Mark Ruben Fermin v. Lorelei Hundley Lewis

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 08/05/2010 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2011 2100338 Mark Ruben Fermin v. L o r e l e i Hundley Lewis Appeal from Lee C i r c u i t Court (DR-05-247.02) MOORE, J u d g e . Mark Ruben F e r m i n of t h e Lee C i r c u i t ("the f a t h e r " ) a p p e a l s f r o m a j u d g m e n t Court ("the t r i a l court") denying h i s m o t i o n t o m o d i f y p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y o f h i s two c h i l d r e n f r o m h i s marriage t o L o r e l e i Hundley Lewis ("the mother"). 2100338 Procedural History The p r o c e d u r a l f a c t s p e r t i n e n t t o t h i s a p p e a l show t h a t the mother o b t a i n e d p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y o f t h e p a r t i e s ' c h i l d r e n when t h e p a r t i e s d i v o r c e d i n J a n u a r y 2005. the t r i a l In February 2009, c o u r t e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t a d o p t i n g an a g r e e m e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s , p u r s u a n t t o w h i c h t h e m o t h e r was a l l o w e d t o move with the c h i l d r e n t o West P o i n t , New Y o r k . In February or M a r c h 2009, t h e f a t h e r moved t o P i t t s b u r g h , P e n n s y l v a n i a . On May 6, 2009, t h e f a t h e r f i l e d a p e t i t i o n t o m o d i f y c u s t o d y o f the children, a daughter a n d a s o n who, a t t h e t i m e of the f i n a l h e a r i n g i n t h i s m a t t e r , were n i n e a n d s e v e n y e a r s o l d , respectively. trial court father's 2010. denying conducted modification responded ore tenus petition the father's trial motion petition. on June hearings on F e b r u a r y On A u g u s t 4, 2010, t h e t r i a l postjudgment The The m o t h e r 1 10, 2009. regarding the 18 a n d M a r c h The f a t h e r the request 9, c o u r t e n t e r e d a judgment timely a n d r e q u e s t e d a h e a r i n g on t h a t court denied The filed a motion. f o r a h e a r i n g , and t h e The t r i a l c o u r t d i d m o d i f y t h e p r e v i o u s c u s t o d y judgment i n many r e s p e c t s t h a t w i l l be d i s c u s s e d l a t e r , b u t t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t t r a n s f e r p h y s i c a l custody o f t h e c h i l d r e n from the mother t o t h e f a t h e r . 1 2 2100338 father's postjudgment motion was subsequently denied o p e r a t i o n o f l a w on December 1, 2 0 1 0 . See R u l e 59.1, Civ. P. The f a t h e r appealed to this court by A l a . R. on J a n u a r y 1 1 , 2011. The The parties' 2005 d i v o r c e j o i n t l e g a l custody physical custody visitation. Evidence judgment awarded t h e p a r t i e s o f t h e c h i l d r e n , w i t h t h e mother r e c e i v i n g and t h e f a t h e r r e c e i v i n g c e r t a i n s p e c i f i e d Following the divorce, t h e mother and t h e c h i l d r e n r e s i d e d i n L e e C o u n t y , i n t h e home o f t h e c h i l d r e n ' s maternal grandparents. divorce, The f a t h e r r e m a r r i e d not long and t h e mother r e m a r r i e d after the parties' The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t , around the time o f her remarriage, the mother s u c c e s s f u l l y p e t i t i o n e d t h e t r i a l the father's court custody the visitation. also divested court months c o u r t t o suspend later, the father of h i s right of the c h i l d r e n . trial Several entered 2 i n May 2008. the to joint trial legal As s t a t e d a b o v e , i n F e b r u a r y 2009, a j u d g m e n t b a s e d on an a g r e e m e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s t h a t a l l o w e d t h e m o t h e r t o move w i t h t h e c h i l d r e n T h a t o r d e r 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 ; however, i t i s r e f e r e n c e d i n t h e f a t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n that i n i t i a t e d the present a c t i o n . 2 3 2100338 into t h e home o f h e r new h u s b a n d on a m i l i t a r y b a s e i n West Point. with The j u d g m e n t a w a r d e d t h e f a t h e r s u p e r v i s e d the c h i l d r e n unless positive psychological visitation would would continue The record become and u n t i l the father evaluation, at unsupervised, t o be s u b j e c t submitted which although t o random d r u g indicates that, visitation time a his the father testing. a t the time of the February 2009 j u d g m e n t , t h e m o t h e r h a d n o t d i s c l o s e d t o t h e f a t h e r o r t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t t h a t s h e a n d h e r new h u s b a n d h a d e n g a g e d i n s e v e r a l episodes of domestic v i o l e n c e , which, according m o t h e r , were f u e l e d i n p a r t b y h e r h u s b a n d ' s e x c e s s i v e consumption. The m o t h e r also had not d i s c l o s e d to the alcohol that, i n November 2008, s h e h a d h a d a " m e n t a l b r e a k d o w n " b e c a u s e o f t h e s t r e s s r e l a t i n g t o the ongoing c h i l d - c u s t o d y The m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t d u r i n g litigation the father. that she h a d become i n t o x i c a t e d , h a d damaged an i n t e r i o r with breakdown wall i n h e r home w i t h t h e b u t t o f h e r h u s b a n d ' s p i s t o l , h a d v o m i t e d on her c l o t h e s , a n d h a d p a s s e d o u t n a k e d on t h e b a t h r o o m floor. The m o t h e r ' s h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a d s t a t e d t h a t she w a n t e d t o commit s u i c i d e a t t h a t 4 time. 2100338 By her own admission, alcohol a b u s e , and Point. In wrists with psychiatric counseling The 2009, the domestic hospital, prompting followed by i n West both a weeklong intensive of stay her in a mental-health the p r e s c r i p t i o n of a n t i - a n x i e t y m o t h e r a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t , on May violence, continued mother " s c r a t c h e d " steak k n i f e , and mother's m e n t a l - h e a l t h problems March a the medications. 11, 2009, f o l l o w i n g her r e c e i p t o f t h e f a t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n t o m o d i f y c u s t o d y , she became intoxicated and "out father in a again, and t h a t she through The an of telephone upstairs arrested by call with never window w i t h i n t h a t , because of t h a t the military The hours of police, mother further altercation required community s e r v i c e the with testified her that husband intervention on of the threatened seeing earshot h o s p i t a l i z e d f o r a mental e v a l u a t i o n , to eight she threw a g l a s s c o n t a i n e r mother t e s t i f i e d been c o n t r o l , " that and the children and other of the objects daughter. i n c i d e n t , she had had again been had June 4, been conduct. another 2009, had sentenced for disorderly she the domestic which military police. 3 again Karen The mother a l s o t e s t i f i e d t o o t h e r i n c i d e n c e s of d o m e s t i c v i o l e n c e b e t w e e n h e r s e l f and her husband p r e c e d i n g that altercation. 3 5 2100338 Kozykowski, senior of Department a Social D i v i s i o n i n New caseworker Services, o f C h i l d Abuse and Protective testimony, that solely County Services Central Maltreatment because of alcohol and inadequate guardianship he had because i t appears t h a t the f a t h e r was, relationship with a l t h o u g h he had the f i l e d f o r a change o f the mother children. was The and been d e n i e d . t o t a l l y unaware o f t h e m o t h e r ' s p r o b l e m s . testified 2009 Orange York State a p p e a l f r o m t h a t l i s t i n g had From h i s first, Child p l a c e d on t h e New misuse, l a c k of s u p e r v i s i o n , t h a t her the Y o r k ("CPS"), t e s t i f i e d t h a t , f o l l o w i n g those i n c i d e n t s , t h e m o t h e r was Registry for The father father custody interfering at in with testified May his that, f u l l y c o m p l i e d w i t h a l l the c o n d i t i o n s s e t out i n t h e F e b r u a r y 2009 j u d g m e n t , t h e m o t h e r o r i g i n a l l y w o u l d not agree to h i s e x e r c i s i n g u n s u p e r v i s e d v i s i t a t i o n . The r e l e n t e d , a l l o w i n g the father c h i l d r e n to v i s i t with the one week i n l a t e M a r c h 2009, b u t t h e m o t h e r l a t e r the f a t h e r had them d u r i n g mother mistreated that asserted the visitation, that the c h i l d r e n and which daughter the had had father claimed for that smoked a r o u n d denied. developed c o u g h , w h i c h t h e m o t h e r d e s c r i b e d as a n e r v o u s t i c k , 6 mother a The constant following 2100338 that v i s i t a t i o n . an allergic The f a t h e r , h o w e v e r , a t t r i b u t e d t h e cough t o reaction. difficulty arranging telephone. When Thereafter, visitation he was the father and r e a c h i n g able to contact experienced t h e c h i l d r e n by the children t e l e p h o n e , the mother would m o n i t o r t h e i r t e l e p h o n e c a l l s w o u l d i n t e r r u p t t h o s e c a l l s when she deemed t h e t o be i n a p p r o p r i a t e . father i n early by and conversation I n a d d i t i o n , the mother had i n f o r m e d the May 2009 that she intended to have the c h i l d r e n ' s names c h a n g e d . I m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r t h e f i l i n g o f t h e modification petition, further contact the rights counterclaim. threatened i n June court to terminate 2009 as part A d d i t i o n a l l y , the mother 4 to bar any b e t w e e n t h e f a t h e r and t h e c h i l d r e n , and she a c t u a l l y p e t i t i o n e d the t r i a l parental mother of the f a t h e r ' s her told answer and the daughter t h a t t h e f a t h e r was t r y i n g t o " t a k e h e r away" f r o m t h e m o t h e r . The father testified m o t h e r ' s m a r i t a l and o t h e r 2009 he a g a i n the children. contacted The that he e v e n t u a l l y problems. learned A t some p o i n t of the i n June t h e mother t o a r r a n g e v i s i t a t i o n mother informed the f a t h e r that The t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n p e t i t i o n , and t h e m o t h e r e v e n t u a l l y w i t h d r e w i t . 4 7 with she had over the 2100338 sent the in the home g r a n d p a r e n t s i n Lee County, but she d i d not f a t h e r subsequently r e c e i v e d a telephone informing children him of to the stay results i n q u i r i n g as t o h i s c u s t o d y in the t r i a l from The her court. husband By and the petition, their maternal s t a t e why. undergoing CPS i n v e s t i g a t i o n and w h i c h was then pending separated mental-health consented to a court therapy. order holding t h a t the c h i l d r e n should remain i n the p h y s i c a l custody maternal grandparents, rights, until 5 decided. The the subject to the The c a l l from Kozykowski t h a t p o i n t , t h e m o t h e r had was p a r t i e s subsequently of of father's custody-modification petition of the visitation could be 6 m o t h e r moved i n w i t h grandparents and m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t she had b e e n d i a g n o s e d w i t h g e n e r a l a n x i e t y d i s o r d e r and t h a t she was the c h i l d r e n i n J u l y 2009. the The maternal The p a r t i e s agreed t h a t the f a t h e r would v i s i t w i t h the c h i l d r e n f o r two c o n s e c u t i v e weeks i n J u l y 2 0 0 9 . The trial c o u r t a g a i n c o n d i t i o n e d t h e f a t h e r ' s v i s i t a t i o n on p a s s i n g d r u g t e s t s and f u r t h e r o r d e r e d t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n were t o be e n r o l l e d i n c o u n s e l i n g upon r e t u r n i n g f r o m v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e father. 5 U p o n l e a r n i n g t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n w o u l d be 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 i n A l a b a m a , CPS c l o s e d i t s c a s e on J u l y 2, 2 0 0 9 . 6 8 2100338 following her p s y c h i a t r i s t ' s recommendations f o r c a r e . The m o t h e r a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t she h a d l e a r n e d a g r e a t d e a l a b o u t c o p i n g s k i l l s a n d d e a l i n g w i t h s t r e s s a n d a n x i e t y a n d t h a t she had put those children's observed skills maternal into practice. grandfather, any p r o b l e m s w i t h testified t h e mother's m o t h e r moved b a c k t o A l a b a m a . evidence Ronnie Hundley, the The r e c o r d o f any f u r t h e r breakdowns that he h a d n o t husband also or other since the contains no mental-health problems a f f e c t i n g t h e a b i l i t y o f t h e mother t o care f o r the children. The father t e s t i f i e d Alabama, children. in New she continued According Y o r k , he was t h a t , a f t e r t h e mother r e t u r n e d t o to t r y to alienate him from the t o t h e f a t h e r , w h i l e t h e mother remained able t o communicate with the c h i l d r e n t h r 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 i n a n o r m a l manner, b u t , he testified, after t h e mother moved back t o Alabama, c h i l d r e n became much more r e s e r v e d a n d l e s s o p e n . the The f a t h e r a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a d u s e d v a r i o u s names f o r t h e son when e n r o l l i n g h i m i n s c h o o l s . The m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d that she h a d n e v e r a c t u a l l y c h a n g e d t h e name o f e i t h e r c h i l d . The father t e s t i f i e d t h a t , i n S e p t e m b e r 2009, t h e m o t h e r 9 falsely 2100338 t o l d the c h i l d r e n ' s teachers protect himself t h a t t h e son was i n the event the father t r i e d to k i l l t h a t the mother i n s t r u c t e d the t e a c h e r s any the d e v i s i n g ways t o authorities In that November the 2009, father's the wife mother and s t e p d a u g h t e r were s e x u a l l y a b u s i n g t h e his son. regarding reported father's improperly stepdaughter touched children's teachers his wife, abuse and father. father and his the and son. The 7 The mother s a i d the with stepdaughter mother informed i n a November 2009 e - m a i l t h a t t h e had the father, s t e p d a u g h t e r were u n d e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n f o r i n s t r u c t e d them n o t The that to eight-year-old t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n had b e e n f o r c e d t o b a t h e n a k e d t o g e t h e r the and t h a t t h e y d i d n o t have l e g a l o b l i g a t i o n t o communicate w i t h the f a t h e r children. him t o have any contact with mother a l s o w i t h h e l d h o l i d a y v i s i t a t i o n from i n December 2009 b a s e d on the a l l e g a t i o n s of the the sexual abuse. The f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t , t o h i s knowledge, the s e x u a l abuse a l l e g a t i o n s were u n f o u n d e d b u t t h a t he had n o t r e c e i v e d any f i n a l r e p o r t s o r a n y t h i n g i n w r i t i n g . He t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e P e n n s y l v a n i a y o u t h - s e r v i c e s a g e n c y had i n d i c a t e d t h a t i t was c l o s i n g i t s i n v e s t i g a t i o n . The f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t L o r i T e r r e l l f r o m t h e Lee C o u n t y D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s had t e l e p h o n e d him t o l e t him know t h a t t h e d e p a r t m e n t had n o t had any i n d i c a t i o n s t h a t t h e r e had b e e n any w r o n g d o i n g . 7 10 2100338 For was her only part, acting the to mother, that protect following beatings and son. sexual The mother t e s t i f i e d e s s e n t i a l l y t h a t father's stepdaughter the children would nausea, the get and children b e c o m i n g v e r y c l i n g y and go back for father and very crying, would not and have to the visitation. she resulting that, right temperament out with grandfather the According testified that encouraged the Pursuant children to have any both himself. he and c h i l d r e n to v i s i t with to began psychologist, by on a court seeing Dr. order Glen a weekly b a s i s . 11 problems, the not mother, children visited solely d i d not children after they d i d problems f a t h e r ' s e x e r c i s i n g h i s o v e r n i g h t v i s i t a t i o n or contact in of t h e i r s i g h t . mother t h a t a r i s e when t h e that upset, l e t t i n g her c h i l d r e n would i n d i c a t e those problems d i d not the the report mother t e s t i f i e d t h a t , b e f o r e v i s i t a t i o n s w i t h visitations, the would give would the the aches, to children to on stomach with wife the According abuse t h a t t h e s t e p d a u g h t e r w o u l d p e r p e t r a t e the want children. visitations, the father, The the she the entered with telephone The the maternal mother actually father. in July Vollenweider, 2009, the a clinical Dr. Vollenweider testified 2100338 t h a t he h a d c o u n s e l e d the children regarding anxiety and t h e son's b e h a v i o r a l stemmed i n part Vollenweider present opined home well, the children are stable that they that he t h i n k s are he s a i d , Dr. i n their safe and the children are adjusting pretty well at school, children his which, the f a t h e r . He t e s t i f i e d began t h e r a p y . experience that with and seem t o be d o i n g the visitations environment comfortable. doing from problems, the daughter's and t h a t they c o n s i d e r a b l y b e t t e r t h a n t h e y were when t h e y The m a t e r n a l g r a n d f a t h e r seem well adjusted anxiety regarding also t e s t i f i e d and happy but that that they t h e i r v i s i t s w i t h t h e f a t h e r and family i n Pittsburgh. A l t h o u g h g e n e r a l l y a c k n o w l e d g i n g t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n seemed to be d o i n g accumulated well, the father an e x c e s s i v e noted number that o f absences addition to a r r i v i n g tardy repeatedly. the children v i s i t the c h i l d r e n had D r . Vollenweider at school i n The m o t h e r s t a t e d t h a t on Wednesdays f r o m 9:30 a.m. t o 11:00 a.m. a n d t h a t t h e y do n o t a t t e n d s c h o o l on t h o s e days because remaining children they would have only two hours of school by t h e t i m e t h e y a r r i v e d , b u t , she t e s t i f i e d , t h e always brought home t h e i r 12 schoolwork. The m o t h e r 2100338 a d m i t t e d t h a t she h a d n e v e r a t t e m p t e d t o change t h e c o u n s e l i n g schedule i n order t o b e t t e r accommodate t h e c h i l d r e n ' s school schedules. The home f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a s s t a b l e employment a n d a i n Pittsburgh. schools and c o u n s e l i n g t h a t he was w i l l i n g he w o u l d be w i l l i n g t h e mother father since testified September w o u l d be s e r i o u s obtained testified services that he h a d i n h i s area. researched He testified t o work w i t h t h e mother so t h a t t h e y both enjoy a healthy for He could r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e c h i l d r e n and t h a t t o a s s i s t with the cost o f t r a n s p o r t a t i o n to v i s i t the children i n Pittsburgh. t h a t he h a d n o t h a d a p o s i t i v e d r u g 2008. D r . Vollenweider opined that The screen there adjustment f o r the c h i l d r e n i f the f a t h e r c u s t o d y , t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n have s i g n i f i c a n t concerns and f e a r s a b o u t b e i n g b a c k i n t h e f a t h e r ' s home, a n d t h a t t h e children are attached t o the mother. Analysis The court father erred initially i n allowing argues on a p p e a l the testimony that of Dr. the trial Vollenweider because t h e mother d i d n o t s e a s o n a b l y supplement h e r d i s c o v e r y r e s p o n s e s t o d i s c l o s e t h a t she w o u l d u s e D r . V o l l e n w e i d e r 13 as 2100338 an expert witness. 2009, t h e f a t h e r The r e c o r d requested indicates that, information i n September regarding any expert w i t n e s s e s t h e mother e x p e c t e d t o c a l l a t t r i a l , b u t t h e mother did not formally reveal before Dr. Vollenweider. The t r i a l t h a t s h e w o u l d be c a l l i n g father evidently mother would c a l l D r . V o l l e n w e i d e r issued 2010. a subpoena for his trial At the outset Vollenweider's earlier Vollenweider as that when t h e m o t h e r ' s attendance based on F e b r u a r y 1 1 , on t h e m o t h e r ' s her discovery an expert responses witness and the attorney of the t r i a l , the father objected testifying supplement learned to Dr. failure to identify to disclose to Dr. the substance of h i s expected testimony. The t r i a l court d i d not immediately On M a r c h 5, 2010, t h e rule on t h e o b j e c t i o n . mother f o r m a l l y n o t i f i e d Dr. V o l l e n w e i d e r the substance continued but as p a r t o f h e r c a s e , b u t she d i d n o t d i s c l o s e of h i s expected testimony. When t h e trial on M a r c h 9, 2010, t h e f a t h e r r e n e w e d h i s o b j e c t i o n , the t r i a l Rule t h e f a t h e r t h a t she w o u l d be c a l l i n g court 26(e)(1), overruled that objection. A l a . R. C i v . P., p r o v i d e s , i n pertinent part: "A p a r t y discovery who with has responded t o a r e q u e s t f o r a r e s p o n s e t h a t was c o m p l e t e when 14 2100338 made i s u n d e r no d u t y t o s u p p l e m e n t t h e r e s p o n s e include information t h e r e a f t e r acquired, except follows: to as "(1) A party is under a duty seasonably to supplement the response w i t h r e s p e c t t o any q u e s t i o n d i r e c t l y a d d r e s s e d t o (A) t h e i d e n t i t y and l o c a t i o n o f p e r s o n s having knowledge of d i s c o v e r a b l e m a t t e r s , and (B) the identity of each person e x p e c t e d t o be c a l l e d as an e x p e r t w i t n e s s a t t r i a l , t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r on w h i c h t h e e x p e r t w i t n e s s i s e x p e c t e d t o t e s t i f y , and the substance of the w i t n e s s ' s testimony." Neither the t e x t of Rule 26(e)(1) r u l e have h e l d t h a t a t r i a l o f an e x p e r t w i t n e s s the rule. (Ala. See 1988) testimony trial). of c o u r t may f o r a p a r t y who A l a b a m a Power Co. trial an disclosed been p r e v i o u s l y d e s i g n a t e d sound d i s c r e t i o n B a t t i s t e , 578 of the So. not a l l o w the has the testimony f a i l e d t o comply w i t h court's So. 2d decision six only to 170 prior days v. C h a n c e l l o r , 2d 142 o f an e x p e r t w i t n e s s who through trial So. 2d 1065, S t r i c k l a n d Sales & Serv., 510 construing allow to A l a b a m a c a s e l a w has c o n s i s t e n t l y h e l d t h a t w h e t h e r t o a l l o w or to refuse testimony M o t o r AB cases v. C o u r t n e y , 539 (upholding expert nor 1067 486 discovery court. CSX ( A l a . 1991) So. 2d 414 has not is within the Transp., Inc. v. (citing Electrolux ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) ; and Lynn I n c . v. A e r o - L a n e F a b r i c a t o r s , I n c . , ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) , o v e r r u l e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s by 15 Alfa 2100338 Mut. I n s . Co. v. R o u s h , 723 So. 2d 1250 ( A l a . 1998)). on a p p e a l , we must d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l its d i s c r e t i o n i n a l l o w i n g Dr. V o l l e n w e i d e r court exceeded to t e s t i f y . The r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t , b e f o r e t h e t r i a l , aware that children, Dr. Vollenweider having twice had long p e r s o n a l l y met Hence, been t h e f a t h e r was counseling w i t h Dr. Vollenweider and h a v i n g s e v e r a l t i m e s t a l k e d w i t h D r . V o l l e n w e i d e r telephone. the t r i a l Furthermore, the mother's a t t o r n e y the over the indicated to c o u r t t h a t t h e mother had l i s t e d Dr. V o l l e n w e i d e r a treating mental-health-care p r o f e s s i o n a l i n her r e s p o n s e s and t h a t c e r t a i n r e p o r t s i s s u e d b y D r . had been p r o v i d e d t o t h e f a t h e r . Dr. Vollenweider ask f o r a continuance regarding discovery Vollenweider When t h e f a t h e r l e a r n e d t h a t would t e s t i f y i n order as at t r i a l , the f a t h e r d i d not to obtain further information h i s expected testimony. Additionally, the record does n o t r e v e a l any e f f o r t s u n d e r t a k e n b y t h e f a t h e r t o d e p o s e Dr. Vollenweider or expected testimony v. Sanders, (taking into measures as 294 to otherwise a summary during the recess of the t r i a l . A l a . 649, 652, account a party's a obtain 329 failure factor i n holding 16 So. that 2d 662, to take lower of h i s See 664 Erwin (1975) ameliorative court d i d not 2100338 exceed i t s discretion expert that testimony). he was testimony or allowing Furthermore, s u r p r i s e d by a l l o w e d him Dr. in the e x p l a i n how f a t h e r does n o t content more of Dr. argue Vollenweider's t i m e l y d i s c o v e r y would t o c o n d u c t a more e f f e c t i v e fundamentally, q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r two physical custody p h y s i c a l custody trial of this 863, their of t h e i r c o u r t must d e t e r m i n e 865 protect ( A l a . 1984). the case children on t h e c h i l d r e n a t i s s u e . have cross-examination trial involves s h o u l d be mother father. of and of c o u r t s s h o u l d be central removed f r o m the t r a n s f e r r e d to the In d e c i d i n g t h a t i s s u e , a See Ex p a r t e McLendon, 455 Because t r i a l interests the t h e e f f e c t s o f t h e p r o p o s e d change children Vaughn v. Vaughn, 473 So. 2d 1090, aid the undisclosed Vollenweider. More to previously So. 2d c o u r t s are e n t r u s t e d to "with 1091 scrupulous care," ( A l a . C i v . App. 1985), i n c l i n e d to admit e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y as t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s o f a change o f c u s t o d y as an i n reaching i t s decision. C h a r l e s P. K i n d r e g a n , Reuters/West children's 2008) best See 1 J u d i t h S. J r . , A l a b a m a F a m i l y Law ("Expert testimony, psychological interests 17 for Crittenden & § 10:8 (Thomson example, w o u l d be that served by 2100338 being in custody assistance best to of one trial parent courts or other, attempting to can be of discern a child's i n t e r e s t s and p a r e n t s ' a b i l i t i e s t o d i s c e r n and address those testimony court interests." (footnote omitted)). great properly Such expert s h o u l d be d i s c l o s e d i n a t i m e l y manner, b u t a may properly determine that i t s primary trial concern for a s c e r t a i n i n g and p r o t e c t i n g 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 r e n overrides any noncompliance competing with Rule considerations, 26(e)(1), such case or the Given the h o l d t h a t the t r i a l the testimony o f Dr. denying father his real case in prejudice process. the Vollenweider context, we decline to despite the fact that the 26(e)(1). next argues that petition for a change a c k n o w l e d g e s t h a t he i n order and a court exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n a l l o w i n g mother v i o l a t e d Rule The judicial circumstances, technical especially in w h i c h t h e o p p o s i n g p a r t y c a n n o t a r t i c u l a t e any t o h i s or her as had the of trial court custody. erred The father t o meet a v e r y h i g h b u r d e n o f t o p r e v a i l on h i s petition. "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 judgment awarding p r i m a r y p h y s i c a l custody to 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 18 in proof 2100338 864 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) ] . U n d e r 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 circumstances, 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 the 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 u p r o o t i n g t h e 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. 2009). The f a t h e r a r g u e s , h o w e v e r , t h a t he more t h a n s a t i s f i e d standard by proving decision-making of the mental the mother, instability as well and as that irrational her repeated attempts to i n t e r f e r e with h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p with the c h i l d r e n , and t h a t t h e t r i a l 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 i n f a i l i n g t o award him p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d r e n . From t h e e v i d e n c e , that, at the time adjusted, and of t r i a l , and t h r i v i n g their extended the t r i a l We disagree. c o u r t c o u l d have d e t e r m i n e d t h e c h i l d r e n were happy, i n the p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y of the mother maternal family i n Lee C o u n t y . By a l l a c c o u n t s , t h e c h i l d r e n were a l s o d o i n g w e l l a c a d e m i c a l l y . record contains exhibited any no evidence residual i n d i c a t i n g that emotional or because of the i n c i d e n t s t h a t occurred the mother contrary, was Dr. living well with Vollenweider her children mental-health issues i n 2008 and 2009 current testified 19 the husband. that the The To while the children 2100338 actually have a close From t h a t e v i d e n c e , emotional the t r i a l attachment t o t h e mother. c o u r t c o u l d have c o n c l u d e d that removing t h e c h i l d r e n from t h e p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y o f t h e mother would only harm the Vollenweider t e s t i f i e d . little the evidence children children psychologically, as Dr. Moreover, the f a t h e r presented very as t o how t h e change o f c u s t o d y w o u l d b e n e f i t other than to offer them an a l t e r n a t i v e stable environment. We do n o t e x c u s e t h e m i s c o n d u c t o f t h e m o t h e r i n e x p o s i n g the c h i l d r e n t o domestic v i o l e n c e and a l c o h o l abuse. the law recognizes that a parent However, may make e r r o r s i n c h i l d - r e a r i n g , y e t i t a l s o r e c o g n i z e s t h a t a parent can r e h a b i l i t a t e h i m s e l f o r h e r s e l f i n o r d e r t o assume p r o p e r of a c h i l d . See Ex p a r t e P h i l l i p s , custody and care 266 A l a . 198, 200, 95 So. 2d 77, 79 (1957) ("'A f i n d i n g o f u n f i t n e s s may be by improved changed Lockard, and conduct.'" (quoting superseded Lockard 102 N.E.2d 747, 748, 63 O h i o Law A b s . 549 ( C t . v. of Common P l e a s 1 9 5 1 ) ) ) ; Edwards v . S e s s i o n s , 254 A l a . 522, 524, 48 So. 2d 7 7 1 , 772 grievous mistakes, the c h i l d (1950) but this ("The m o t h e r h a s made mistakes, s h o u l d n o t be s u f f i c i e n t t o t a k e f r o m t h e m o t h e r i f t h e m o t h e r shows i n d i c a t i o n s o f 20 2100338 becoming care a good m o t h e r and i s p r e s e n t l y a b l e f o r the c h i l d . " ) ; and B o r s d o r f 658, 661-62, 275 So. 2d 338, 340-41 on t h e e v i d e n c e , the t r i a l court reasonably v. M i l l s , to 4 9 A l a . App. ( C i v . App. 1973). Based c o u l d have d e t e r m i n e d that t h e m o t h e r ' s p r o b l e m s were i n t h e p a s t and t h a t s h e , w i t h t h e aid of the c h i l d r e n ' s extended maternal 48 So. 2d a t 772 f a m i l y , see S e s s i o n s , ( c i t i n g r e c e n t l y extended family assistance as a f a c t o r i n f a v o r o f r e s t o r i n g c u s t o d y t o f o r m e r l y wayward p a r e n t ) , could best provide f o r the c h i l d r e n . review does not allow us to Our s t a n d a r d o f overturn that factual determination. See L a d d e n v. L a d d e n , 49 So. 3d 702, 718 ( A l a . Civ. App. 2010) ("[T]his court i s f o r b i d d e n from s u b s t i t u t i n g its judgment trial f o r t h e judgment court's judgment is of the t r i a l supported by court evidence when t h e in the record."). This custodial parent. should court parent f u r t h e r does to not alienate a condone child I t i s the p u b l i c p o l i c y of t h i s have parents, divorce. frequent regardless and m e a n i n g f u l any from a by a noncustodial state that children contact with of the c u s t o d i a l s i t u a t i o n See A l a . Code 1975, § 30-3-150. 21 effort both f i t following a However, i n this 2100338 case, i t appears designed to lives the of them. The rights so decisions that the effectively trial court preserve children despite the the instituted father's measures role in physical distance between judgment r e s t o r e s the f a t h e r ' s j o i n t - l e g a l - c u s t o d y that with Code 1975, the the father now has mother r e g a r d i n g § 30-3-151(2). The equal the authority make See children. to Ala. judgment f u r t h e r p r o v i d e s f a t h e r w i t h s p e c i f i c and l i b e r a l v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s and a l l r e s t r i c t i o n s on h i s v i s i t a t i o n . In a d d i t i o n , the p e r week. B a s e d on t h e e v i d e n c e , t h e t r i a l could concluded have traumatic that Finally, "shall 942, the to hold A l a . R. not opportunity 3d provisions, judgment 957 be f a t h e r and the C i v . App., ruled on the the court erred parties in Rule have I n K n i g h t v. K n i g h t , 2010), t h i s "The f a t h e r l a s t argues t h a t erred in failing to conduct a 22 a that postjudgment motions until t o be h e a r d t h e r e o n . " ( A l a . C i v . App. secure h i s postjudgment motion. provides upon than children. f a t h e r argues t h a t the t r i a l a hearing times reasonably rather change o f p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y , w o u l d b e s t r e l a t i o n s h i p between the 59(g), those court the removes awards t h e f a t h e r t e l e p h o n e a c c e s s t o t h e c h i l d r e n t h r e e failing the court 53 stated: the t r i a l court hearing on his had So. 2100338 p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n . Such a h e a r i n g i s r e q u i r e d when it i s requested. Rule 59(g), A l a . R. Civ. P. However, t h e f a i l u r e t o c o n d u c t a h e a r i n g on a postjudgment motion i s not n e c e s s a r i l y r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . K i t c h e n s v. Maye, 623 So. 2d 1082, 1089 ( A l a . 1993). "'Harmless e r r o r o c c u r s , w i t h i n the c o n t e x t o f a R u l e 59(g) m o t i o n , where t h e r e i s e i t h e r no p r o b a b l e m e r i t i n t h e g r o u n d s asserted i n the motion, o r where the appellate court resolves the issues presented t h e r e i n , as a m a t t e r o f law, a d v e r s e l y t o t h e movant, by a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e same o b j e c t i v e s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w as t h a t a p p l i e d i n the t r i a l c o u r t . ' "Greene v. Thompson, 554 So. 2d 376, 381 (Ala. 1 9 8 9 ) . I n t h i s c a s e , we have a l r e a d y d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r has f a i l e d t o d e m o n s t r a t e e r r o r w i t h r e g a r d t o t h o s e i s s u e s t h a t were p r e s e n t e d t o t h e t r i a l court i n h i s postjudgment motion. A c c o r d i n g l y , we d e c l i n e t o r e v e r s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t b a s e d on i t s f a i l u r e t o c o n d u c t a h e a r i n g on t h e f a t h e r ' s postjudgment motion. Kitchens v. Maye, s u p r a ; G r e e n e v. Thompson, s u p r a . " In the p r e s e n t case, the motion t h a t the t r i a l f a t h e r a s s e r t e d i n h i s postjudgment c o u r t had f a i l e d to p r o p e r l y weigh the e v i d e n c e and had e r r e d by a w a r d i n g t h e m o t h e r p r i m a r y p h y s i c a l custody of the c h i l d r e n . determined t h a t the trial the in evidence. court's failure As to As d i s c u s s e d a b o v e , we court's Knight, conduct we a 23 j u d g m e n t was conclude hearing on have already supported that the the by trial father's 2100338 postjudgment motion r e v e r s e b a s e d on t h a t was harmless error, a n d we decline to failure. AFFIRMED. P i t t m a n , B r y a n , a n d Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . Thompson, P . J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t , w i t h o u t w r i t i n g . 24

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.