Matthew D. Harbin v. Augustine B. Harbin (Appeal from Mobile Circuit Court: DR-04-500732.01) Affirmed. No Opinion.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 12/02/2011 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, 2011-2012 2100596 Matthew D. Harbin v. Augustine B. Harbin Appeal from Mobile C i r c u i t (DR-04-500732.01) MOORE, Court Judge. AFFIRMED. See Rule NO OPINION. 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(D & F ) , A l a . R. A p p . P.; R u l e 7 0 1 , A l a . R. E v i d . ; A l a . C o d e 1 9 7 5 , §§ 3 0 - 3 - 1 6 9 . 3 a n d 3 0 ¬ 3-169.4; Ex p a r t e Foley, 864 S o . 2 d 1 0 9 4 , 1 0 9 9 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) ; 2100596 Adams v . A d a m s , 21 S o . 3 d 1 2 4 7 , 1 2 5 2 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009); Cheek ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007); v. Dyess, 1 So. 3d 1 0 2 5 , 1029 T . J . H . v . S.N.F., Leonard 1985); App. v. 960 S o . 2 d 6 6 9 , 673 Leonard, 47 9 So. 2d a n d Newsome v . S t a t e , 127 9, (Ala.C i v . 1281 App. 2006); ( A l a . C i v . App. 570 S o . 2 d 7 0 3 , 714 ( A l a . Crim. 1989). Thompson, P . J . , a n d P i t t m a n a n d Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . Bryan, J . , concurs i n part writing. 2 and d i s s e n t s i n part, with 2100596 BRYAN, J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g This is a i n p a r t and d i s s e n t i n g i n p a r t . postdivorce proceeding that proposed r e l o c a t i o n of the p r i n c i p a l residence y e a r - o l d c h i l d born during ("the father") The M o b i l e and A u g u s t i n e B. H a r b i n affirmed m o t h e r overcame 1975, that ruling the presumption i . e . , that a change residence i s not i n the best my r e v i e w of the record leads failed Harbin ("the m o t h e r " ) . C i r c u i t Court overruled the f a t h e r ' s o b j e c t i o n to has Code Steed the of the seven- t h e m a r r i a g e o f M a t t h e w D. the proposed r e l o c a t i o n of the c h i l d , court involves t o meet h e r b u r d e n , and a m a j o r i t y o f t h i s a f t e r determining that found i n § 30-3-169.4, A l a . of the child's principal i n t e r e s t of the c h i l d . Because me t o c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e m o t h e r I respectfully dissent from the d e c i s i o n r e a c h e d by t h e m a j o r i t y t o a f f i r m t h e t r i a l j u d g m e n t as t o t h i s issue. the As I have s t a t e d court's before: " I do n o t t a k e l i g h t l y t h i s c o u r t ' s d u t y t o presume t h a t f a c t u a l f i n d i n g s made by a t r i a l c o u r t a r e c o r r e c t . However, a f t e r r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d i n t h i s case, I fear that the p o l i c y of t h i s s t a t e , w h i c h i s t o e n c o u r a g e f r e q u e n t and c o n t i n u a l c o n t a c t b e t w e e n a c h i l d and b o t h o f h i s o r h e r p a r e n t s a f t e r a d i v o r c e , i s d i s i n t e g r a t i n g under a mistaken b e l i e f t h a t a r e l o c a t i n g p a r e n t does n o t have a s i g n i f i c a n t b u r d e n t o o v e r c o m e , e s p e c i a l l y i n c a s e s s u c h as t h i s where t h e n o n r e l o c a t i n g p a r e n t and t h e c h i l d have a s t r o n g bond." 3 2100596 K n i g h t v. Knight, 53 So. 3d 942, 960 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010) ( B r y a n , J . , c o n c u r r i n g i n p a r t and d i s s e n t i n g i n p a r t ) . The on the f a t h e r a l s o requested a m o d i f i c a t i o n of custody proposed relocation of the mother and the mother's a l l e g e d i n a b i l i t y to p r o v i d e s t a b i l i t y f o r the c h i l d . the final court hearing, d i d not relocated, the mother a l l o w the then she testified that granted, and because trial child's principal residence to remain i n Mobile w i t h the would i f her During i f the B e c a u s e t h e m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t she w o u l d r e m a i n w i t h the c h i l d based be child. i n Mobile r e q u e s t t o r e l o c a t e t h e c h i l d was not I the find insufficient r e c o r d t h a t would otherwise support the evidence father's in request modify custody of the c h i l d , I would a f f i r m the t r i a l to court's judgment denying the f a t h e r ' s r e q u e s t t o modify custody of the child. Thus, f o r t h i s reason, I concur c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t as t o t h i s to a f f i r m the trial issue. R e g a r d i n g t h e r e m a i n i n g a r g u m e n t s p r e s e n t e d by t h e f a t h e r on a p p e a l -- t h a t t h e t r i a l court erred i n admitting certain evidence c o u r t d i d not p e r m i t a and to and sifting t h a t the t r i a l thorough c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n on r e l e v a n t i s s u e s -- I a f f i r m the t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment. 4 concur

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.