Robert Kilgore, Jr. v. Kimberly P. Kilgore

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 01/20/2012 REL: 04/20/2012 as m o d i f i e d on d e n i a l o f r e h e a r i n g Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012 2100951 Robert K i l g o r e , J r . v. Kimberly P. K i l g o r e Appeal from Limestone C i r c u i t Court (DR-09-396.01) THOMAS, J u d g e . Robert judgment Kilgore, of J r . ("the f a t h e r " ) , t h e Limestone counterpetition for a Circuit modification Court appeals from granting of custody filed a the by 2100951 K i m b e r l y P. Kilgore ("the m o t h e r " ) and awarding sole p h y s i c a l custody of the p a r t i e s ' daughter The p a r t i e s were d i v o r c e d a settlement agreement ("the c h i l d " ) . i n November 2009. entered into by t h e mother Pursuant t o the p a r t i e s , the divorce judgment awarded t h e p a r t i e s j o i n t p h y s i c a l and l e g a l custody of the c h i l d , custody weekly 27, 2010, petition custody alternating physical on a Wednesday t o Wednesday s c h e d u l e . On June the father with filed for a modification of the c h i l d the p a r t i e s a met pendente which on and a l l e g i n g t h a t the Internet. lite custody the t r i a l court On November 2, petition f o r contempt of custody seeking sole entertaining overnight v i s i t o r s had motion father of the c h i l d on g r a n t e d on O c t o b e r 2010, t h e m o t h e r physical t h e mother had been filed a motion September 29, 2 0 1 0 . for 27, 2010, 1 answered the of custody contempt and c o u n t e r p e t i t i o n e d a o f t h e o p p o s i t e s e x t h a t she The for a modification and father's and t h e motion f o r f o r a m o d i f i c a t i o n of custody, s e e k i n g s o l e 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 and c h i l d support. I n h e r c o u n t e r p e t i t i o n , t h e m o t h e r a l l e g e d t h a t she h a d become The mother f a i l e d t o answer t h e f a t h e r ' s m o t i o n f o r pendente l i t e custody o f the c h i l d or t o appear a t the pendente l i t e h e a r i n g . 1 2 2100951 p r i m a r i l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e c h i l d ' s c a r e because, she s a i d , the to f a t h e r ' s work schedule r e q u i r e d him t o d e l i v e r the c h i l d h e r h o u s e s e v e r a l m o r n i n g s p e r week d u r i n g h i s c u s t o d i a l p e r i o d s , w h i c h , s h e a s s e r t e d , was i n t e r f e r i n g w i t h t h e c h i l d ' s "emotional w e l l b e i n g and h e r a b i l i t y t o b e n e f i t from s c h o o l . " Additionally, aside t h a t same d a y , t h e m o t h e r f i l e d a m o t i o n t o s e t t h e pendente lite custody award of the c h i l d to the f a t h e r , b e c a u s e , s h e s a i d , she h a d n o t b e e n s e r v e d w i t h n o t i c e of t h e pendente denied lite t h e mother's custody hearing. motion t o set aside court a f t e r conducting aside t h e pendente aside that The initially the pendente a w a r d on November 8, 2010; h o w e v e r , 2010, the The t r i a l lite on December 1, a h e a r i n g on t h e m o t h e r ' s m o t i o n t o s e t lite custody order, the t r i a l court s e t order. trial c o u r t c o n d u c t e d an o r e t e n u s h e a r i n g parties' petitions regarding f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n of custody f a t h e r ' s motion f o r contempt. and t h e The m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r l i v e d i n A r d m o r e , T e n n e s s e e , i n a home a b o u t t w o - a n d - a half to three miles custodial home periods, around 4 a.m. from h e r r e s i d e n c e and t h a t , d u r i n g h i s he h a d b e e n d e l i v e r i n g two t o t h r e e 3 days the c h i l d p e r week to her since the 2100951 divorce i n November 2009. The m o t h e r further t e s t i f i e d that t h e f a t h e r h a d s t o p p e d d e l i v e r i n g t h e c h i l d t o h e r home i n t h e early morning hours since s u b s e q u e n t l y h i s mother his residence to custodial periods. for the paternal witnessed the grandchild he had had his brother and ("the p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r " ) move i n t o assist with the child during h i s weekly The m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t she d i d n o t c a r e grandmother paternal because, grandmother she "scream" said, at she her had other and t h a t t h e f a t h e r h a d s t a t e d t o h e r d u r i n g p a r t i e s ' marriage that the p a t e r n a l grandmother the took pills. She f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t she d i d n o t want t h e c h i l d around t h e p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r , b u t she d i d n o t s t a t e any r e a s o n why caretaker t h e p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r w o u l d n o t be an a d e q u a t e f o r the child. The mother testified visitors during t h e t i m e t h e c h i l d was further t e s t i f i e d that that Stacy she t h e he h a d n e v e r s t a y e d child was never stayed had not had overnight She boyfriend, Cooper t e s t i f i e d t h a t a t t h e m o t h e r ' s house when present and t h a t t h e c h i l d overnight at h i s residence. 4 overnight i n her custody. Cooper, her c u r r e n t h a d a good 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 specific and t h e m o t h e r Tony C u l b e r s o n , had a 2100951 p r i v a t e i n v e s t i g a t o r , t e s t i f i e d t h a t the f a t h e r had h i r e d him and that, during h i s s i x - m o n t h i n v e s t i g a t i o n , he w i t n e s s e d any o v e r n i g h t visitors a t t h e mother's had not residence. The f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d been e m p l o y e d a t a p l a n t i n D e c a t u r f o r 10 o r 11 y e a r s and t h a t he w o r k e d 40 h o u r s p e r week and r o u g h l y 60 o r 70 h o u r s p e r week d u r i n g "shutdowns," w h i c h , he s a i d , o c c u r a b o u t 4 weeks p e r y e a r . He testified t h a t , d u r i n g h i s c u s t o d i a l p e r i o d s , he h a d d e l i v e r e d t h e c h i l d t o t h e m o t h e r ' s house two t o t h r e e d a y s p e r week i n t h e e a r l y morning hours before having h i s brother g r a n d m o t h e r move i n t o h i s r e s i d e n c e for the c h i l d . and t h e n t h e p a t e r n a l t o a s s i s t him i n c a r i n g The f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e one-week j o i n t - physical-custody arrangement generally works but that " [ b ] e c a u s e o f h o l i d a y s a n d o t h e r i s s u e s , [ t h e p a r t i e s ] have t o work a r o u n d t h i n g s The paternal t o make i t work f o r b o t h [parties]." grandmother t e s t i f i e d t h a t r e l a t i o n s h i p with the c h i l d , although, she h a d a good she s a i d , she h a d j u s t become " c l o s e " w i t h t h e c h i l d i n t h e t i m e s i n c e she h a d moved into the f a t h e r ' s little quiet" home. She t e s t i f i e d t h a t after returning the c h i l d to the father's exchange o f c u s t o d y . 5 i s "a home a f t e r an 2100951 The only additional witness to testify Thompson, t h e c h i l d ' s p r e s c h o o l t e a c h e r . was Jaquata She t e s t i f i e d that she knew t h e m o t h e r a n d t h e f a t h e r and t h a t she h a d h a d e q u a l contact with the p a r t i e s . On May 25, 2 0 1 1 , t h e t r i a l court entered a judgment f i n d i n g t h a t a change i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s h a d o c c u r r e d , a w a r d i n g the mother s o l e p h y s i c a l father visitation, contempt. monthly June denying I n i t s judgment, child The "Motion and custody of the c h i l d , the father's motion f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t awarded t h e mother s u p p o r t i n t h e amount o f $ 5 9 7 . mother filed a postjudgment to Reconsider C h i l d 27, 2 0 1 1 , t h e f a t h e r Support" filed motion styled on J u n e a motion as 22, 2 0 1 1 . asking c o u r t t o a l t e r , amend, o r v a c a t e i t s j u d g m e n t . the awarding the the a On trial I n response t o f a t h e r ' s postjudgment m o t i o n , t h e mother f i l e d a motion t o dismiss the motion as u n t i m e l y . The f a t h e r ' s postjudgment m o t i o n was u n t i m e l y b e c a u s e h i s m o t i o n was f i l e d more t h a n 30 days from Ala. R. the entry C i v . P. of the f i n a l Subsequently, judgment. the father See R u l e 5 9 ( e ) , filed n o t i c e o f a p p e a l t o t h i s c o u r t on J u l y 6, 2 0 1 1 . postjudgment motion was denied 6 by operation The of a timely mother's law on 2100951 S e p t e m b e r 20, father's 2011, notice see of appeal, p e n d i n g a r u l i n g on e f f e c t i v e on We in R u l e 59.1, A l a . R. w h i c h had Civ. P., been h e l d in t h a t d a t e . See review the child following ore after father's hearing standard tenus the abeyance t h e m o t h e r ' s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , became R u l e 4 ( a ) ( 5 ) , A l a . R. c l a i m t h a t the trial App. of ore tenus review. testimony, its testimony on custody court disputed 2 erred under "'[W]hen a t r i a l findings P. court f i n d i n g a change i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s and m o d i f y i n g the and of the hears facts are p r e s u m e d c o r r e c t and i t s judgment b a s e d on t h o s e f i n d i n g s w i l l n o t be reversed manifestly unless unjust.'" judgment i s p a l p a b l y F a d a l l a v. observe the So. 429, 433 2d 122, 125 2 0 0 2 ) ) . " T h i s p r e s u m p t i o n i s b a s e d on t h e t r i a l directly 843 or 2d (Ala. to State, So. 2005) position P h i l p o t v. F a d a l l a , 929 erroneous (Ala. unique (quoting the witnesses court's and to The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t on J u l y 8, 2011, the trial c o u r t s e t a h e a r i n g r e g a r d i n g the mother's postjudgment motion f o r J u l y 22, 2011. However, t h e r e c o r d does n o t c o n t a i n any o r d e r r u l i n g on t h e p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n ; t h u s , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t f a i l e d t o r u l e on t h a t m o t i o n and t h a t i t was d e n i e d by o p e r a t i o n o f l a w . The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e f a t h e r f i l e d an "amended n o t i c e o f a p p e a l " on J u l y 28, 2011. T h a t n o t i c e o f a p p e a l was merely d u p l i c a t i v e because the f a t h e r ' s J u l y 6, 2011, n o t i c e o f a p p e a l , w h i c h was t i m e l y , was h e l d i n abeyance under Rule 4 ( a ) ( 5 ) . 2 7 2100951 a s s e s s t h e i r demeanor a n d c r e d i b i l i t y . " Ex p a r t e Fann, 810 So. 2d 631, 633 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) . "'"[T]he t r i a l c o u r t i s i n the b e t t e r p o s i t i o n t o c o n s i d e r a l l o f 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 t h a t may be drawn f r o m t h a t e v i d e n c e , a n d t o d e c i d e t h e i s s u e o f c u s t o d y . " ' Ex p a r t e P a t r o n a s , 693 So. 2d 473, 475 ( A l a . 1997) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e B r y o w s k y , 676 So. 2d [1322] a t 1326 [ ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) ] ) . 'Thus, a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w o f a judgment m o d i f y i n g c u s t o d y when t h e e v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d o r e t e n u s i s l i m i t e d t o d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r t h e r e was s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment.' Cheek v. D y e s s , 1 So. 3d 1025, 1029 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007) ( c i t i n g Ex p a r t e P a t r o n a s ) ( e m p h a s i s added). U n d e r t h e o r e t e n u s r u l e , where t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f the t r i a l c o u r t i s so opposed t o t h e w e i g h t o f t h e evidence that the v a r i a b l e f a c t o r s of a witness's demeanor a n d c r e d i b i l i t y a n d t h e i n f e r e n c e s t h a t c a n be drawn f r o m t h e e v i d e n c e , e v e n a f t e r c o n s i d e r i n g those f a c t o r s , '"'could not reasonably s u b s t a n t i a t e i t , then t h e c o n c l u s i o n i s c l e a r l y erroneous and must be r e v e r s e d . ' " ' Cheek, 1 So. 3d a t 1029 ( q u o t i n g B.J.N. v. P.D., 742 So. 2d 1270, 1274 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 9 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n J a c o b y v. B e l l , 370 So. 2d 278, 280 ( A l a . 1979) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) ) . " Ex p a r t e B l a c k s t o c k , 47 So. 3d 8 0 1 , 805-06 On a p p e a l , in determining t h e f a t h e r argues that there ( A l a . 2009). that the t r i a l had been a court erred material change i n circumstances a f f e c t i n g the best i n t e r e s t s of the c h i l d since t h e t i m e o f t h e d i v o r c e s u c h t h a t i t was i n t h e c h i l d ' s best i n t e r e s t t o a w a r d t h e m o t h e r s o l e p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y b e c a u s e , he says, t h e mother failed to present 8 evidence indicating a 2100951 material change i n circumstances. In essence, the father challenges the s u f f i c i e n c y of the evidence. It i s well settled that " [ w ] h e r e , as i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , t h e r e i s a prior judgment a w a r d i n g joint physical custody, '"the b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d " ' s t a n d a r d a p p l i e s i n any s u b s e q u e n t c u s t o d y - m o d i f i c a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g . Ex p a r t e J o h n s o n , 673 So. 2d 410, 413 ( A l a . 1994) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e C o u c h , 521 So. 2d 987, 989 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) ) . To j u s t i f y a m o d i f i c a t i o n o f a p r e e x i s t i n g judgment a w a r d i n g custody, the p e t i t i o n e r must d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t t h e r e has b e e n a m a t e r i a l change o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s s i n c e t h a t judgment was e n t e r e d and that ' " i t [ i s ] i n the [child's] best i n t e r e s t s that the [judgment] be modified"' in the manner r e q u e s t e d . Nave v. Nave, 942 So. 2d 372, 376 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005) ( q u o t i n g Means v. Means, 512 So. 2d 1386, 1388 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 7 ) ) . " Ex p a r t e B l a c k s t o c k , 47 So. 3d a t 804-05. In there the present had Specifically, been case, a the t r i a l material court change t h e judgment s t a t e s , in determined circumstances. i n pertinent part: "The child i s now s i x years o f age and i s e x p e r i e n c i n g some d i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e s h a r e d c u s t o d y whereby t h e p a r t i e s exchange t h e c h i l d week t o week t o a c c o m p l i s h t h e O r d e r s h e r e i n . " " I t i s ORDERED by t h e C o u r t t h a t t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of t h e p a r t i e s ' m i n o r c h i l d i s hereby d e t e r m i n e d t o be j o i n t legal c u s t o d y awarded t o t h e p a r t i e s h e r e t o , and s o l e p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y o f s a i d m i n o r c h i l d i s awarded t o t h e [mother]." 9 that 2100951 Our review of the contention been record c o n v i n c e s us t h a t the father's t h a t the mother f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e r e a material change i n circumstances interests of the child presented at trial that is correct. supports the a f f e c t i n g the The had best evidence court's trial only finding t h a t t h e r e had b e e n a m a t e r i a l change i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s b e c a u s e the child is "experiencing physical-custody difficulties" a r r a n g e m e n t was grandmother regarding neither testified the t h e m o t h e r ' s and t h e grandmother's t e s t i m o n y t h a t the weekly custody exchanges. with c h i l d was the child paternal "quiet" after N e i t h e r the mother nor the that joint- had any paternal other issues the p a r t i e s ' e x e r c i s i n g j o i n t p h y s i c a l custody, expounded unusual. More on why the child's specifically, in "quiet" response to demeanor " I t h i n k i t ' s h a r d on h e r . I t h i n k she e n j o y s b e i n g w i t h [ t h e f a t h e r ] and b e i n g w i t h me, b u t I do t h i n k that I mean, i t w o u l d be h a r d on me. And s h e ' s six. And I mean, j u s t t h e w o r k i n g s o f h e r little b r a i n , I g u e s s she j u s t d o e s n ' t u n d e r s t a n d t h e you know, t h e why b e h i n d e v e r y t h i n g b e c a u s e s h e ' s six. 10 was child, testified: "And s o , she j u s t d o e s . She j u s t , you t h a t me and daddy have t o s h a r e h e r and and questioning w h e t h e r t h e w e e k l y c u s t o d y e x c h a n g e s were " h a r d " on t h e the mother the know, knows t h i s i s the 2100951 way t h i n g s a r e . B u t I do t h i n k , you know, i t j u s t takes I'm s u r e she has t o g e t r e a d j u s t e d t o [ t h e f a t h e r ' s ] h o u s e t h e same way she g e t s r e a d j u s t e d t o my h o u s e . Whenever she comes f r o m h i s h o u s e , you know, s h e ' s q u i e t , l i k e she had t e s t i f i e d e a r l i e r to. T h a t , you know, i f you a s k , you know, what d i d you do a t [ t h e f a t h e r ' s ] h o u s e s h e ' s j u s t k i n d o f q u i e t and, you know, l i k e she d o e s n ' t want t o t a l k a b o u t i t . So I d o n ' t p r e s s h e r . " The the mother's t e s t i m o n y i s s p e c u l a t i v e at b e s t . mere m e n t i o n custody house, of exchange which behavior and are having natural w i t h o u t more s p e c i f i c arrangement is such to as being readjust occurrences explanation disruptive or that v. 918 "quiet" to each following does n o t the Further, after parent's a divorce, indicate that child a is the "having difficulties." In Watters 2005), t h i s court determining that had been a reversed the parties' In So. 2d 913 (Ala. Civ. a judgment o f t h e evidence material change i n t h e arrangement. Watters, change failed in mutually Watters, the to trial t h a t she had there warranting a custodial mother that testified c h i l d s i n c e the d i v o r c e , but the mother f a i l e d t o she d i s r u p t i v e to n o t i c e d b e h a v i o r a l problems i n 11 by a g r e e d upon j o i n t t h o u g h t t h e week-to-week c u s t o d y a r r a n g e m e n t was t h e c h i l d and court indicate that circumstances App. the specifically 2100951 s t a t e what b e h a v i o r a l Id. issues the c h i l d h a d been e x h i b i t i n g . a t 915. Like failed t h e mother i n Watters, to s p e c i f i c a l l y joint-custody generally s t a t e any r e a s o n why agreement that the the mother was disruptive case the agreed-upon and joint-physical-custody i n this testified only arrangement was " h a r d on t h e c h i l d " and t h a t t h e c h i l d was " q u i e t " and h a d t o "readjust" after counterpetition the exchanges. for a modification Moreover, of custody, in the her mother a l l e g e d t h a t t h e r e h a d been a change i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s b e c a u s e t h e f a t h e r h a d been d e l i v e r i n g t h e c h i l d t o t h e m o t h e r ' s house in the early interfering morning with hours, which, the c h i l d ' s "emotional a b i l i t y t o b e n e f i t from s c h o o l . " father child testified to the she contended, well being was and h e r However, t h e m o t h e r and t h e that the father mother's house had ceased d e l i v e r i n g the months before the hearing. A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e r e c o r d i s d e v o i d o f any e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g that t h e c u s t o d y e x c h a n g e s were a f f e c t i n g t h e c h i l d ' s w e l l - being. Thus, we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e m o t h e r f a i l e d t o meet h e r b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g t h a t a change i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s a f f e c t i n g t h e child's best i n t e r e s t s had occurred 12 since the time of the 2100951 divorce sufficient this c a s e . Means v. App. to warrant a modification her appellate court cannot reverse she says, the modifying the for 1388 in the of (Ala. Civ. that this contends e r r o r by initiating j o i n t c u s t o d y a r r a n g e m e n t was The 1386, the judgment of the t r i a l a modification without merit. 2d mother f a t h e r i n v i t e d any c u s t o d y by petition brief, So. custody 1987). In Means, 512 of the court because, trial court p r o c e e d i n g s by custody "conceding not w o r k i n g . " father's petition in filing that a the T h i s argument i s for a modification of c u s t o d y a l l e g e d t h a t , d u r i n g her c u s t o d i a l p e r i o d s , the mother had been e n t e r t a i n i n g o v e r n i g h t whom she the thus, had met did hearing the on not fact the that visitors Internet. support the the father m o d i f i c a t i o n o f c u s t o d y on The of the filed a completely sex evidence presented father's had opposite contention, a petition at and, for a separate ground than t h e g r o u n d s a s s e r t e d i n t h e m o t h e r ' s c o u n t e r p e t i t i o n c a n n o t be considered i n v i t e d any a basis there holding that the father's actions error. Additionally, that for has i n her appellate been a m a t e r i a l 13 brief the mother argues change i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s as a 2100951 m a t t e r o f law b e c a u s e , she s a y s , state o f Tennessee a f t e r the father relocated to the the entry of the divorce judgment. We n o t e t h a t t h e m o t h e r i s c o r r e c t i n s t a t i n g t h a t , t o § 30-3-169.4, residence of the c h i l d interest of 60 that miles Peplinski, i s 'presumed [the] c h i l d c h a n g e ' when than A l a . Code 1975, "a change pursuant i n the p r i n c i p a l n o t t o be i n t h e b e s t [and] i s n e c e s s a r i l y a material relocation i s to a location that away or across state lines." i s more McElheny 66 So. 3d 274, 281 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010) M a r s h v. S m i t h , 37 So. 3d 174, 178 However, t h e m o t h e r failed v. (quoting ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009)). t o present evidence to the t r i a l c o u r t i n d i c a t i n g , t h a t t h e f a t h e r had r e l o c a t e d t o Tennessee. The evidence indicated only that the Tennessee a t t h e time o f t h e h e a r i n g ; father resided in the record contains no t e s t i m o n y e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t t h e f a t h e r h a d moved t o T e n n e s s e e after the testimony established entry of presented that evidence the entry the divorce regarding t h e mother of the divorce present since entry any move h a d moved judgment. indicating judgment, the either two t i m e s since only party the Because t h e mother f a i l e d t o that of the divorce by and the father had j u d g m e n t , we c a n n o t [ S u b s t i t u t e d p. 14] relocated consider 2100951 the father's supporting alleged relocation to Tennessee as a ground t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t a m a t e r i a l change i n circumstances had occurred since the time of the p a r t i e s ' divorce. Accordingly, b e c a u s e we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e m o t h e r failed t o p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t "a change i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s ha[d] that occurred the custody," [ j u d g m e n t ] be m o d i f i e d to transfer [sole] Means, 512 So. 2d a t 1388, we r e v e r s e of the t r i a l a s u c h t h a t i t was i n t h e c h i l d ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t s court modification granting of physical t h e judgment the mother's c o u n t e r p e t i t i o n f o r custody and awarding the mother sole 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 , and we remand t h i s c a u s e t o t h e trial court f o r entry of a judgment consistent with this opinion. We deny b o t h t h e m o t h e r ' s and t h e f a t h e r ' s r e q u e s t f o r an award o f a t t o r n e y REVERSED AND fees on appeal. REMANDED. Thompson, P . J . , and P i t t m a n and B r y a n , J J . , c o n c u r . Moore, 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 . [ S u b s t i t u t e d p. 15]

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.