D.M.J. v. D.N.J.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 05/04/2012 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 Reporter of 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 , Alabama 36104-3741 ((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 2101079 D.M.J. v. D.N.J. Appeal from D e K a l b C i r c u i t (DR-06-201.02) Court THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . D.M.J. ( " t h e m o t h e r " ) a p p e a l s judgment o f t h e DeKalb C i r c u i t from a c u s t o d y - m o d i f i c a t i o n C o u r t t h a t a w a r d e d D.N.J. ( " t h e 2101079 father") sole child") physical and ordered payments custody t h e mother to the father marriage. the time of the t r i a l was incorporated t o make m o n t h l y child ("the child-support i n t h e amount o f $156.40. The p a r t i e s d i v o r c e d born of t h e i r of the p a r t i e s ' on N o v e m b e r 2, 2 0 0 6 . The c h i l d i n this One c h i l d was i n t h e t h i r d action. into the divorce grade at B y an a g r e e m e n t judgment ("the 2006 of the c h i l d , support payments Following parties three every child-support a or every payment that judgment custody the divorce judgment") to provide The p l e a d i n g s , $269.00. 1 of the child made was d u e . modifying party. child- and t h e f a t h e r days, f a t h e r were e a c h t o s u b m i t t o a d r u g other of joint judgment, t h e a p p e a r s t h a t on J u n e 2 8 , 2 0 0 7 , t h e t r i a l modification the monthly 2, 2 0 0 6 , physical seven making i n t h e amount o f t h e November alternated every It days the father t o t h e mother the entry amicably with that child- c u s t o d y agreement"), t h e mother and t h e f a t h e r e x e r c i s e d custody was court judgment that orders, ("the t h e mother t e s t upon entered and t h e the request and other 2007 of documents The p a r t i e s ' j u d g m e n t o f d i v o r c e i s n o t c o n t a i n e d i n t h e record on a p p e a l , but the p a r t i e s agree regarding the substance of the judgment. 1 2 2101079 relative the to that present proceeding are not included an that answer a filed increase basis h i s income custody an such of the c h i l d . "overnight The father requiring He he asked an had been should be the trial t o pay the mother an o r d e r visitors there that also filed child p r o h i b i t i n g the mother of the opposite s e x t o whom i s not r e l a t e d or married i n the presence of [ t h e c h i l d ] . " The which that o b l i g a t i o n on t h e i n w h i c h he a l l e g e d order of the i n which i t sought increased. t o him and t o e n t e r having on b e h a l f the father i n circumstances sole support she change to enter court had of Alabama, child-support i n the father's material from an a c t i o n a g a i n s t and a c o u n t e r c l a i m awarded of appeal. On J u n e 2 9 , 2 0 1 0 , t h e S t a t e mother, i n the record trial court i t received she entirely when living the a bench t r i a l ore tenus evidence. i s a hairdresser. Although clear, i t appears 2007 from modification judgment she moved o u t o f t h a t and t h e f r i e n d ' s minor on A p r i l 19, 2 0 1 1 , a t The m o t h e r testified the testimony the mother's i n an a p a r t m e n t i n R a i n s v i l l e . judgment, friend held was i s not testimony entered, A f t e r the entry that, she was of that a p a r t m e n t a n d moved i n w i t h son i n Dutton. 3 She t h e n a moved 2101079 with that friend Scottsboro. with son A t some p o i n t , her friend's minor i n a house i n F y f f e took care of 17 That minor son t o a house i n she became r o m a n t i c a l l y son and began that chickens. apartment with was and t h e f r i e n d ' s living with involved the minor t h e m i n o r s o n was u s i n g Later, the mother moved while he into an t h e f r i e n d ' s m i n o r s o n a n d , when t h e m i n o r s o n years o l d , she marriage appears and t h e f r i e n d ' s to have lasted minor son married. approximately three months. In her January 2009, f r i e n d ' s minor where she approximately from s o n , t h e m o t h e r moved i n t o a r e n t a l house until November 23-month p e r i o d , for approximately for more t h a n with a f t e r s h e was d i v o r c e d remained apparently four a year. her father was r e n o v a t e d . while 2011. boyfriend months and a second months. live-in that boyfriend boyfriend I n November 2 0 1 0 , t h e m o t h e r moved i n a house In January At the time with During s h e h a d one l i v e - i n she i n t e n d e d to rent 2 0 1 1 , she moved i n t o h e r r e n t a l h o u s e , w h e r e s h e was l i v i n g April 2010. The m o t h e r a d m i t t e d that 4 father's at the time of the t r i a l i n of the t r i a l , whom s h e h a d b e e n from him she had a d i f f e r e n t i n a r e l a t i o n s h i p f o r four her constant moves w e r e n o t 2101079 good not f o r the think that The or 17 married 8, although she also moves had the father company and 16 child, had an effect he worked testified that he had years. The his present 2007. His modification, wife, he and he filed he the time house the had that out mother not to in child arrangement and testified that he to seek father that that he would not 5 want he June the while that action, 2007 the t h e y were he did the come b a c k He of the the to father to court not until court indicated o b l i g a t i o n and liked on to the mother to custody last time--from something w i t h the did so telephone built. changed b o y f r i e n d s . waited The lived they money his child-support she a since one present p o i n t to increase until that, had did child. reflects moved the the have knew t h e m o t h e r w o u l d f i l e she company f o r t h e his concerns r e l a t i v e did the for testimony his wife counterclaim he on that i s a college professor, wife and pointed that for that indicated his the court his responded every to i t was raise with who testimony a house When worked father's m o b i l e home i n w h i c h he building that testified at t h a t he that some had child. present change i t . custody 2101079 On A p r i l which 21, 2011, the t r i a l i t found circumstances that sole that and there that c o u r t e n t e r e d a judgment i n had i t was been a i n the child's physical custody of father. I t awarded joint legal parties, sole p h y s i c a l custody of the c h i l d visitation to the mother. the material child custody child's health insurance and not covered by insurance educational father's expenses. c h i l d - s u p p o r t payments The judgment visitors the best interest awarded to of the c h i l d The to the father, postjudgment motion, and mother a l lother and expenses f o r the child's t o pay monthly i n t h e amount o f $156.40 to the f a t h e r . both was medical ordered restricted i s in their the to the parties from having overnight o f t h e o p p o s i t e s e x t o whom t h e y a r e n o t r e l a t e d child of The f a t h e r r e m a i n e d r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the the be change r e s p e c t i v e homes. which the t r i a l The mother court denied. The when filed a mother appeals. In 2009), Ex our appropriate parte Blackstock, supreme court to the present 47 set So. out 3d the 80 1 , 804-0 6 ( A l a . standard of review case. "Where, 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 p r i o r judgment awarding j o i n t p h y s i c a l custody, '"the b e s t i n t e r e s t s of the c h i l d " ' s t a n d a r d a p p l i e s i n any subsequent custody-modification proceeding. Ex 6 2101079 parte Johnson, 673 S o . 2 d 4 1 0 , 413 ( A l a . 1994 ) ( q u o t i n g E x p a r t e C o u c h , 521 S o . 2 d 9 8 7 , 989 ( A l a . 1988)). 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 awarding 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 been a m a t e r i a l change o f circumstances s i n c e t h a t j u d g m e n t was e n t e r e d a n d 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 requested. N a v e v . N a v e , 942 S o . 2 d 3 7 2 , 376 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ) ( q u o t i n g M e a n s v . M e a n s , 512 S o . 2 d 1 3 8 6 , 1388 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 1 9 8 7 ) ) . " A l s o , we n o t e accorded to a t r i a l the presumption of c o u r t ' s judgment: correctness "'When t h i s C o u r t r e v i e w s a t r i a l c o u r t ' s c h i l d - c u s t o d y d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t was b a s e d upon evidence presented ore tenus, we presume the t r i a l court's decision i s c o r r e c t : "'A c u s t o d y d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d upon o r a l t e s t i m o n y i s accorded a presumption o f c o r r e c t n e s s on a p p e a l , a n d we w i l l n o t r e v e r s e u n l e s s t h e evidence so fails to support the determination that i t i s plainly and p a l p a b l y w r o n g . . . . ' " E x p a r t e P e r k i n s , 646 So. 2 d 4 6 , 47 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) , q u o t i n g P h i l l i p s v . P h i l l i p s , 622 S o . 2 d 4 1 0 , 412 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1993) (citations omitted). This presumption i s b a s e d on t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s unique p o s i t i o n to d i r e c t l y observe the w i t n e s s e s and t o a s s e s s t h e i r demeanor and credibility. This o p p o r t u n i t y to observe witnesses is especially important in child-custody cases. "In c h i l d custody cases especially, the perception o f an attentive trial judge is of great importance." W i l l i a m s v . W i l l i a m s , 402 So. 2 d 1 0 2 9 , 1032 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 1 9 8 1 ) . ' "Ex p a r t e F a n n , 810 S o . 2 d 6 3 1 , 633 7 ( A l a . 2001). 2101079 "As t h i s C o u r t s t a t e d i n E x p a r t e B r y o w s k y , 676 So. 2 d 1322 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) , q u o t e d i n p a r t i n Lamb [ v . Lamb, 939 S o . 2 d 918 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ) ] , i n a n ore tenus p r o c e e d i n g , "'[t]he t r i a l court i s i n the best p o s i t i o n t o make a c u s t o d y d e t e r m i n a t i o n -- i t h e a r s the evidence and observes t h e w i t n e s s e s . A p p e l l a t e c o u r t s do n o t s i t i n j u d g m e n t o f disputed evidence t h a t was p r e s e n t e d o r e tenus before the t r i a l court i n a custody hearing. S e e E x p a r t e P e r k i n s , 646 S o . 2 d 46, 47 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) , w h e r e i n t h i s Court, q u o t i n g P h i l l i p s v . P h i l l i p s , 622 So. 2d 4 1 0 , 412 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 1 9 9 3 ) , s e t o u t t h e well-established rule: "'"'Our s t a n d a r d of review is very limited i n cases where the evidence i s presented ore tenus. A custody determination of t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d upon oral testimony i s accorded a presumption of correctness on appeal, ... a n d we will not reverse unless the evidence so f a i l s to support the determination that i t i s p l a i n l y and p a l p a b l y w r o n g , o r u n l e s s an abuse of the trial court's discretion i s shown. To s u b s t i t u t e our judgment f o r t h a t of the t r i a l c o u r t w o u l d be t o reweigh the evidence. This Alabama law does n o t a l l o w '"' " 676 S o . 2 d a t 1 3 2 4 ; s e e Lamb, 939 S o . 2 d a t 922 ; s e e a l s o E x p a r t e F o l e y , 864 S o . 2 d 1 0 9 4 , 1 0 9 9 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) ( ' [ A ] n a p p e l l a t e c o u r t may n o t s u b s t i t u t e i t s j u d g m e n t f o r t h a t o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t . To do s o w o u l d be t o r e w e i g h t h e e v i d e n c e , w h i c h A l a b a m a l a w d o e s not a l l o w . ' ( c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) ) . 8 2101079 "'"[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 d r a w n f r o m t h a t e v i d e n c e , a n d to decide the issue of custody."' Ex parte P a t r o n a s , 693 So. 2 d 4 7 3 , 475 ( A l a . 1997) (quoting E x p a r t e B r y o w s k y , 676 So. 2 d a t 1 3 2 6 ) . 'Thus, a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w of a judgment m o d i f y i n g custody 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 to support the t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment.' Cheek v. Dyess, 1 So. 3d 1 0 2 5 , 102 9 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 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 a d d e d ) . Under the ore tenus r u l e , where the c o n c l u s i o n of the trial c o u r t i s so o p p o s e d t o t h e w e i g h t of the evidence t h a t the v a r i a b l e f a c t o r s of a w i t n e s s ' s demeanor and c r e d i b i l i t y and t h e i n f e r e n c e s t h a t can be d r a w n 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 , ' " ' c o u l d not r e a s o n a b l y s u b s t a n t i a t e it, then the c o n c l u s i o n i s c l e a r l y erroneous and m u s t be reversed.'"' Cheek, 1 So. 3d a t 1029 ( q u o t i n g B . J . N . v . P.D., 742 So. 2 d 1 2 7 0 , 1274 ( A l a . Civ. 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. 2 d 2 7 8 , 280 ( A l a . 1979) (emphasis added)). " F u r t h e r , 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 t r i a l c o u r t d o e s n o t make d e t a i l e d w r i t t e n f i n d i n g s o f f a c t , we ' " w i l l a s s u m e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t made those f i n d i n g s [of f a c t ] n e c e s s a r y to support i t s judgment, u n l e s s such findings would be clearly erroneous."' Ex p a r t e Fann, 810 So. 2d at 636 ( q u o t i n g Lemon v . G o l f T e r r a c e O w n e r s A s s ' n , 611 So. 2 d 2 6 3 , 265 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) ) . " The mother contends modifying custody because, a material stated that arrangement. that in he content B e c a u s e we trial court erred in s h e a r g u e s , t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e change was the circumstances with the and because child joint-physical-custody conclude that the p a r t i e s 9 the of shared true 2101079 joint custody consider whether, modification 521 2d of 24, 34 the there had been the p a r t i e s of the c h i l d So. 2d 987, the t r i a l since order, circumstances interests of the c h i l d , 989-90 date such court of was the last a material that 2007). This i n the i n the See E x p a r t e ( A l a . 1988); Morgan v. Morgan, ( A l a . C i v . App. court to custody- change i t was to modify custody. required best Couch, 964 has s t a t e d So. that, "[i]n considering the best i n t e r e s t s of the c h i l d , t h e c o u r t must c o n s i d e r t h e i n d i v i d u a l f a c t s of each case, i n c l u d i n g the f o l l o w i n g f a c t o r s : the sex and age o f t h e c h i l d ; t h e c h i l d ' s e m o t i o n a l , s o c i a l , m o r a l , m a t e r i a l , and e d u c a t i o n a l needs; t h e home environments offered by the p a r t i e s ; the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of those seeking custody, i n c l u d i n g age, character, s t a b i l i t y , and m e n t a l and p h y s i c a l h e a l t h ; t h e c a p a c i t y and i n t e r e s t o f each p a r e n t t o provide f o r the emotional, s o c i a l , moral, m a t e r i a l , and educational needs of the child; the interpersonal r e l a t i o n s h i p between the c h i l d and e a c h p a r e n t ; t h e e f f e c t on t h e c h i l d o f d i s r u p t i n g or continuing an e x i s t i n g c u s t o d i a l s t a t u s ; the p r e f e r e n c e o f t h e c h i l d ; a v a i l a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s ; and any other relevant matter the evidence may disclose." Id. Based trial court on the evidence reasonably of could record, have circumstances such that i t was award physical the father sole found we conclude a material that the change i n i n the c h i l d ' s best i n t e r e s t to 10 custody of the child. The 2101079 evidence reflects that, i n less than four years, the mother moved s e v e n t i m e s ; c o h a b i t a t e d w i t h , m a r r i e d , a n d , a f t e r months, d i v o r c e d a minor; Based on t h i s impact on stability evidence, the such child that three and had m u l t i p l e l i v e - i n b o y f r i e n d s . the t r i a l brought c o u r t was on an a w a r d by the free to infer mother's to the father an lack of sole of physical c u s t o d y was i n t h e c h i l d ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t . Holsombeck v. P a t e , 47 A l a . A p p . 3 9 , 4 2 , 2 4 9 S o . 2 d 8 6 1 , 864 ( C i v . 1971). Watters a case on w h i c h Watters, their child 918 S o . 2 d 913 the mother r e l i e s , the p a r t i e s petition trial v. W a t t e r s , were awarded i n a d i v o r c e judgment. joint physical Later, granted. On appeal, this court at 916. evidence i n d i c a t i n g However, we noted that a n y t h i n g more t h a n a tangential the judgment. trial court's 11 the " s h e h a [ d ] r e m a r r i e d ... ; concluded "those changes a which the [ w a s ] no l o n g e r e m p l o y e d ; a n d s h e [ w a s ] now r e s i d i n g 2d of the mother f i l e d l a r g e house i n a n i c e r e s i d e n t i a l neighborhood." So. In custody seeking sole p h y s i c a l custody of the c h i l d , court 2005), i s not to the c o n t r a r y . mother's c i r c u m s t a n c e s had changed: she ( A l a . C i v . App. that in a Watters, there was 918 no [had] a f f e c t e d t h e c h i l d i n way." Id. T h u s , we r e v e r s e d 2101079 The changes in Watters, involving a remarriage s i n g l e move b y t h e m o t h e r t o a n i c e r h o u s e , p a l e i n to those at i s s u e that any type i n the present case. of impact, positive c o u l d have been i n f e r r e d Watters. Under however, involving call into child the serious an doubt, impact relocations The and that ever changing would and require evidence of a s e r i o u s have this p a r t e Couch c o u r t has changes changes themselves. So. 2d at 864. have been w i t h i n can We c o u r t was the mother's Watters the to case that on a child held that be direct on b y brought i s not broader changed there court could modify This a custody the law. inferred from the Holsombeck, 47 A l a . App. the of such the t r i a l free and constant in impact See find trial to provide an be case, housemates. standard. material the read impact previously present ability every in appropriately to the v e r y heart of, us circumstances before a t r i a l Ex the from child way changes d e s c r i b e d i n in the mother's the fashion the go environment, on mother the s l i g h t a comparison i s s i m p l y no or n e g a t i v e , circumstances changes with a stable infer from There and drawing on at by of the 42, 249 i n f e r e n c e to c o u r t ' s p r e r o g a t i v e i n the 12 Indeed, a child nature an under present 2101079 case, be given that stability considered with See Morgan, In this her case 964 So. 2d at to carry she her 34. the an best important factor interests of the the t r i a l a child. mother attempts to paint court i s depriving her on p o s t d i v o r c e r o m a n t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p s , constitutional to 2 briefs, i n which her r i g h t cites regard to appellate as one is plainly rights to marry of and and p r o c r e a t e . I n h i s d i s s e n t , Judge Moore a r g u e s t h a t d i r e c t e v i d e n c e o f a d e t r i m e n t a l e f f e c t on t h e c h i l d b y m a t e r i a l c h a n g e s i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s must be s h o w n . Our supreme c o u r t has l i m i t e d s u c h a r e q u i r e m e n t t o c a s e s i n w h i c h a change o f c u s t o d y i s s o u g h t b a s e d s o l e l y on h e t e r o s e x u a l m i s c o n d u c t by a p a r e n t . See Ex p a r t e J.M.F., 730 So.2d 1190, 1194 ( A l a . 1998). Although the evidence supports a f i n d i n g of i n d i s c r e e t conduct by t h e m o t h e r we do n o t a f f i r m t h e change o f c u s t o d y i n t h i s c a s e s o l e l y on t h e b a s i s o f " h e t e r o s e x u a l m i s c o n d u c t " by t h e mother but, rather, on the t o t a l i t y of the evidence p r e s e n t e d , i n c l u d i n g , most i m p o r t a n t l y , t h e m o t h e r ' s p e r v a s i v e and o n g o i n g l a c k o f s t a b i l i t y and h e r c o n s t a n t l y c h a n g i n g r e s i d e n t i a l a r r a n g e m e n t s . M o r e o v e r , we n o t e t h a t t h e c a s e s on w h i c h Judge Moore r e l i e s i n s u p p o r t o f h i s a r g u m e n t , Rey v. Rey, 513 So. 2d 1 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 6 ) , and J u d a h v. G i l m o r e , 804 So. 2d 1092 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 0 ) , i n v o l v e s i t u a t i o n s t h a t a r e so e n t i r e l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m t h e f a c t s i n t h i s c a s e as t o p r o v i d e no r e a l b a s i s f o r t h e a d o p t i o n o f t h e b r o a d e r p r o p o s i t i o n a s s e r t e d by Judge Moore. Rey i n v o l v e d n o t h i n g more t h a n a s i n g l e move by a c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t ; J u d a h i n v o l v e d n o t h i n g more t h a n a s i n g l e , t e m p o r a r y move by a c u s t o d i a l parent. F u r t h e r m o r e , b o t h o f t h o s e c a s e s were d e c i d e d u n d e r t h e s t a n d a r d s e t f o r t h i n Ex p a r t e McLendon, 455 So. 2d 863 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) , a p p l i c a b l e t o p r i o r c u s t o d y awards t h a t f a v o r one o f t h e p a r e n t s , n o t u n d e r t h e s t a n d a r d s e t f o r t h i n Ex p a r t e Couch t h a t i s a p p l i c a b l e i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e . 2 13 2101079 Clearly, Without that the the evidence reciting does demonstrates m o t h e r d a t e d a f e w men judgment mother's housing support a l l the evidence, the evidence poor not and personal a contention. i t i s sufficient to note than s u b s t a n t i a l l y more that a f t e r her d i v o r c e ; i t demonstrates substantial lack of relationships, a lack arrangements, this and a l a c k stability i n the of s t a b i l i t y of s t a b i l i t y i n her i n her living arrangements. The give mother also appropriate argues weight joint-physical-custody recognize, as that to the c h i l d ' s arrangement the mother points c h i l d who i s o f a s u f f i c i e n t in deciding Civ. App. number are in the 2006), a trial court concluding other parties' that factors relative cannot the wishes the t r i a l stability failed to t o "much to say that weight" and t h e c h i l d ' s the t r i a l of the c h i l d 14 we of a consider 947 S o . 2 d a t 4 2 2 . a n d home the Although the wishes i s required court keep to 947 S o . 2 d 4 1 6 , 422 ( A l a . supra, see T o l e r , c a s e , we i n place. age a r e e n t i t l e d of f a c t o r s , see Morgan, of this court desire out, that c u s t o d y , T o l e r v. T o l e r , not d i s p o s i t i v e , facts the t r i a l life. wishes Given the court d i d not considered, a such erred outweigh as t h e 2101079 The m o t h e r a l s o or choose parte in not to follow Couch, supra, Ex p a r t e contends applying, McLendon, are bound by supreme 1 9 7 5 , we find the this appellate court's court final the c h i l d ' s only at 804. The As a r e s u l t , it and awarded best We that this court and she n o t e s t h a t so as t o p r e s e r v e note that i s bound she has raised the argument f o r need f i n d that and t h a t interest. evidence Couch s t a n d a r d the t r i a l there has been a m a t e r i a l Ex p a r t e supports judgment 15 court, to a m o d i f i c a t i o n of custody i s such sole p h y s i c a l custody court's provides case, Blackstock, a finding we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e t r i a l the t r i a l we review. change i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s in i n Ex Because argument. recognizes i n a c a s e s u c h as t h e p r e s e n t modify custody, overrule decision ( A l a . 1984). As p r e v i o u s l y n o t e d , t h e Ex p a r t e that, should instead, the r a t i o n a l e set f o r t h in this precedent, argument i n t h i s further supreme court c o u r t p r e c e d e n t , see § 12-3-16, A l a . Code no m e r i t court this 455 S o . 2 d 863 the mother, i n her b r i e f s , by supreme that court in this 3d case. d i d n o t e r r when of the c h i l d i s therefore 47 S o . to the f a t h e r , affirmed. 2101079 AFFIRMED. Pittman, Bryan, J . , concurs. J . , concurs Thomas a n d M o o r e , specially. J J . ,dissent, 16 with writings. 2101079 BRYAN, Judge, concurring I concur i n t h e main note that 730 the main o p i n i o n . Supreme Court. Carlton, 8 67 2d Court Civil have So. Supreme Court, specially i n Ex p a r t e as s e t f o r t h 3 2 0 , 325 Farm Mut. A u t o . ( A l a . C i v . App. i s bound by no a u t h o r i t y t o o v e r r u l e that 17 court's 2 of of the I n s . Co. v . 2 0 0 1 ) ("[The the decisions s e e § 1 2 - 3 - 1 6 , A l a . Code to J.M.F., i n note I am b o u n d b y t h e d e c i s i o n s See S t a t e Appeals] but I write the holding ( A l a . 1998), However, Alabama Alabama opinion, I do n o t a g r e e w i t h S o . 2 d 1 1 9 0 , 1194 of specially. of the 1 9 7 5 , a n d we decisions."). 2101079 THOMAS, J u d g e , dissenting. I respectfully dissent. lead me trial My r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d to the determination court that supports i t sconclusion the evidence joint-custody arrangement, requires us was 30-3-150. could 3 have favor, "inferred" proof to the t r i a l affecting The the best majority that court i n this D.N.J. of t h i s 3 i n circumstances had o f f e r e d that court reads the father of a material court properly i n i t s entirety: " J o i n t Custody. I t i s the p o l i c y of t h i s state to assure t h a t minor c h i l d r e n have f r e q u e n t and c o n t i n u i n g c o n t a c t w i t h p a r e n t s who h a v e shown t h e ability to a c t i n the best interest of their children and t o encourage p a r e n t s t o share i n t h e rights and responsibilities of rearing their children after the parents have separated or d i s s o l v e d t h e i r marriage. Joint c u s t o d y does n o t n e c e s s a r i l y mean e q u a l p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y . " 18 court of the child. the t r i a l A l a b a m a Code 1975, § 3 0 - 3 - 1 5 0 , 1975, § case, the t r i a l i s convinced and t h a t legislature A l a . Code presented s u f f i c i e n t evidence to the t r i a l change the change o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s and w e l f a r e court our ("the f a t h e r " ) of a material interest which warranted. I do n o t a g r e e t h a t , before that a modification ofthe parties' to does n o t 2101079 inferred t h a t t h a t change i n circumstances interest and the unconvinced effect of welfare the such trial on t h e b e s t the u t t e r of lack child. court interest could affected However, have I rightly the best am inferred and w e l f a r e o f t h e c h i l d of evidence from which wholly an in light i t c o u l d have made an i n f e r e n c e . The m a j o r i t y h a s r e l i e d App. 3 9 , 249 S o . 2 d 861 a trial finds court i s "free a material The testimony best interest pales Holsombeck v. P a t e , ( C i v . 1971), to i n f e r " change an an i m p a c t "impact," Unlike inferred effects the in this on a c h i l d in that when i t 3d a t effect . upon i n the present effects changes So. o r an and w e l f a r e o f t h e c h i l d , to the i n f e r r e d 47 A l a . f o r the p r o p o s i t i o n i n circumstances. indicating i n comparison Holsombeck. upon the case, upon t h e c h i l d i n circumstances and the c a s e , t h e m a t e r i a l changes upon which t h e H o l s o m b e c k c o u r t h a d p e r m i t t e d an i n f e r r e d e f f e c t upon t h e child (2) had p r e s e n t e d (1) a r i s k a continuing effect In child Holsombeck, ("the children son") at the time a trial to to the father to the l i f e the of the c o u r t had mother and i n the p a r t i e s ' 19 of the c h i l d and trial. awarded custody custody of of two d i v o r c e judgment. one other The 2101079 father sought Testimony had modification revealed that, married peace a and a man who soon did quietude." 47 following "difficulty" with visitation to So. 2d a t 863. his court father. 47 after "not that The the trial A l a . App. custody the enjoy A l a . App. Immediately 249 of at of the son. d i v o r c e , the a good 40, reputation for 249 marriage, So. the exchanges. 2d at 862. parents had at 42, c o u r t awarded custody of the son at 862. 41, 249 47 mother So. A l a . App. 2d at This said: "Perhaps the evidence as to one change of c i r c u m s t a n c e s c o u l d n o t be c o n s i d e r e d t o m a t e r i a l l y a f f e c t t h e w e l f a r e and b e s t i n t e r e s t o f [ t h e s o n ] , but we think t h e r e was evidence and reasonable i n f e r e n c e s t o be d r a w n t h e r e f r o m o f m o r e t h a n one change of c i r c u m s t a n c e and conditions materially a f f e c t i n g t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t and w e l l - b e i n g o f [ t h e son]." 47 A l a . App. at 41-42, 249 So. 2d at 863.(emphasis This c o u r t l i s t e d the evidence p r e s e n t e d to the t r i a l changes i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h a t had reasonable an interest i n f e r e n c e of of the son. effect (3) violence, the birth upon the t o a man who welfare had a half sibling, 20 and (4) and were best (1) a reputation (2) t h e m o t h e r ' s c o n t i n u i n g c h a n g e s i n of c o u r t of court to i t s Those changes i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s the mother's c o n t i n u i n g marriage for led that t r i a l added). the address, parents' 2101079 conflicts "firing the in at v i s i t a t i o n exchanges t h a t had c u l m i n a t e d o f guns and threats s o n . 47 A l a . A p p . Holsombeck, change the of v i o l e n c e " a t 4 2 , 249 son had So. i n the presence 2d a t 863. expressed too f a r i n i n f e r r i n g the evidence p r e s e n t e d circumstances] welfare of parents against upon forgotten] the "so as and t h e i r we stated of such between divorce than club acts parents during have their personal to exercise actions punish belief i s permanent and We that feelings them, they emotions ha[d] said that the t h e c h i l d r e n [had one that harm damaging cohabitation." Id. 21 the discerned Id. i s more adversely So. 2d a t 864. p r i v i l e g e s with a [the changes i n affected efforts to although must with involved." a had not a t 4 2 , 249 court imbued and v i s i t a t i o n abused Conflict 47 A l a . A p p . the e f f e c t t h e i r children consequence materially the t r i a l one a n o t h e r , Furthermore, after have that were "[c]ustodial been] to court an e f f e c t on t h e s o n h a d n o t " d i r e c t l y shown [the son]." determined [had for a i n h i s custody. Id. "strayed" the of Furthermore, h i s preference I n H o l s o m b e c k , we d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e t r i a l We with the another." "[t]he Id. primary to the c h i l d r e n . to the children 2101079 In the case "strayed" best a t hand, I believe too f a ri n i n f e r r i n g i n t e r e s t of the c h i l d . that court has an e f f e c t upon t h e w e l f a r e and D.M.J. the t r i a l ("the m o t h e r " ) testified c o n c e r n i n g what t h e main o p i n i o n has c a l l e d h e r " i n s t a b i l i t y . " I might agree w i t h and w i t h the majority, had m o v e d t o o many t i m e s a n d t h a t for the c h i l d , with a pattern year, 23 that, beginning rental unlike father, house, i n January 2009. she r e s i d e d owned she had a l r e a d y That in for by h e r f a t h e r . settled into a Finally, t h e s o n i n H o l s o m b e c k , who d e s i r e d i n this I am m i n d f u l case i f given the joint-custody agree w i t h c r e d i t t h e mother She moved b e c a u s e t h e owner o f t h e h o u s e h a d s o l d 4 c o n t e n t and t h a t , in the majority, At the time of the t r i a l , second his of s t a b i l i t y t h o s e moves were n o t " g o o d " t h e mother began r e n t i n g a house t h a t months. it. yet I, unlike t h e mother, t h a t she the c h i l d a choice, testified I note to live with that he w o u l d p r e f e r he i s to remain arrangement. of the ore tenus standard; the majority of this court that however, I cannot the t r i a l court's The mother t e s t i f i e d that she h a d h a d 2 live-in b o y f r i e n d s d u r i n g 16 o f t h e 23 months t h a t she h a d l i v e d i n t h a t r e n t a l house. The m a j o r i t y c h a r a c t e r i z e s two l i v e - i n b o y f r i e n d s as " m u l t i p l e l i v e - i n b o y f r i e n d s . " So. 3d a t 4 22 2101079 judgment is custody, triggering interest standard, So. 2d due 987, prove that since that to be affirmed. the trial The court's there w h i c h was explained The had been judgment was i n Ex father a material entered shared joint of best- p r o p e r use (Ala. 1988). 989 parties parte had change and Couch, the of that the 521 burden circumstances " ' i t [is] in [ c h i l d ' s ] b e s t i n t e r e s t s t h a t the Nave 376 the [ j u d g m e n t ] be m o d i f i e d v. Nave, 942 (quoting Means v. 1987)). A trial did not, the standard, this findings finding Smith, support affected specific of court will the 3d that its the 100, the evidence that interest I conclude t h a t the custody the child to that (Ala. Civ. therefore, of so, evidence before inference best to, of the the and Civ. 1388 in the but 23 App. case, ore tenus court made only i f those Marsh v. 2011). trial mother's court fails lifestyle of the d e c i s i o n to award s o l e father 2005) judgment trial. App. welfare its trial at the App. in this under the '" (Ala. Civ. and, fact i t s judgment, 105-06 the 1386, child, presume by (Ala. required support So. 2d findings supported are So. i s not would I believe to 372, M e a n s , 512 custody that 67 2d court provide modifying So. to is "'plainly and has child; physical palpably 2101079 wrong Ex 1994)(quoting Civ. App. Phillips 1993)). presented to my I any have court regarding welfare of failed of to the the child. 4 6, 47 (Ala. 2d 410, 412 (Ala. reweighed disputed my I have trial opinion, i n t e r e s t and welfare of the for because, discovered court best the no interest father failed to c o u l d have or even i n f e r r e d , t h a t t h e m o t h e r ' s l i f e s t y l e had best opinion t o r e w e i g h or upon w h i c h t o c a r r y h i s b u r d e n b e c a u s e he evidence from which the evidence evidence, e f f e c t upon the In the s u b s t i t u t e d my court an 2d So. record, trial judgment of the nor So. 622 neither court c a r e f u l review 646 Phillips, trial t o s u b s t i t u t e my simply v. the evidence presented and Perkins, trial t h a t of the after parte has present determined, affected the child. Furthermore, I b e l i e v e that today's d e c i s i o n i s i n d i r e c t conflict with supreme court. Civ. App. former In 2005), acknowledged that decisions Watters v. of this Watters, we cited Ex parte this court should 918 court So. Couch, and 2d of 913 (Ala. supra, and not " u n d e r c u t o u r s u p r e m e c o u r t ' s p r o n o u n c e m e n t t h a t we are to encourage parents to work t o g e t h e r f o r the b e n e f i t o f t h e f a m i l y , s e e Ex p a r t e C o u c h , 521 So. 2d a t 990, a n d t h e r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t a p a r t y seeking a m o d i f i c a t i o n of c u s t o d y prove a m a t e r i a l change of circumstances affecting the best interest and 24 our 2101079 w e l f a r e of the c h i l d t h a t w a r r a n t s a m o d i f i c a t i o n of c u s t o d y . P o n d e r [ v . P o n d e r ] , 50 A l a . A p p . [27,] 30, 276 So. 2d [ 6 1 3 , ] 615 [(Civ. 1973)]." 918 So. 2d The main Watters; its at (emphasis opinion however, legal court's 917 has I do easily not conclusions. modification of In agreed joint-custody to circumstances the that Id. The Watters effect upon the best mother testified that the she that had evidence to she of a a interest and improved stay a change was could facts a trial modification not had the situation moved i n t o a n i c e r house. presented, we reversed, -- Id. at of a an the she had child, and 915. Despite saying: "The c h i l d a p p e a r s , b a s e d on a l l t h e e v i d e n c e o f r e c o r d , t o be h a p p y a n d w e l l - a d j u s t e d . The changes i n h i s mother's l i f e have e x i s t e d s i n c e J u l y 2003. No evidence r e v e a l s that those changes, although p o s i t i v e i n n a t u r e , have a f f e c t e d the w e l f a r e and b e s t i n t e r e s t o f t h e c h i l d t o s u c h an e x t e n t t h a t a change i n c u s t o d y i s w a r r a n t e d . " 25 of infer child; that the an provided to the home w i t h of custody of our change required welfare at not material in in distinguished reversed arrangement court the arrangement b a s e d upon court her i t has we seeking warranted child. remarried, party trial that Watters, a custody that evidence distinguished believe determination upon, the added). 2101079 Id. at 917 In (footnote omitted). this case i t also appears t h a t the child i s happy w e l l - a d j u s t e d , based on t h e t e s t i m o n y p r o v i d e d b y the child. father, feels and loved Watters, we Id. at and is loved reiterated establish affected the that the [the child by that i s apparent the mother "the changes the i n a n y t h i n g more Watters, the the change i n c u s t o d y , t o p r o b l e m s she had testimony specific In was mother the at than a the child father. trial mother's In did not life had] tangential way." this i n that case, " n o t i c e d " ; h o w e v e r , we unconvincing because trial c a s e , t h e f a t h e r has child has been the best court. had 5 seeking "thought" not Id. at and t h a t her offered 915. offered only his perceptions affected interest party determined she by the the f a t h e r does not t e s t i f y to a s i n g l e upon the t e s t i f i e d as t o what she e x p l a n a t i o n s to the the effect and testimony in that mother, 916. In that It the and and mother's lifestyle; c o n c r e t e example of welfare of the child. an My T h i s c o u r t a l s o r e l i e d on W a t t e r s i n K i l g o r e v. K i l g o r e , [Ms. 2 1 0 0 9 5 1 , J a n . 20, 2012] So. 3d , (Ala. Civ. App. 2 0 1 2 ) ; i n K i l g o r e , we d e t e r m i n e d t h a t a p a r e n t ' s g e n e r a l t e s t i m o n y t h a t a j o i n t - c u s t o d y a r r a n g e m e n t i s " h a r d " on a c h i l d , w i t h o u t a more s p e c i f i c e x p l a n a t i o n , i s " s p e c u l a t i v e a t b e s t " and d o e s n o t i n d i c a t e an e f f e c t upon t h e c h i l d . 5 26 2101079 search of the record tangential interest In court effect, much and w e l f a r e addition, has to circumstances less to yield a direct to the extent the effect, that i t s belief upon trial court of there a material on t h e b e s t c o u l d be i n f e r r e d , this supreme court. The f o l l o w i n g o p i n i o n s of was change of interest and c o u r t may a l s o b e c o u r t and do n o t s u p p o r t m a j o r i t y ' s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t i t was i n t h e c h i l d ' s b e s t to modify mother the parties' was u n s t a b l e due t o h e r c h a n g e s 5 1 3 S o . 2 d 1, trial c o u r t ' s judgment d e t e r m i n i n g 1-2 i n residence. ( A l a . C i v . App. 1986) ( A l a . C i v . App. 2000) 469 S o . 2 d 642 mere change i n r e s i d e n c e in custody); Rey v. s u d d e n move Judah v. Gilmore, (quoting 804 Patchett v. ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 19 8 5 ) ) ( n o t i n g t h a t a does n o t n e c e s s a r i l y j u s t i f y a n d C.M.M. v . C i v . App. 2 0 0 7 ) ( n o t i n g interest (reversing a that a parent's to another s t a t e r e f l e c t e d i n s t a b i l i t y ) ; Patchett, the j o i n t - c u s t o d y arrangement because the Rey, So. 2d 1 0 9 2 , 1097 this evidence in d i r e c t c o n f l i c t with a d d i t i o n a l decisions of t h i s our of a the best the majority that f r o m w h i c h an e f f e c t of the c h i l d an i n f e r e n c e of the c h i l d . expressed presented welfare has f a i l e d S.F., that past 27 975 S o . 2 d a change 9 7 5 , 980 ( A l a . i n s t a b i l i t y was insufficient 2101079 to deny been a parent stable In of custody of a f o r a p e r i o d at time conclusion, this law court requires child of the should -- in a when the parent trial). have 6 r e q u i r e d what believe Alabama action, a p a r t y must p r o v i d e n o t an i n f e r e n c e b u t e v i d e n c e custody welfare of a c h i l d . Therefore, I I modification 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 a f f e c t i n g the b e s t and had of interest dissent. T h e o p i n i o n s l i s t e d r e v i e w e d c h a n g e s o f c u s t o d y and were s u b j e c t t o t h e h e i g h t e n e d McLendon s t a n d a r d , w h i c h r e q u i r e s p r o o f t h a t a change o f c u s t o d y w i l l m a t e r i a l l y p r o m o t e t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t o f t h e c h i l d , Ex p a r t e McLendon, 455 So. 2d 863 (Ala. 1984). However, t h e McLendon s t a n d a r d a l s o r e q u i r e s a p a r t y seeking a m o d i f i c a t i o n of custody to f i r s t prove 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 p r o m p t i n g t h e n e e d f o r a change i n t h e e x i s t i n g c u s t o d y a r r a n g e m e n t . 6 28 2101079 MOORE, J u d g e , d i s s e n t i n g . Once the a trial court physical-custody has entered arrangement a judgment for a child, establishing that judgment " i s c o n c l u s i v e o f t h e i n t e r e s t o f t h e c h i l d and t h e r i g h t s o f t h e p a r e n t s , so l o n g a s t h e s t a t u s a t t h e time of the decree remains w i t h o u t m a t e r i a l change, or unless pertinent facts existing, but not disclosed, at the time of the f i n a l decree are brought to l i g h t . " Messick v. Messick, (1954). A change under Alabama best Ford, 293 Ponder (Civ. of Ala. the Ponder, change child 744, 50 142 , 144 , circumstances i f that A l a . 743, v. or 310 Ala. our order So. 2d i s considered "'affect[s] the 547 , 234, 235 27 , App. 2d 30 , 27 6 welfare 2d and Ford (1975) So. 54 9 "material" children involved.'" So. supreme c o u r t has t o be h a v e t o be c l a r i f i e d on r e p e a t e d m a t e r i a l , the v. (quoting 613, 615 adverse to the best 53 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) ; Ex p a r t e M c L e n d o n , 455 v. Nevertheless, alleged Ford, our 293 See interests a beneficial Ford change. heterosexual Ex Ala. supreme occasions, change of c i r c u m s t a n c e s be and 73 1973)). As in of law interests 261 parte at court misconduct 29 by Murphy, So. 744 , has of the 2d 310 also a parent does not but may 2d 51, child, 670 So. 8 63, 866 So. 2d (1 9 8 4 ) ; at 235. recognized that will not justify 2101079 a change o f c u s t o d y i n t h e absence o f e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the misconduct J.M.F., 730 D.N.J. So. 2d 11 90 , ("the f a t h e r " ) engaging with has d e t r i m e n t a l l y a f f e c t e d t h e c h i l d . i n multiple child. case, ("the m o t h e r " ) f o r relationships i n the presence her conduct and cohabiting of the c h i l d . The may n o t be g o o d f o r e f f e c t the mother's conduct Consequently, evidentiary basis alleged D.M.J In t h i s parte however, t h e f a t h e r d i d n o t p r e s e n t any e v i d e n c e o f any a c t u a l d e t r i m e n t a l the romantic also hypothesized that the c h i l d ; ( A l a . 1 998 ) . criticized her romantic partners father 1194 Ex unstable the t r i a l court h a d h a d on d i d n o t have f o r m o d i f y i n g custody based any on t h e m o t h e r ' s romantic r e l a t i o n s h i p s . The f a t h e r a l s o p r e s e n t e d no 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 child had been d e t r i m e n t a l l y residence prior changes since a f f e c t e d by t h e mother's the p a r t i e s ' divorce. caselaw has not e x p l i c i t l y s t a t e d required, numerous cases have at least that a judgment modifying rejected Mr. Rey's residence r e f l e c t e d i n s t a b i l i t y that argument 30 the that implied custody Mrs. Although our such evidence i s R e y v . R e y , 513 S o . 2 d 1 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 1 9 8 6 ) , reversing various as much. this of Rey's was a d v e r s e l y In court, i n a child, change in affecting 2101079 the w e l f a r e and Gilmore, 804 reversing best So. interests 2d 1092 of their child. ( A l a . C i v . App. 2000), a judgment m o d i f y i n g custody, noted p a r e n t had not proven on a temporary of the any In that v. court, this Judah in the a d v e r s e e f f e c t on t h e c h i l d r e n change i n t h e i r nonmoving p a r e n t . r e s i d e n c y w h i l e i n the 804 So. 2d at 1097. On instability in light on t h e c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t ' s of additional e m o t i o n a l , or developmental w h o s e c u s t o d y was 51 ( A l a . 1 995); App. 2008); and problems at issue. Pitts v. T a f t v. See Priest, Taft, 553 Ex evidence So. 2d of behavioral, 1157 to require children 670 917 2d other residential p a r t e Murphy, So. custody judgments f o r the c h i l d or 990 based the hand, t h i s c o u r t and our supreme c o u r t have a f f i r m e d modifying custody based moving So. 2d (Ala. Civ. (Ala. Civ. App. 1989). Additionally, detrimental sexual effect b e h a v i o r , but residential morals in not instability. logic cases involving t o do In so the i n cases former moral line of i n every 31 case so of a indiscreet involving alleged cases, yet the s t a t e have r e c o g n i z e d t h a t a t r i a l endangerment proof alleged of the d e v e l o p i n g c h i l d are at i s s u e , c o u r t s of t h i s infer i t defies appellate court the burden the cannot remains 2101079 on the noncustodial detrimental effect. the stability the morals a to present actual In the h i e r a r c h y of a c h i l d . residential Likewise, development instability evidence of j u d i c i a l o f a c h i l d does n o t h o l d g r e a t e r child's healthy the parent of a concerns, importance than i t c a n n o t be i n f e r r e d that i s automatically threatened by of h i s or her c u s t o d i a l parent; i f t h a t was t h e c a s e , t h e c o u r t s w o u l d h a v e t o d e n y p e t i t i o n s f o r custody filed relocation, inferences such could instability, parent this made this third also case, clearly far from constant i f such fact of b u r d e n on a residential noncustodial of a detrimental e f f e c t as i n cases involving undoubtedly proved alleged behavior. moved father and had l i v e d since proved relationship. no g r e a t requires the parties less t h e mere require Moreover, personnel. actual evidence indiscreet with child be explicitly mother had o f t e n moved as m i l i t a r y to present sexually whose p r o f e s s i o n s i twould place court In by p a r e n t s and had experienced the p a r t i e s that, had However, i n varying during engaged the father in only The period, one d i d not prove any d i f f i c u l t i e s 32 same while the arrangements divorced. that that father he had romantic that i n the the former 2101079 joint-custody arrangement arrangements, much his natural less as a r e s u l t that those development. The the t r i a l arrangements majority concludes that indicating that the mother's unstable harmed t h e c h i l d , have i n f e r r e d Ala. court had but i tmaintains . her dissent, and the reasoning by maintain. living stunted likewise before the t r i a l court could that before the child Holsombeck court i s anything court and which on t h e r e c o r d evidentiary basis respectfully dissent. before contains other f o r modifying 33 custody. inapposite no than the c h i l d this Thomas i n unpersuasive. under the custody arrangement the t r i a l Based this 47 So. 3d by Judge opinion i t arrangements had (Civ. 1971). , I find of the majority c h i l d who i s t h r i v i n g chosen opinion evidence as a s s e r t e d So. 3d a t record indicating had living s u c h an i m p a c t , b a s e d on H o l s o m b e c k v . P a t e , F o r t h e same r e a s o n s The no that A p p . 3 9 , 4 2 , 2 4 9 S o . 2 d 8 6 1 , 864 at of the mother's evidence a normal originally desires to I find no Therefore, I court,

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.