 11 2091203 he e a r n e d $10 an h o u r , but he s t a t e d the he could e a r n more income once he r e t r i e v e d h i s t r a d e t o o l s f r o m G u l f S h o r e s . father his s t a t e d t h a t he could e m p l o y e r , a l t h o u g h he of the The final obtain d i d not health insurance have i n s u r a n c e through a t the time hearing. f a t h e r has another child living in Florida s i x y e a r s o l d a t t h e t i m e o f t h e f i n a l h e a r i n g . The n o t pay The who was father did c h i l d s u p p o r t f o r t h a t c h i l d " t h r o u g h the c o u r t s , " he s t a t e d t h a t he s e n t t h e c h i l d money when i t was f a t h e r s t a t e d t h a t he had not seen h i s o t h e r needed. child d i f f i c u l t t o v i s i t h e r b e c a u s e she in central Florida. The domestic-violence-related had two by the m o t h e r , a l t h o u g h t h o s e c h a r g e s were d r o p p e d , and one by the mother father child who lived against lived one his filed had few him: of charges The in a y e a r s and t h a t i t was f a t h e r a d m i t t e d t h a t he but in Florida. t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had p l e a d e d g u i l t y t o t h e r e l a t e d charge i n F l o r i d a , strike battery," pleaded nolo admitted that shaken the w h i c h he although he later contendre to that he victim was and guilty of the pushed her 12 domestic-violence- described as testified charge. The a "touch that However, the offense i n order and to that get he or had father he away had from 2091203 her. When a s k e d i f he h a d e v e r u s e d a n y i l l e g a l drugs, the f a t h e r r e s p o n d e d t h a t he h a d u s e d m a r i j u a n a " e a r l i e r i n [ h i s ] childhood ... o r my t e e n a g e y e a r s . " was n o t s u r e o f t h e l a s t The f a t h e r s t a t e d t h a t he t i m e he h a d u s e d m a r i j u a n a , b u t he a d m i t t e d t h a t he c o u l d n o t p a s s a d r u g s c r e e n the hearing before the because he h a d u s e d the hearing. According marijuana around cocaine" that she knew t h a t the paternal The and t h a t She further than t h e c h i l d was " n o t i n d a n g e r cocaine." grandmother responded t h a t When a s k e d i f testified: regularly," she " t r [ i e d ] n o t t o " I know he smokes I d o n ' t know i f i t i s j u s t s o c i a l l y o r w h a t . " father's attorney objected to a question presented to father by t h e m a t e r n a l number o f t a t t o o s court f o r the was " b e t t e r the father used marijuana " p r e t t y that." [marijuana]. the grandmother, necessary t o care marijuana w i t h m a r i j u a n a as s h e w o u l d be w i t h know days She a d m i t t e d t h a t s h e was aware o f t h e f a t h e r ' s u s e o f m a r i j u a n a , b u t she o p i n e d being i n t h e 30 to the paternal father possessed a l l the s k i l l s child. a t the time o f overruled the father aunt's attorney regarding the h a d on h i s b o d y . The j u v e n i l e t h e o b j e c t i o n , a n d t h e f a t h e r s t a t e d t h a t he 13 2091203 had approximately 70 t a t t o o s . questioned the father regarding The m a t e r n a l aunt's t h e meaning o f s e v e r a l o f h i s t a t t o o s , i n c l u d i n g one on t h e f a t h e r ' s h e a d t h a t i d e n t i f i e d as t h e s y m b o l f o r a n a r c h y . he had had a problem w i t h any of the f a t h e r The f a t h e r s t a t e d that a u t h o r i t y when he was y o u n g e r b u t t h a t he no l o n g e r h a d t h a t p r o b l e m . he counsel The f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d that once w o r k e d a t a t a t t o o p a r l o r a n d t h a t he d i d n o t p a y f o r o f h i s t a t t o o s b u t t h a t h i s t a t t o o s were w o r t h "a c o u p l e grand." The c h i l d ' s g u a r d i a n a d l i t e m s t a t e d on t h e r e c o r d that she had r e s e r v a t i o n s about the m a t e r n a l aunt and the f a t h e r . The g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m q u e s t i o n e d t h e f a t h e r ' s s t a b i l i t y , b u t she d i d n o t b e l i e v e t h a t t h e m a t e r n a l a u n t was a b l e t o prove t h a t t h e f a t h e r was u n f i t t o have c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d . Based on judgment t h a t this evidence, the j u v e n i l e set forth specific court entered f i n d i n g s of f a c t . Some o f t h o s e f i n d i n g s were as f o l l o w s : "5. T h a t t h e r e e x i s t s a h i s t o r y o f c o n f l i c t between t h e f a m i l i e s 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 "6. I n c a s e number JU-05-276.01 . the father's c o u s i n , obtained custody of the minor c h i l d . "7. That during the pendency 14 o f case a number 2091203 J U - 0 5 - 2 7 6 . 0 1 , t h e ... [ f ] a t h e r ' s f a m i l y r e f u s e d t o a l l o w t h e ... [ m ] o t h e r , ... o r h e r f a m i l y v i s i t a t i o n w i t h the minor c h i l d . "8. A t t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f t h e l i t i g a t i o n i n s a i d c a s e , the [ j u v e n i l e c ] o u r t s t a t e d t h a t [ t h e f a t h e r ' s c o u s i n ] f a i l e d t o meet t h e b u r d e n o f p r o o f n e c e s s a r y to r e t a i n custody. During that trial i t was d i s c o v e r e d t h a t t h e ... c h i l d was a c t u a l l y l i v i n g w i t h the p a t e r n a l grandmother. T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n was c o n c e a l e d f r o m t h e [ j u v e n i l e c ] o u r t and was only r e v e a l e d t h r o u g h c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n by [ t h e m o t h e r ] ' s attorney. "9. T h a t upon ruled i n favor [f]ather's family the r e t u r n of the l e a r n i n g t h a t the [ j u v e n i l e c ] o u r t of the ... [ m ] o t h e r , the ... f i l e d s e v e r a l motions to prevent ... c h i l d t o t h e ... [ m ] o t h e r . "10. T h a t d u r i n g t h e t e s t i m o n y o f t h e [ f a t h e r ] i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , i t was discovered that the [ f a t h e r ] was d i s h o n e s t and n o t f o r t h c o m i n g w i t h t h e truth. "11. That the [ f a t h e r ] m i s l e d the [ j u v e n i l e c ] o u r t i n r e g a r d s t o h i s d o m i c i l e . The [father] testified t h a t he l i v e d with his mother[, the p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r , ] and t h a t she c o u l d a s s i s t him i n the r e a r i n g of [ t h e c h i l d ] . "12. T h a t when q u e s t i o n e d on cross-examination, t h e [ f a t h e r ] a d m i t t e d t h a t he a c t u a l l y l i v e d i n J a s p e r w i t h a f r i e n d and o n l y went t o h i s m o t h e r ' s r e s i d e n c e on t h e weekends. "13. That the [father] further misled [ j u v e n i l e c]ourt i n h i s testimony regarding employment. The [father] testified t h a t he g a i n f u l l y employed w i t h a long h i s t o r y w i t h employer. "14. The [ f a t h e r ] t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had 15 the his was this returned 2091203 t o A l a b a m a f r o m t h e S t a t e o f F l o r i d a 'some t i m e and h a d b e e n w o r k i n g d u r i n g t h a t t i m e . ago' "15. T h a t when q u e s t i o n e d f u r t h e r on c r o s s e x a m i n a t i o n , t h e [ f a t h e r ] a d m i t t e d t h a t he h a d o n l y b e e n b a c k i n A l a b a m a f o r a p e r i o d o f two weeks and that he had only r e c e n t l y began w o r k i n g . The [ f a t h e r ] a l s o admitted t h a t h i s t o o l s of h i s trade remained i n F l o r i d a . "16. T h e r e f o r e , t h e [ f a t h e r ] has residence and an u n r e l i a b l e work q u e s t i o n a b l e p r e s e n t employment. no p e r m a n e n t history and " "19. T h a t when q u e s t i o n e d t h e [ f a t h e r ] t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d u s e d m a r i [ j ] u a n a i n t h e p a s t , b u t n o t f o r some t i m e . T h i s s t a t e m e n t w a s , as was a l a r g e p o r t i o n of h i s t e s t i m o n y , u n t r u e . Upon f u r t h e r q u e s t i o n i n g and t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f a d r u g t e s t , t h e [ f a t h e r ] t e s t i f i e d t h a t he c o u l d n o t p a s s a d r u g test and that he would test positive for mari[j]uana. "20. T h a t upon f u r t h e r q u e s t i o n i n g concerning i l l e g a l d r u g u s e , t h e [ f a t h e r ] t e s t i f i e d t h a t he smoked m a r i [ j ] u a n a d a i l y . "21. The [ f a t h e r ] has f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h e v e n t h e most b a s i c r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h [ t h e c h i l d ] . The [ f a t h e r ] t e s t i f i e d t h a t he has f a i l e d t o p r o v i d e any monetary support f o r h i s daughter d u r i n g her l i f e . "22. The [ f a t h e r ] has f a i l e d t o m a i n t a i n any t y p e o f r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h [ t h e c h i l d ] . T h e r e has b e e n no c o n t a c t b e t w e e n h i m and t h e ... c h i l d . The [ f a t h e r ] t e s t i f i e d t h a t he has l i v e d i n t h e S t a t e o f F l o r i d a f o r a p e r i o d o f y e a r s w i t h a n o t h e r woman and h e r c h i l d r e n . The [ f a t h e r ] was c o n v i c t e d o f a 'Touch o r S t r i k e ' o f f e n s e i n F l o r i d a and was r e q u i r e d t o c o m p l e t e a n g e r management c l a s s e s as a r e s u l t o f 16 2091203 s a i d c o n v i c t i o n . The [ f a t h e r ] was c h a r g e d w i t h a s i m i l a r c h a r g e i n A l a b a m a w h e r e b y he was c h a r g e d w i t h D o m e s t i c V i o l e n c e . The v i c t i m was ... t h e ... m o t h e r b u t she d r o p p e d t h e c h a r g e s . II "25. The [father] i s not i n t e r e s t e d i n the c u s t o d y o f t h i s c h i l d . The [ f a t h e r ] w i s h e s t o a v o i d any obligation of c h i l d s u p p o r t and is only participating i n this case f o r the paternal grandmother. The [father]'s extended family i s p l a y i n g a l a r g e r o l e i n the p u r s u i t of custody." B a s e d on i t s f i n d i n g s that the forfeited father was of f a c t , the j u v e n i l e court "unfit h i s p l a c e as and the f i t custody" of the c h i l d based that and he had proper held voluntarily person to have on "[(1)]his lack o f e s t a b l i s h i n g any h i n t of a r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e ... c h i l d [ ; ( 2 ) ] h i s r e f u s a l t o f i n a n c i a l l y s u p p o r t [ t h e ] ... c h i l d [ ; ( 3 ) ] ... h i s m i s c o n d u c t s t e m m i n g f r o m h i s b e i n g c h a r g e d and convicted of domestic v i o l e n c e [ ; ( 4 ) h i s ] p r o l i f i c i l l e g a l d r u g u s e [ ; ] a n d [ ( 5 ) ] h i s p l a c i n g h i s own i n t e r e s t s a n d d e s i r e s above t h a t o f [ t h e c h i l d ] . " On a p p e a l , the f a t h e r argues that some o f t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s o f f a c t were u n s u p p o r t e d by e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d a n d t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e r r e d by r e l y i n g on those e r r o n e o u s f i n d i n g s t o s u p p o r t i t s judgment f i n d i n g him 17 2091203 unfit. 5 In reviewing custody of a c h i l d must c o n s i d e r t h e p r o p r i e t y o f a judgment t h a t awards to a nonparent over a n a t u r a l p a r e n t , we that "Alabama l a w r e q u i r e s t h a t a n o n p a r e n t may overcome a n a t u r a l parent's prima f a c i e r i g h t to custody of his or her c h i l d only by a d d u c i n g clear and convincing e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e p a r e n t has e i t h e r v o l u n t a r i l y f o r f e i t e d t h e r i g h t t o c u s t o d y o r has n e g l e c t e d the c h i l d t o a degree t h a t renders the p a r e n t u n f i t t o be e n t r u s t e d w i t h t h e c h i l d ' s c a r e . " J.W. v. D.W., 835 ( c i t i n g Ex p a r t e Our s t a n d a r d So. Terry, 2d 206, 210 ( A l a . C i v . App. 494 So. 2d 628, 632 of review i s well 2002) ( A l a . 1986)). settled: "'"[W]hen a trial court hears ore t e n u s t e s t i m o n y , i t s f i n d i n g s on d i s p u t e d f a c t s a r e presumed c o r r e c t and i t s judgment based on those findings w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d u n l e s s the judgment i s p a l p a b l y e r r o n e o u s o r m a n i f e s t l y u n j u s t . " P h i l p o t v. S t a t e , 843 So. 2d 122, 125 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) . "'The p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s , h o w e v e r , i s r e b u t t a b l e a n d may be overcome where there i s i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence presented to the t r i a l c o u r t t o s u s t a i n i t s judgment.'" Waltman v. R o w e l l , 913 So. 2d 1083, 1086 (Ala. 2005) ( q u o t i n g D e n n i s v. Dobbs, 474 So. 2d 77, 79 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) ) . The f a t h e r a r g u e s t h a t p a r t s o f t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s o f f a c t i n p a r a g r a p h s 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, a n d 22 a r e u n s u p p o r t e d b y e v i d e n c e i n the record. The f a t h e r has n o t c h a l l e n g e d t h e j u v e n i l e court's f i n d i n g t h a t the evidence demonstrated t h a t the f a t h e r p l a c e d h i s own i n t e r e s t s a n d d e s i r e s above t h e c h i l d ' s . 5 18 2091203 " F a d a l l a v. F a d a l l a , 929 So. 2d 429, 433 (Ala. 2 0 0 5 ) . 'Under t h e o r e t e n u s s t a n d a r d , t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t may n o t be d i s t u r b e d u n l e s s i t s f i n d i n g s are " ' c l e a r l y erroneous, without supporting evidence, m a n i f e s t l y u n j u s t , or a g a i n s t the g r e a t weight of the evidence.'"' F o w l e r v. J o h n s o n , 961 So. 2d 122, 129 ( A l a . 2006) ( q u o t i n g P o l l a r d v. Unus P r o p s . , LLC, 902 So. 2d 18, 23 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n A m e r i c a n P e t r o l e u m E q u i p . & C o n s t r . , I n c . v. F a n c h e r , 708 So. 2d 129, 132 ( A l a . 1 9 9 7 ) ) . " Water Works P a r k s , 977 is the & So. 2d 440, province credibility a witness any Sanitary Sewer Bd. of the willfully trial and 2080457, A p r i l App. estimate the court concludes that testimony." the 2010] So. v. to disregard Summers v. specific 3d , Summers, 2010). Considering 30, Montgomery Furthermore, " [ i ] t courts i f a trial of u n t r u t h f u l , t h a t c o u r t may or a l l of t h a t w i t n e s s ' s [Ms. City 443-44 ( A l a . 2 0 0 7 ) . of witnesses, was of findings (Ala. Civ. of fact in the judgment, i t appears t h a t the j u v e n i l e c o u r t b e l i e v e d t h a t the f a t h e r was his willfully u n t r u t h f u l about at l e a s t usage of m a r i j u a n a . justified in disregarding testimony. whether Accordingly, the With that juvenile any part the or one issue j u v e n i l e court a l l of the premise i n mind, we will court's findings of fact, -¬ was father's determine and its j u d g m e n t d e c l a r i n g t h e f a t h e r t o be u n f i t , a r e so u n s u p p o r t e d 19 2091203 by the evidence t h a t r e v e r s a l of the F i r s t , we the will judgment i s address the j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s f a t h e r f a i l e d t o " e s t a b l i s h [ ] any w i t h the c h i l d . indicating The t h a t he saw the child she his refused custody of cared cousin, of evidence the child indicated in August that and after his cousin gained We had t e s t i f i e d that he agree that established a there was awarded was father r e s t r a i n i n g order was had c l e a r and not working entered convincing maintained e s t a b l i s h e d w i t h the c h i l d . 2007, the father had a i n December 2004, custody was disputed. t h e c h i l d e v e r y day, out of town d u r i n g t i m e , and t h e m a t e r n a l a u n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r ' s had the the f a t h e r ' s r o l e i n c a r i n g f o r the A l t h o u g h t h e f a t h e r s t a t e d t h a t he saw also while mother 2006. that 20 the r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the c h i l d a f t e r her b i r t h child first f o r the c h i l d father the but the e v i d e n c e r e g a r d i n g f o r the t h e c h i l d a f t e r she t o a l l o w t h e f a t h e r t o see custody h i n t of a r e l a t i o n s h i p " e v e r y day t h a t he i n the finding that f a t h e r a r g u e s t h a t he p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e months o f t h e c h i l d ' s l i f e , was required. not against evidence whatever him. 20 or that cousin Regardless, i n d i c a t i n g that relationship B e t w e e n A u g u s t 2006 and seen otherwise he he the had December contacted the 2091203 child. the The e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r had n o t father f a t h e r had him to visit the child n o t t a k e n any to maintain a f t e r August 2006, but i t had a r e l a t i o n s h i p with stated that relationship with p a r a g r a p h 22 court's with of the finding relationship the the the f a t h e r had child (as t h e j u d g m e n t ) , we that with the child. Although the child failed to to ore tenus hearing. t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t he r e f u s e d t o child. The indicating t h a t he cousin custody of the had believed the the child. not any support financially to evidence c h i l d ' s needs w h i l e Even i f the testimony f a t h e r had points in this provided c h i l d t o t h e m o t h e r a f t e r A u g u s t 2006 and provided she the again tended to a l l the father's undisputed that father a conformance Next, the f a t h e r argues t h a t the e v i d e n c e d i d not the juvenile establish is substantially in a stated in conclude t h a t the failed the accurate "maintain" j u v e n i l e court father the e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a t the support the l e g a l a c t i o n t h a t w o u l d have e n a b l e d j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g o f f a c t w o u l d have b e e n more if allowed juvenile regard, his court i t was support for t h a t he had not any support f o r the c h i l d to the m a t e r n a l aunt a f t e r g a i n e d pendente l i t e c u s t o d y of the 21 child. T h e r e was no 2091203 indication t h a t t h e f a t h e r was the c h i l d . Accordingly, f i n a n c i a l l y unable to support we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e r e was clear c o n v i n c i n g evidence to support the j u v e n i l e court's t h a t the f a t h e r had The father evidence to argues support a that to attend strike" because insufficient was charged and We a g r e e w i t h t h e f a t h e r that that he no e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s i n paragraph or there he finding 22 o f t h e j u d g m e n t t h a t t h e f a t h e r was anger-management c l a s s e s conviction pleaded required as a r e s u l t o f h i s " t o u c h in Florida. nolo child. was finding c o n v i c t e d of domestic v i o l e n c e . t h e r e was conclusion f a i l e d to f i n a n c i a l l y support the next and The contendre to father the argues touch or that strike c h a r g e i n F l o r i d a , we c a n n o t c o n s i d e r t h a t c o n v i c t i o n to prove the offense fact that he committed the c o n v i c t i o n , c i t i n g M c N a i r v. S t a t e , C r i m . App. 1992). underlying 653 So. 2d 320, A l t h o u g h t h a t p r e m i s e may 327 ( A l a . be t r u e , i t does n o t r e q u i r e us t o c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t determined erroneously t h a t t h e f a t h e r h a d b e e n c h a r g e d and c o n v i c t e d domestic v i o l e n c e . First, i t was u n d i s p u t e d t h a t the child. The 22 father initially of father had been c h a r g e d w i t h a t o u c h o r s t r i k e b a t t e r y i n v o l v i n g mother of h i s o l d e r the the testified 2091203 t h a t he had pleaded g u i l t y F l o r i d a and t h a t he was f i l e d a g a i n s t him by had pushed the to the t o u c h or g u i l t y of the strike touch or s t r i k e the mother of h i s o t h e r victim. Therefore, testimony, the j u v e n i l e court f a t h e r had b e e n c h a r g e d and could charge i n charge c h i l d because based on the father's have c o n c l u d e d t h a t convicted of a he the domestic-violence offense. Finally, s u p p o r t the drug the argues j u v e n i l e court's user. presented father The to father support finding argues the that that juvenile the evidence t h a t he there was was court's a no did not prolific evidence conclusion in p a r a g r a p h 20 o f t h e j u d g m e n t t h a t t h e f a t h e r smoked m a r i j u a n a daily. i n order A l t h o u g h the i s s u e o f c u s t o d y , was credibility of the juvenile court, to decide the " ' i n the b e t t e r p o s i t i o n to e v a l u a t e the witnesses ... and ... to consider t h e e v i d e n c e , as w e l l as t h e many i n f e r e n c e s f r o m t h a t e v i d e n c e , ' " Ex p a r t e (Ala. 1997) t h a t may P a t r o n a s , 693 ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e P e r k i n s , 646 So. So. We be drawn 2d 473, 2d 46, 1 9 9 4 ) ) , i n f e r e n c e s drawn f r o m t h e e v i d e n c e must be a l l of 47 475 (Ala. reasonable. a g r e e w i t h t h e f a t h e r t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d does support a f i n d i n g that the f a t h e r smoked m a r i j u a n a d a i l y 23 not or 2091203 t h a t he was a " p r o l i f i c " and c o n v i n c i n g marijuana court paternal However, t h e r e was c l e a r 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 f a t h e r h a d smoked within could drug user. 30 days have of the hearing, drawn grandmother's a reasonable testimony and the j u v e n i l e inference that the from the father used marijuana. The that specific findings the j u v e n i l e willfully court of fact believed untruthful regarding i n t h e judgment that the father h i s domicile, a b o u t where he l i v e d truthfully. t h a t he l i v e d w i t h the paternal but revealed i t was l a t e r presented to The f a t h e r considered that "home," we a g r e e testify that the paternal that he l i v e d the father "lived" time o f the h e a r i n g a t the Even i f t h e g r a n d m o t h e r ' s home t o be h i s i t was m i s l e a d i n g with testified grandmother and h e r husband, p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r ' s home o n l y on t h e weekends. father h a d been but the father a r g u e s on a p p e a l t h a t he a n s w e r e d t h e q u e s t i o n s him indicate the paternal when, i n a c t u a l i t y , f o r the father to grandmother a t the he s p e n t o n l y two o f s e v e n days o f t h e week a t t h e p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r ' s home. T h e r e was a l s o some c o n f u s i o n had been l i v i n g a b o u t how l o n g the father and w o r k i n g i n t h e Walker County area. 24 When 2091203 the f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d b e e n b a c k i n A l a b a m a f o r 18 months, a n d t h a t he h a d b e e n w o r k i n g f o r t h e same employer " o f f a n d o n " f o r 18 months, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t u n d e r s t o o d t h e father to t e s t i f y Walker County hearing. t h a t he h a d b e e n l i v i n g area f o r approximately and w o r k i n g i n the 18 months before the However, i t l a t e r became c l e a r t h a t t h e f a t h e r moved t o G u l f S h o r e s when he moved b a c k t o A l a b a m a a n d t h a t he h a d b e e n l i v i n g a n d w o r k i n g i n t h e W a l k e r C o u n t y a r e a f o r o n l y two weeks b e f o r e the hearing. s u b j e c t was c o n f u s i n g , The father also found i n paragraphs taken the father's testimony on this the f i n d i n g s of fact i f not misleading. takes issue with s i x through nine discussed the p r i o r custody cousin. The o f t h e judgment, proceeding which f i l e d by t h e f a t h e r ' s Most o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h a t p r o c e e d i n g from the p a t e r n a l grandmother's testimony. extent that any p a r t was However, t o of the f i n d i n g s of f a c t i n those paragraphs i s u n s u p p o r t e d by the e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a t the ore tenus i t had bearing hearing, the e r r o r was on t h e f a t h e r ' s f i t n e s s harmless t o care because no f o r the c h i l d a t the time of the h e a r i n g . We have t h o r o u g h l y reviewed 25 t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l and the 2091203 specific f i n d i n g s of judgment, and whole, so is reversed. we f a c t made by cannot the f i n d i n g s of f a c t , our was clear court's with conclude unsupported Despite and the care hearing. The by and the evidence not judgment, that some to errors support the c h i l d a t the c h i l d i n a t l e a s t 16 months and absence from her a relationship life. in the the there entrusted time of father factor to Furthermore, support at the i n d i c a t e d t h a t the f o r the his 3d 472, 478 paternal child. time of the f a t h e r had and final of hearing, not p r o v i d e d years, her t h a t the i n order the financial evidence support father could properly care not on for the Indeed, the r e c o r d a l s o i n d i c a t e d t h a t the f a t h e r had 26 to as unfitness). t h a t t h e f a t h e r w o u l d have t o r e l y grandmother had during determination c h i l d i n a l m o s t two pass a drug screen, the a not child ( A l a . 2008) ( n o t i n g t h e m o t h e r ' s f a i l u r e t o v i s i t t h e c h i l d a the maternal f a t h e r had t h a t the be Ex p a r t e A.M.B., 4 So. See with the a juvenile u n f i t t o be child, as i t must r e c o r d i n d i c a t e d t h a t , a t the time the maintained in i t s record reveals that of the aunt p e t i t i o n e d f o r c u s t o d y of the seen the of f a t h e r was upbringing the evidence review of the t h a t the j u v e n i l e court that existence convincing conclusion the 2091203 never been s o l e l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the care o f t h e c h i l d . See Ex p a r t e G.C., 924 So. 2d 651, 660 ( A l a . 2005) ( i n determining whether a p a r e n t i s f i t f o r custody o f a c h i l d , a court must c o n s i d e r " w h e t h e r t h e p a r e n t i s f i t t o have t h e c a r e , custody, and for, control of, that child"); that, i s , the t o t a l b u t s e e Ex p a r t e " i n the abstract, particularly determinative family, responsibility A.M.B., 4 So. 3 d a t 478 a parent's f o r support of the parent's reliance on the (stating others, i s not, i n and o f i t s e l f , unfitness"). I n A.M.B. v . R.B.B., 4 So. 3d 468, 471 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007), t h i s c o u r t , a f f i r m i n g a judgment t h a t found a mother t o be u n f i t , stated: "Unfitness t h a t w a r r a n t s a c u s t o d y award t o a n o n p a r e n t i s n o t d e f i n e d s o l e l y as a c t i v e n e g l e c t o r abuse. Rather, a determination of unfitness i s g e n e r a l l y b a s e d upon t h e t o t a l i t y o f t h e e v i d e n c e and i s o f t e n e v i d e n c e d b y an u n w i l l i n g n e s s on t h e part of a parent t o put the c h i l d ' s best i n t e r e s t s a h e a d o f t h e p a r e n t ' s own d e s i r e s . " As n o t e d a b o v e , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t f o u n d t h a t t h e f a t h e r had placed h i s own i n t e r e s t s a n d d e s i r e s above t h e c h i l d ' s , and the father d i d not challenge that finding. Considering t h e t o t a l i t y o f t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d , we f i n d c l e a r a n d convincing evidence t o support the j u v e n i l e court's 27 judgment 2091203 f i n d i n g the child. f a t h e r u n f i t t o be e n t r u s t e d w i t h t h e Accordingly, Next, the consideration we a f f i r m t h a t a s p e c t of the father argues and the that the the meaning p o r t i o n of the of court's reversal i n f a v o r of the m a t e r n a l aunt. j u v e n i l e court's his tattoos i n t e r e s t i n the during judgment, w h e r e i n the the the judgment. juvenile of h i s p h y s i c a l appearance m e r i t s the c u s t o d y d e t e r m i n a t i o n father cites care of The number hearing juvenile court of of and a stated: " [ T ] h e [ j u v e n i l e c ] o u r t o n l y has t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o have a g l i m p s e i n t o one's p e r s o n d u r i n g a t r i a l and must make a j u d g m e n t r e g a r d i n g t h a t p e r s o n ' s f i t n e s s f o r c u s t o d y . The [juvenile c]ourt feels that you have t o l o o k a t t h e p e r s o n as a w h o l e i n m a k i n g t h i s determination. The [juvenile c]ourt takes into c o n s i d e r a t i o n a p a r t y ' s p h y s i c a l a p p e a r a n c e as one p i e c e of t h i s p u z z l e . " The judgment f u r t h e r s t a t e d that the appearance of f a t h e r s p o k e " v o l u m e s " t o t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t , and t h e described the p h y s i c a l appearance of the the judgment f a t h e r on t h e day of the h e a r i n g , i n c l u d i n g h i s c l o t h i n g , h i s t a t t o o s , and h i s body piercing. In court's reversal support consideration of the this of custody J e n n i n g s v. J e n n i n g s , 490 wherein of court his argument that his physical appearance determination, So. 2d 10, acknowledged 28 13 that the the juvenile merits father ( A l a . C i v . App. "private cites 1986), biases and 2091203 s o c i a l pressures of a c h i l d court are from the affirmed an impermissible consideration custody of a parent." award of custody of pursuant to a divorce proceeding. I d . c o u r t had b e e n aware t h a t t h e w i f e a d i f f e r e n t race, but, husband, the prejudices any trial nor During asked the to a this husband In t h a t case, the trial of i n awarding custody of the c h i l d to the court court's the a child had had stated social considerations trial In J e n n i n g s , begun d a t i n g a man such c o n s i d e r a t i o n (quoting f o r removal had any that racial have b e e n p r o v e d n o r bearing on t h i s decree.'" maternal aunt's has Id. judgment). hearing, when the f a t h e r about h i s t a t t o o s , the s t a t e d , i n response the "'[n]either counsel juvenile-court father's counsel's judge objection: " W e l l , you know, t h e C o u r t o n l y g e t s a l i m i t e d s n a p s h o t o f p e o p l e i n t h e i r l i v e s . I've n o t i c e d a l s o t h a t [ t h e f a t h e r ] has numerous t a t t o o s , and i f [ t h e m a t e r n a l a u n t ' s c o u n s e l ] h a d n ' t a s k e d him how many he had, I was g o i n g t o . And I was a l s o g o i n g t o a s k him what some o f them meant b e c a u s e , q u i t e f r a n k l y , what we a d v e r t i s e on o u r b o d i e s a r e s o m e t h i n g t h a t we g e n e r a l l y c a r e v e r y s t r o n g l y a b o u t . So, I t h i n k i t ' s k i n d o f an eye i n t o t h e i r p e r s o n a l i t i e s so I ' d l i k e t o f i n d o u t a l i t t l e b i t a b o u t him." We agree that, generally appearance, including the wearing the and existence speaking, type of of tattoos 29 a party's clothing and the physical party is body p i e r c i n g , i s 2091203 irrelevant to the determination of custody of a child. However, we c a n n o t d i s a g r e e t h a t messages d i s p l a y e d by a p a r t y on h i s o r h e r p e r s o n may character 398 So. party of a p a r t y 2d 686, seeking 696 r e v e a l p e r t i n e n t evidence about seeking custody. ( A l a . 1981) custody as See parte Devine, ( l i s t i n g the c h a r a c t e r of a pertinent what c u s t o d i a l a r r a n g e m e n t w o u l d s e r v e the Ex factor in the best the the determining i n t e r e s t s of child). A f t e r a c a r e f u l r e v i e w o f t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d on a p p e a l , do n o t b e l i e v e t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f f a t h e r ' s p h y s i c a l a p p e a r a n c e as "one determine mandates the father's fitness j u v e n i l e court's custody p i e c e of the p u z z l e " determination. a r e v e r s a l of we the to the I t i s c l e a r from the r e c o r d t h a t the j u v e n i l e c o u r t d i d not base i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n of the and, father's as fitness discussed convincing solely above, evidence of the the on his physical record father's appearance, contains clear unfitness without c o n s i d e r a t i o n of h i s p h y s i c a l appearance. Thus, t o t h e that father's i t was appearance, the error to e r r o r was evidence to support the consider harmless the because juvenile court's 30 there and extent physical was other conclusion that the 2091203 f a t h e r was u n f i t t o have c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d a t t h e t i m e o f the h e a r i n g . The father has n o t argued on a p p e a l t h a t t h e award o f c u s t o d y t o t h e m a t e r n a l a u n t does n o t s e r v e t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of the c h i l d . Civ. See T.T.T. v. R.H., App. 2008) 999 So. 2d 544, 557 (noting t h a t , a f t e r a nonparent (Ala. h a s overcome a n a t u r a l parent's prima f a c i e r i g h t t o custody of h i s o r her child, based the j u v e n i l e c o u r t must make a c u s t o d y on 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 ) . j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s judgment awarding of the c h i l d Finally, exceeded determination Accordingly, the the m a t e r n a l aunt custody i s due t o be a f f i r m e d . the father i t s discretion argues that by f a i l i n g the juvenile t o award him court "liberal" v i s i t a t i o n with the c h i l d . "'The d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f p r o p e r v i s i t a t i o n ... i s w i t h i n t h e sound d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t , and t h a t c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n s h o u l d n o t be r e v e r s e d a b s e n t a s h o w i n g o f an abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n . ' Ex p a r t e B l a n d , 796 So. 2d 340 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) . ' [ C ] a s e s i n A l a b a m a have c o n s i s t e n t l y h e l d t h a t t h e p r i m a r y consideration i n s e t t i n g v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s i s the best interests and welfare of the child. Furthermore, e a c h c h i l d v i s i t a t i o n c a s e must be d e c i d e d on i t s own f a c t s a n d c i r c u m s t a n c e s . ' F a n n i n g v. F a n n i n g , 504 So. 2d 737, 739 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1987) (citations omitted). 'When t h e i s s u e o f v i s i t a t i o n i s determined a f t e r o r a l proceedings, the t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e i s s u e w i l l n o t be 31 2091203 d i s t u r b e d a b s e n t an abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n o r a s h o w i n g t h a t i t i s p l a i n l y i n e r r o r . Andrews v. A n d r e w s , 520 So. 2d 512 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 7 ) . ' D o m i n i c k v . Dominick, 622 So. 2d 402, 403 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1993)." K.L.U. v. M.C., 809 So. 2d 837, 840-41 The award father him l i b e r a l terminated This argues that court, Resources, the j u v e n i l e court's visitation h i s parental ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 1 ) . with rights the c h i l d effectively to the c h i l d . i n K.C. v . J e f f e r s o n County failure to We disagree. Department [Ms. 2090454, J u l y 23, 2010] So. 3d o f Human , ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 0 ) , r e j e c t e d an a r g u m e n t made b y a n a t u r a l parent that custodian "a j u d g m e n t and p r o v i d i n g placing a child for v i s i t a t i o n with with a relative a natural parent i s e q u i v a l e n t t o a judgment t e r m i n a t i n g t h a t p a r e n t ' s p a r e n t a l rights." As we n o t e d i n K.C., t h e n a t u r a l p a r e n t , i n t h i s case t h e f a t h e r , r e t a i n s " r e s i d u a l r i g h t s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s in and t o the c h i l d , including the r i g h t to continued v i s i t a t i o n and t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f s u p p o r t at the So. 3d ( c i t i n g § 1 2 - 1 5 - 1 0 2 ( 2 3 ) , A l a . Code 1975, a p r o v i s i o n i n new A l a b a m a Juvenile J u s t i c e A c t , § 12-15-101 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975; b u t s e e f o r m e r A l a . Code 1975, § 1 2 - 1 5 - 1 ( 2 4 ) , w h i c h was s u b s t a n t i a l l y s i m i l a r t o § 1 2 - 1 5 - 1 0 2 ( 2 3 ) ) . 32 2091203 To s u p p o r t h i s argument t h a t the j u v e n i l e c o u r t exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n by a w a r d i n g him v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e c h i l d every other evidence weekend of month, that indicating each the maternal the father aunt only points to that the agreed c h i l d s h o u l d have a r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e f a t h e r . However, i t appears t h a t the j u v e n i l e c o u r t c o n s i d e r e d t h a t evidence, d e s p i t e the f a c t t h a t the and, f a t h e r d i d n o t have a r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the c h i l d a t the time of the h e a r i n g , the j u v e n i l e c o u r t allowed child the weekend. able to pursuant father T h e r e i s no develop visitation presented court meaningful visitation award. i n the by t h e f a t h e r , we with its the child we j u v e n i l e c o u r t i s due other not the the be child father i s c o u r t f o r a m o d i f i c a t i o n of B a s e d on the argument cannot conclude t h a t the j u v e n i l e only times by every awarding other the father weekend o f each to which the p a r t i e s agree. conclude t o be every father w i l l Moreover, future. discretion at a l l other Accordingly, the relationship with the a p p r o p r i a t e rights exceeded month and a with i n d i c a t i o n t h a t the to h i s v i s i t a t i o n free to p e t i t i o n his visitation that affirmed. AFFIRMED. 33 the judgment of the 2091203 P i t t m a n a n d Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . Thompson, P . J . , a n d Moore, without writings. 34 J . , concur i n the result,

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.