C.W.S. v. C.M.P.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 6/22/12 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 Reporter o f Decisions, 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 2110260 C.W.S. v. C.M.P. Appeal from Baldwin J u v e n i l e Court (CS-11-900266) BRYAN, J u d g e . C.W.S. ("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 e n t e r e d b y the Baldwin adjudicated C.M.P. Juvenile Court ("the j u v e n i l e h i m t h e f a t h e r o f C.L.S. court") ("the c h i l d " ) , ("the m o t h e r " ) s o l e c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d , that awarded awarded t h e 2110260 father supervised f a t h e r t o pay v i s i t a t i o n with $1,066 a month i n c h i l d Procedural On the J u l y 5, 2011, CS-11-900266. had never The married, child, that she child, and that was the and support. and the the t h a t a c t i o n was father was proper party father the History m o t h e r a l l e g e d t h a t she that ordered 1 the mother f i l e d a p e t i t i o n the p a t e r n i t y of the c h i l d , no. child, should be the to e s t a b l i s h assigned and the father of the t o have c u s t o d y o f the ordered father case to pay child A l t h o u g h t h e f a t h e r ' s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l i n d i c a t e s t h a t he a p p e a l e d a j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d by t h e B a l d w i n C i r c u i t C o u r t , we note t h a t the mother's p e t i t i o n was properly filed and d o c k e t e d w i t h t h e B a l d w i n J u v e n i l e C o u r t . See § 12-151 1 5 ( a ) ( 6 ) , A l a . Code 1975. T h e r e i s no i n d i c a t i o n i n t h e r e c o r d t h a t t h i s a c t i o n was t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e B a l d w i n C i r c u i t C o u r t . M o r e o v e r , a c a s e d e s i g n a t e d w i t h a "CS" c a s e number i s considered a j u v e n i l e - c o u r t a c t i o n , whether i t i s f i l e d i n a j u v e n i l e c o u r t o r i n a c i r c u i t c o u r t . See H.J.T. v. S t a t e ex r e l . M.S.M., 34 So. 3d 1276, 1278-79 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009). 1 We n o t e t h a t t h e p a r t i e s , a t t h e s t a r t o f t h e o r e t e n u s p r o c e e d i n g , a t t e m p t e d t o w a i v e any j u r i s d i c t i o n a l d e f e c t t h a t m i g h t e x i s t b e c a u s e t h e p a t e r n i t y a c t i o n was f i l e d as a j u v e n i l e "CS" c a s e , i n s t e a d o f a "DR" case i n the c i r c u i t court. E v e n i f t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t had l a c k e d subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e p a t e r n i t y a c t i o n , and we c o n c l u d e t h a t i t d i d n o t , n e i t h e r t h e p a r t i e s n o r t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t had t h e a b i l i t y t o w a i v e s u c h a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l d e f e c t . See J.T. v. A.C., 892 So. 2d 928, 931 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2004) (quoting C . J . L . v. M.W.B., 868 So. 2d 451, 453 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 3 ) ) ("'[S]ubject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n may n o t be w a i v e d . . . . ' " ) . 2 2110260 support. The mother f u r t h e r a l l e g e d t h a t the w i t h her u n t i l the t h a t the f a t h e r took the f a t h e r had refused d a t e , the mother f i l e d order seeking 2011, the c h i l d on J u l y 1, to r e t u r n the child. an e m e r g e n c y p e t i t i o n immediate juvenile c h i l d had custody court of 2011, On child. an order and the f o r an ex the entered lived On same parte July granting 6, the m o t h e r ' s r e q u e s t f o r ex p a r t e custody of the child. On 7, amended i t s ex parte order to assist the mother in 2011, order the the sheriff's obtaining and then an father The October court department custody of the p e t i t i o n , and The juvenile amended he child. answer, requested j o i n t 2011. The to a d m i t t e d t h a t he juvenile 4, to court On the November an 2, mutually tenus the on court father child. a g r e e d upon by supervised hearing juvenile the that f a t h e r as "shall [ p ] a r t i e s and by someone the [mother] 3 occur at i t shall p u b l i c p l a c e d u r i n g d a y l i g h t h o u r s o n l y and t h e be child. the awarded v i s i t a t i o n the paternity child. ore 2011, answer, awarded the mother s o l e c u s t o d y of the o f t h e c h i l d and f a t h e r was an f a t h e r of the custody of the conducted filed mother's i s the e n t e r e d a judgment t h a t a d j u d i c a t e d The father July be [father] approves of." times in a shall The 2110260 f a t h e r was o r d e r e d t o p a y $1,066 a month i n c h i l d s u p p o r t , and t h a t a w a r d was made r e t r o a c t i v e t o J u l y 7, 2011. court determined the f a t h e r ' s child-support The juvenile a r r e a r a g e t o be $3,864. On a timely p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n a r g u i n g t h a t t h e amount o f c h i l d support he was Jud. of November 10, o r d e r e d t o pay 2011, the father d i d not comply filed w i t h R u l e 32, A l a . R. A d m i n . ; t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t s h o u l d m o d i f y t h e amount retroactive child s u p p o r t due t o t h e i m p r o p e r calculation o f h i s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n ; t h a t t h e award o f v i s i t a t i o n was contrary to the evidence presented; and that, at minimum, he s h o u l d have b e e n a w a r d e d visitation. The j u v e n i l e c o u r t p u r p o r t e d t o deny t h e f a t h e r ' s postjudgment m o t i o n on November 29, father h i s postjudgment filed s t a n d a r d "Schedule a 2011, motion. 19 d a y s A" after the However, b e c a u s e the R u l e s o f J u v e n i l e P r o c e d u r e a p p l y i n t h i s c a s e , see H.J.T. v. S t a t e ex r e l . M.S.M., 34 So. 3d 1276, 1278-79 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009), motion the father's postjudgment was denied by o p e r a t i o n o f l a w on November 24, 2011, i . e . , 14 d a y s a f t e r h i s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n was ("A p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n filed. See R u l e 1 ( B ) , A l a . R. J u v . P. [ i n a j u v e n i l e p r o c e e d i n g ] i s deemed 4 2110260 denied i f not ruled on within 14 days of filing."). f a t h e r f i l e d a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l on December 6, 2011, 2 12 The days a f t e r h i s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n was d e n i e d by o p e r a t i o n o f l a w . See R u l e 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) , A l a . R. App. P. ( p r o v i d i n g t h a t an a p p e l l a n t has o r d e r o r j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d by a 14 days t o a p p e a l a f i n a l j u v e n i l e c o u r t ) ; and R u l e 4 ( a ) ( 3 ) , A l a . R. App. P. (providing t h a t a t i m e l y p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n t o l l s t h e t i m e f o r t a k i n g an appeal). Issues T h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t c o n d u c t e d a h e a r i n g on t h e f a t h e r ' s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n on November 29, 2011, f i v e d a y s a f t e r t h e f a t h e r ' s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n was d e n i e d by o p e r a t i o n o f l a w . During the postjudgment-motion h e a r i n g , the a t t o r n e y s f o r the p a r t i e s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e y had a g r e e d t o a l l o w the j u v e n i l e c o u r t t o e x t e n d t h e t i m e f o 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 , and t h e r e i s a l s o an i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e p a r t i e s ' a g r e e m e n t was p u t i n w r i t i n g and g i v e n t o t h e j u v e n i l e - c o u r t judge. However, t h e o n l y i n d i c a t i o n i n t h e r e c o r d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s r e a c h e d an a g r e e m e n t t o e x t e n d t h e t i m e f o r r u l i n g on the f a t h e r ' s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n was t h e c o l l o q u y d u r i n g t h e p o s t j u d g m e n t - m o t i o n h e a r i n g . A s s u m i n g t h a t t h a t a g r e e m e n t on the r e c o r d s a t i s f i e d t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f R u l e 59.1, A l a . R. Civ. P. ( r e q u i r i n g t h e " e x p r e s s c o n s e n t o f a l l t h e p a r t i e s , w h i c h c o n s e n t s h a l l a p p e a r on t h e r e c o r d , " i n o r d e r t o e x t e n d the t i m e f o r r u l i n g on a p e n d i n g p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n ) , t h e agreement appeared i n the r e c o r d o n l y a f t e r the postjudgment m o t i o n h a d a l r e a d y b e e n d e n i e d by o p e r a t i o n o f l a w . See R u l e 59.1 ("A f a i l u r e by t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o r e n d e r an o r d e r d i s p o s i n g o f any p e n d i n g p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n w i t h i n t h e t i m e permitted hereunder, or any extension thereof, shall c o n s t i t u t e a d e n i a l o f s u c h m o t i o n as o f t h e d a t e o f t h e e x p i r a t i o n of the p e r i o d . " ) . 2 5 2110260 The f a t h e r r a i s e s t h r e e i s s u e s f o r t h i s c o u r t ' s r e v i e w appeal: (1) w h e t h e r t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t erred a w a r d h i m a minimum s c h e d u l e o f v i s i t a t i o n ; by on failing to (2) w h e t h e r t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e r r e d by r e q u i r i n g t h a t h i s v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e c h i l d be s u p e r v i s e d ; by d e t e r m i n i n g and (3) w h e t h e r t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t erred t h e amount o f h i s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n . Facts At the ore tenus proceeding the f a t h e r , and s e v e r a l w i t n e s s e s 25 y e a r s March that she 2008 and t h e f a t h e r through during t h a t time, she testified. August initially 2010. The that she h a d l e f t and she together child was born i n M a r c h 2009, a n d t h e m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t the f a t h e r alone w i t h l e s s than f i v e times during the c h i l d ' s l i f e . mother was and lived had been t h e p r i m a r y c a r e g i v e r o f t h e c h i l d . estimated the The m o t h e r o l d at the time of the ore tenus hearing, testified from i n O c t o b e r 2011, t h e m o t h e r , the child moved out of the The mother the child I n A u g u s t 2010, father's home b e c a u s e , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e m o t h e r , i t was an u n s a f e e n v i r o n m e n t caused by t h e f a t h e r ' s According to the father mother, ("the p a t e r n a l the p a t e r n a l grandfather"). grandfather was a l c o h o l i c and a d r u g a d d i c t and h a d a c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y . 6 an The 2110260 m o t h e r a n d t h e c h i l d moved t o W i s c o n s i n on O c t o b e r 22, 2010, t o care f o r t h e mother's mother. A c c o r d i n g t o t h e mother, t h e f a t h e r made no a t t e m p t t o v i s i t t h e c h i l d b e t w e e n A u g u s t 2010 and May 2011, d e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t h e r mother o f f e r e d t o pay the f a t h e r ' s t r a v e l expenses t o v i s i t t h e c h i l d i n W i s c o n s i n . The mother 2011, and t h e c h i l d and, a t t h a t returned time, t o Baldwin the father began C o u n t y i n May living with the mother and t h e c h i l d . The m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d the father, there the parties. that, during her relationship with h a d b e e n two p h y s i c a l a l t e r c a t i o n s b e t w e e n On one o c c a s i o n , t h e f a t h e r pushed t h e mother h e a d f i r s t i n t o a g a r d e n b a t h t u b , a n d on a n o t h e r o c c a s i o n , t h e f a t h e r pushed t h e mother i n t o a b i g - s c r e e n had been consuming a l c o h o l . mother took the c h i l d t e l e v i s i o n a f t e r he On b o t h o f t h o s e o c c a s i o n s , and l e f t the t h e p a r t i e s ' home, a n d t h e m o t h e r i n d i c a t e d t h a t she h a d s u f f e r e d b r u i s i n g as a r e s u l t o f the father's actions. The f a t h e r d i d not dispute "garden t u b " a l t e r c a t i o n had o c c u r r e d , that the a n d he t e s t i f i e d that he d i d n o t remember p u s h i n g t h e m o t h e r i n t o a t e l e v i s i o n . The f a t h e r s t a t e d t h a t he h a d q u i t c o n s u m i n g a l c o h o l a p p r o x i m a t e l y two months b e f o r e t h e o r e t e n u s h e a r i n g . 7 Tammy S y l v e s t e r , a 2110260 friend o f t h e mother who a l s o provided child care f o r the c h i l 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 come t o h e r home w i t h t h e c h i l d on a few o c c a s i o n s a f t e r f i g h t i n g w i t h t h e f a t h e r , and, on a t l e a s t one o c c a s i o n , S y l v e s t e r had n o t i c e d b r u i s i n g and a mark on t h e m o t h e r ' s b a c k . I t was u n d i s p u t e d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s g o t i n t o an argument on J u l y 1, 2 0 1 1 , t h a t c a u s e d t h e i r separation. According to the mother, t h e p a r t i e s had a d i s a g r e e m e n t a f t e r she found a loaded gun i n t h e i r kitchen. pair of argument. The f a t h e r safety home on t o p o f t h e c a b i n e t s stated goggles that i n their t h e mother h i t him w i t h and w i t h h e r hands during a that The f a t h e r c a l l e d t h e p o l i c e a n d t o l d them t h a t t h e mother had h i t him and had pushed him. However, a d m i t t e d t h a t he h a d s u b s e q u e n t l y r e c a n t e d the father h i s allegation that t h e m o t h e r h a d h i t h i m . The m o t h e r was a r r e s t e d , a n d s h e was incarcerated f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y 12 h o u r s . the mother c o n t a c t e d 3 Upon h e r r e l e a s e , t h e f a t h e r , and t h e f a t h e r t o l d h e r t h a t he h a d t h e c h i l d as a c o n d i t i o n o f h e r b o n d . However, m e e t i n g w i t h an a t t o r n e y , t h a t t h e r e was t h e mother d i s c o v e r e d after A l l charges a g a i n s t t h e mother had been dropped a t t h e time of the ore tenus hearing. 3 8 2110260 no had s u c h c o n d i t i o n on not allowed her bond. The father admitted that the mother to take the child, even a f t e r j u v e n i l e c o u r t i s s u e d t h e o r i g i n a l ex p a r t e o r d e r , allowed amended to allow the mother. The m o t h e r had sheriff's a p p r o x i m a t e l y J u l y 7, October department to assist exercised custody the child 2011, until the of September 2011, the counseling sessions with after father, in the mother was the from time of the h e a r i n g and their pastor. the mother's s p a n k e d " t h e c h i l d f o r " c u t t i n g up" t o the mother, ever s i n c e the the The father in attended counseling opinion, i n a restaurant. f a t h e r took the bed. The mother stated that unsupervised v i s i t a t i o n with e a r l y J u l y b e c a u s e she was child. She child hearing, According child in early that often she that was the father had c h i l d s i n c e the in his not had incident in a f r a i d t h a t he w o u l d n o t r e t u r n also stated that very and the the ended "excessively J u l y , t h e c h i l d had b e e n t o o a f r a i d t o s l e e p by h i m s e l f issues, he 2011. In the the and t h a t the mother to t a k e the c h i l d o n l y a f t e r the order he i n the the 15 afraid f a t h e r had months b e f o r e the father's father not the still f r i e n d s were n o t 9 been ore had the around tenus alcohol appropriate 2110260 people f o r the child t o be around. At the time of the ore tenus h e a r i n g , c h i l d l i v e d i n a two-bedroom a p a r t m e n t . a surgery technician h o u r s a week e a r n i n g at a t h e m o t h e r and mother worked as hospital local The approximately 36 $10.15 an h o u r . The m o t h e r was also i n n u r s i n g s c h o o l t a k i n g n i n e h o u r s o f c l a s s e s a week. t o t h e m o t h e r , she child at a s i n c e she her cost paid health of $317 insurance a month. mother stated f a t h e r had the that, provided $400 i n s u p p o r t . c h i l d while t h e m o t h e r was c h a r g e d t h e m o t h e r $140 for the child for t e s t i f i e d t h a t she a few times but had of She the seen the t h a t the c h i l d care w o r k i n g or i n s c h o o l a week. most provided she s t a t e d t h a t she had child's life. "very cared Sylvester f a t h e r around the c h i l d was the that and for child only s t a n d o f f i s h " around father. The hearing, earning The The According f o r h e r s e l f and f i l e d the p a t e r n i t y a c t i o n , the S y l v e s t e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t she the the father, who testified $21 father was that 33 he years was old at employed the as time an of the electrician an h o u r and w o r k i n g a p p r o x i m a t e l y 40 h o u r s a week. s t a t e d t h a t he had never cared 10 f o r the child for 2110260 two or three s t r a i g h t d a y s , t h a t h i s home was not furnished, and t h a t t h e c h i l d , i f he s p e n t t h e n i g h t , w o u l d have t o s h a r e a blow-up m a t t r e s s w i t h him to sleep. Standard of Review " I n any c a s e i n w h i c h t h e c o u r t makes f i n d i n g s o f f a c t b a s e d on e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d ore tenus, an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t w i l l presume t h a t 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 t h o s e f i n d i n g s i s c o r r e c t , and i t w i l l r e v e r s e t h a t j u d g m e n t o n l y i f i t i s f o u n d t o be p l a i n l y and p a l p a b l y wrong. Ex p a r t e P e r k i n s , 646 So. 2d 46 (Ala. 1994) . The presumption of correctness accorded the t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment e n t e r e d a f t e r t h e c o u r t has h e a r d e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d ore tenus i s e s p e c i a l l y s t r o n g i n a c h i l d - c u s t o d y case. I d . " Ex p a r t e B y a r s , 794 So. 2d 345, 347 ( A l a . 2001). Discussion On court appeal, erred visitation by in the father failing i t s final noncustodial parent's to first set argues forth judgment. a A that the specific juvenile award determination v i s i t a t i o n with a child i s l e f t of to of a the sound d i s c r e t i o n of the j u v e n i l e c o u r t , a f t e r a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the best i n t e r e s t s of the child, and this court w i l l not r e v e r s e an a w a r d o f v i s i t a t i o n u n l e s s t h e r e c o r d d e m o n s t r a t e s t h a t the j u v e n i l e court exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n the v i s i t a t i o n award. A.M.B. v. R.B.B., 4 So. 11 determining 3d 468, 471-72 2110260 (Ala. a C i v . App. 2007) . However, t h i s c o u r t h a s a l s o h e l d t h a t trial court provide commits a noncustodial v i s i t a t i o n schedule parent's Civ. reversible error parent with when i t fails a "sufficient, to specified t o r e l y upon, i n d e p e n d e n t o f t h e c u s t o d i a l d i s c r e t i o n . " P r a t t v. P r a t t , 56 So. 3d 638, 644 ( A l a . App. 2 0 1 0 ) . We visitation granting visitation schedule avoided have further held a custodian that i f the custodian so much visitation that "an o r d e r discretion could be over of a completely so d e s i r e d s h o u l d be deemed t o be an a w a r d o f no v i s i t a t i o n a n d t o be i n v i o l a t i o n o f t h e r i g h t s o f the n o n c u s t o d i a l parent." In the present I d . a t 643-44. case, the father's visitation c h i l d may t a k e p l a c e o n l y a t a t i m e " m u t u a l l y the [p]arties." could completely Therefore, a g r e e d upon b y t h a t t h e mother avoid allowing the father to v i s i t the c h i l d i f s h e so d e s i r e d . father i t i s conceivable with the C o n s i d e r i n g t h e v i s i t a t i o n awarded t o t h e i n the j u v e n i l e court's j u d g m e n t , we a g r e e that the j u v e n i l e c o u r t e r r e d by f a i l i n g t o award t h e f a t h e r a s p e c i f i c visitation schedule t h a t he c o u l d the mother's d i s c r e t i o n . of the juvenile rely upon, i n d e p e n d e n t o f A c c o r d i n g l y , we r e v e r s e t h a t court's judgment 12 awarding the aspect father 2110260 v i s i t a t i o n only at mutually agreeable t i m e s , and we remand t h e cause w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s t o t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t t o " e s t a b l i s h a s u f f i c i e n t l y s p e c i f i c v i s i t a t i o n order" f o r the father. Id. at 645. Next, t h e f a t h e r argues t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e r r e d by r e q u i r i n g h i s v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e c h i l d t o be supervised. "'The t r i a l c o u r t has b r o a d d i s c r e t i o n i n determining the v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s of a noncustodial p a r e n t , a n d i t s d e c i s i o n i n t h i s r e g a r d w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d a b s e n t an a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n . ' C a r r v. B r o y l e s , 652 So. 2d 299, 303 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 4 ) . In exercising i t s discretion over visitation matters, '"[t]he t r i a l court i s entrusted to balance the r i g h t s of the parents w i t h the c h i l d ' s best i n t e r e s t s t o f a s h i o n a v i s i t a t i o n award t h a t i s t a i l o r e d t o t h e s p e c i f i c f a c t s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l c a s e . " ' R a t l i f f v. R a t l i f f , 5 So. 3d 570, 586 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) ( q u o t i n g N a u d i t t v. Haddock, 882 So. 2d 364, 367 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003) (plurality opinion)). A noncustodial parent g e n e r a l l y enjoys 'reasonable r i g h t s of v i s i t a t i o n ' w i t h h i s o r h e r c h i l d r e n . N a y l o r v. Oden, 415 So. 2d 1118, 1120 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 2 ) . However, t h o s e rights may be r e s t r i c t e d i n order to protect c h i l d r e n from conduct, c o n d i t i o n s , or circumstances surrounding t h e i r n o n c u s t o d i a l parent t h a t endanger t h e c h i l d r e n ' s h e a l t h , s a f e t y , o r w e l l - b e i n g . See Ex p a r t e Thompson, 51 So. 3d 265, 272 ( A l a . 2010) ('A t r i a l court i n establishing v i s i t a t i o n p r i v i l e g e s for a n o n c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t must c o n s i d e r t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s a n d w e l f a r e o f t h e m i n o r c h i l d a n d , where a p p r o p r i a t e , as i n t h i s c a s e , s e t c o n d i t i o n s on v i s i t a t i o n that p r o t e c t the c h i l d . ' ) . In fashioning the a p p r o p r i a t e r e s t r i c t i o n s , out of r e s p e c t f o r the public policy encouraging interaction between n o n c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t s and t h e i r c h i l d r e n , see A l a . 13 2110260 Code 1975, § 30-3-150 ( a d d r e s s i n g j o i n t custody), and § 30-3-160 (addressing Alabama Parent-Child R e l a t i o n s h i p P r o t e c t i o n A c t ) , the t r i a l c o u r t may n o t use an o v e r b r o a d r e s t r i c t i o n t h a t does more t h a n n e c e s s a r y t o p r o t e c t t h e c h i l d r e n . See S m i t h v. S m i t h , 887 So. 2d 257 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 3 ) , and S m i t h v. S m i t h , 599 So. 2d 1182, 1187 (Ala. Civ. App. 19 9 1 ) . " P r a t t v. Pratt, The 56 So. 3d a t 641. j u v e n i l e c o u r t d i d n o t make any fact i n i t s judgment; that the accordingly, [juvenile] court court "will findings necessary s u c h f i n d i n g s w o u l d be Bryowsky, 676 assume 1996). j u v e n i l e c o u r t heard e v i d e n c e from which i t c o u l d Act, § 4 part of the 30-3-130 e t Section C u s t o d y and seq., Ala. 30-3-130 d e f i n e s 1322, 1324 (Ala. the p e r p e t r a t o r of domestic o r f a m i l y a b u s e , as t h a t t e r m i s d e f i n e d Code 1975, 2d clearly Ex have c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r was So. to erroneous." The parte this made t h o s e s u p p o r t i t s judgment, u n l e s s s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s of i n § 30-3-130, A l a . Domestic or F a m i l y Code 1975 ("the Act"). Abuse 4 "domestic or f a m i l y abuse" "an i n c i d e n t r e s u l t i n g i n the abuse, stalking, a s s a u l t , harassment, or the attempt or threats t h e r e o f . Abuse means any o f f e n s e u n d e r A r t i c l e 4 (commencing w i t h S e c t i o n 13A-6-60) o f C h a p t e r 6 o f T i t l e 13A, and u n d e r C h a p t e r 15 (commencing w i t h S e c t i o n 26-15-1) o f T i t l e 26. S t a l k i n g means t h e offenses prescribed in Sections 13A-6-90 to 13A-6-92, i n c l u s i v e . Assault means t h e offense 14 The as: 2110260 m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t o two i n c i d e n c e s father that caused h e r b r u i s i n g , a n d she f u r t h e r t h a t , on t h o s e o c c a s i o n s , of o f p h y s i c a l v i o l e n c e by t h e she h a d t a k e n t h e c h i l d w i t h h e r o u t t h e home s h a r e d b y t h e p a r t i e s . Code 1975, a l s o part Section of the A c t , permits a w a r d v i s i t a t i o n t o a p a r e n t who c o m m i t t e d violence the "only i f the court safety of the c h i l d Code 1975. specifically adequate Section permits provision a trial court to domestic or f a m i l y f i n d s t h a t adequate provision for c a n be made." See § 30-3-135(b)(2), a trial court, f o r the safety i n an e f f o r t of the c h i l d , A l a . Code 30-3-135(a), A l a . Code 1975, prescribed i n Sections 13A-6-20 to i n c l u s i v e . H a r a s s m e n t means t h e o f f e n s e s i n S e c t i o n 13A-11-8." Section 13A-6-22(a), pertinent part: 30-3-135, A l a . a n d t h e p a r e n t who i s a v i c t i m o f domestic or f a m i l y v i o l e n c e Ala. indicated 1975, t o make to "[o]rder 13A-6-25, prescribed provides, "A p e r s o n commits t h e c r i m e o f a s s a u l t i n t h e t h i r d degree i f : "(1) W i t h i n t e n t t o c a u s e p h y s i c a l injury t o another person, he causes p h y s i c a l i n j u r y t o any p e r s o n ; o r "(2) He r e c k l e s s l y i n j u r y t o another person 15 causes " physical in 2110260 visitation court." court supervised i n a manner Accordingly, exceeded v i s i t a t i o n with we cannot i t s discretion the c h i l d t o be The f a t h e r a l s o a r g u e s t h a t giving the supervise the record the could consider conceivably that time this that ordering supervised. the c h i l d ( A l a . 1992) arguments father's determine b e c a u s e , he erred who Accordingly, argues, to Our r e v i e w o f t h e this argument f o r court may not v. M e r r i t t O i l Co., 612 ( h o l d i n g t h a t an a p p e l l a t e raised by may t o a p p r o v e o f anyone the c h i l d . See Andrews the 5 the j u v e n i l e court to by the j u v e n i l e the t h e f a t h e r has r a i s e d t h i s argument. consider by fail with on a p p e a l . So. 2d 409, 410 cannot with determined conclude authority his visitation reveals first sole his visitation mother supervise mother t o be f o r the first court time on A l t h o u g h we r e c o g n i z e t h a t t h e f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e mother had a l s o p e r p e t r a t e d a c t s of d o m e s t i c v i o l e n c e a g a i n s t him, t h e m o t h e r d e n i e d t h a t she h a d h i t t h e f a t h e r and t h e f a t h e r a d m i t t e d t h a t he h a d r e c a n t e d h i s a l l e g a t i o n t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a d h i t h i m . F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e r e was no e v i d e n c e presented i n d i c a t i n g that the a l l e g e d a c t of domestic v i o l e n c e p e r p e t r a t e d b y t h e m o t h e r , i f i t h a p p e n e d , h a d any a f f e c t on the c h i l d . I n f a c t , t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e c h i l d was i n s i d e w h i l e t h e p a r t i e s were o u t s i d e d u r i n g t h e a l l e g e d a c t of domestic v i o l e n c e . In c o n t r a s t , the acts of domestic v i o l e n c e t e s t i f i e d t o by t h e mother r e s u l t e d i n t h e mother's p a c k i n g up t h e c h i l d and t a k i n g h i m t o a f r i e n d ' s h o u s e . 5 16 2110260 appeal). 6 Finally, erroneously obligation support the father determined and, t h u s , arrearage argues the that that amount of his the determination i s also erroneous. the h e a l t h - i n s u r a n c e the juvenile court child-support of h i s c h i l d - The f a t h e r a r g u e s that cost t h a t the j u v e n i l e court used i n i t s c a l c u l a t i o n o f h i s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n d i f f e r e d from t h e amount t h e m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e p a i d f o r m o n t h l y h e a l t h insurance of d u r i n g the ore tenus hearing. the record reveals that the father argument b e f o r e t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t . court cannot reverse a judgment See Andrews A.M.F. v . T u s c a l o o s a Cnty. d i d not raise I t i saxiomatic that o f a lower g r o u n d s t h a t were n o t f i r s t p r e s e n t e d consideration. However, o u r r e v i e w court t o t h e lower this b a s e d on court f o r v. M e r r i t t O i l Co., s u p r a ; Dep't this and o f Human R e s . , 75 So. 3d A l t h o u g h we c a n n o t a d d r e s s t h i s a r g u m e n t on a p p e a l , we n o t e t h a t we do n o t a g r e e w i t h t h e f a t h e r ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the p a r t o f t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s judgment t h a t s t a t e s t h a t t h e father's v i s i t a t i o n " s h a l l be s u p e r v i s e d b y someone t h e [mother] a p p r o v e s o f . " This aspect of the j u v e n i l e court's j u d g m e n t c o n t a i n s an i m p l i c i t r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t t h e m o t h e r must a p p r o v e o f someone t o s u p e r v i s e t h e f a t h e r ' s v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e c h i l d . I n o t h e r w o r d s , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t does not g i v e t h e mother t h e a u t h o r i t y t o c o n t r o l v i s i t a t i o n by f a i l i n g t o a p p r o v e o f anyone t o s u p e r v i s e the father's v i s i t a t i o n with the c h i l d . 6 17 2110260 1206, 1210 n.3 Hockey C l u b , So. 2d (Ala. C i v . App. 2011) 80 ( A l a . 2002)) (noting something unseemly about t e l l i n g when i t n e v e r was p r e s e n t e d The was Birmingham I n c . v. N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l On Comp. I n s . , I n c . , 82 7 73, "'"'" (quoting a lower that "'"'"there court with the opportunity is i t was wrong t o be r i g h t (emphasis o m i t t e d ) ) . f a t h e r a l s o argues t h a t h i s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n erroneously c a l c u l a t e d b e c a u s e t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t u s e d an amount o f c h i l d - c a r e c o s t s g r e a t e r t h a n what i s p r o v i d e d f o r in t h e c h i l d - c a r e - c o s t s g u i d e l i n e s d e v e l o p e d by t h e Alabama D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s ("DHR"). See R u l e 3 2 ( B ) ( 8 ) , A l a . R. J u d . Admin. required children, [DHR]."). ("Child-care to provide based care on a The r e c o r d G u i d e l i n e s f o r m ("the c o s t s s h a l l n o t e x c e e d t h e amount from licensed source schedule of guidelines reflects t h a t t h e CS-42 f o r the developed by Child-Support CS-42 form") i n t h e r e c o r d t h a t was u s e d to determine the f a t h e r ' s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n determined that the child-care costs t o t a l e d $84 a week, w h i c h maximum a l l o w a b l e i n B a l d w i n i s the C o u n t y f o r a l i c e n s e d F a m i l y Day C a r e C e n t e r when t h e c h i l d i s b e t w e e n 30 months a n d 12 y e a r s 18 2110260 old. At the postjudgment-motion 7 hearing, the father had r e t a i n e d a new a t t o r n e y a n d h i s t r i a l c o u n s e l was n o t p r e s e n t . The mother's a t t o r n e y s t a t e d t h a t he a n d t h e f a t h e r ' s trial t h e maximum a l l o w a b l e costs a t t o r n e y had d i s c u s s e d child-care and t h a t t h e y h a d made a d j u s t m e n t s t o t h e CS-42 f o r m s u b m i t t e d to the j u v e n i l e court. The f a t h e r ' s new a t t o r n e y stated that he n o t i c e d t h a t t h e a c t u a l c o s t s o f c h i l d c a r e t h a t t h e m o t h e r paid exceeded t h e maximum w a n t e d t o be s u r e t h a t amount a l l o w e d and t h a t he just " t h e c a p " h a d been used. However, on a p p e a l , the f a t h e r argues t h a t the c h i l d - c a r e c o s t s u s e d i n t h e CS-42 f o r m were i n c o r r e c t b e c a u s e t h e r e was no evidence care indicating provider; thus, court should costs guidelines that S y l v e s t e r was a l i c e n s e d according to the father, have u s e d t h e r a t e p r o v i d e d f o r an " i n f o r m a l the time o f t h e o r e tenus h e a r i n g , care child- the j u v e n i l e i n the c h i l d - c a r e - provider," was $35 a week. which, a t Our r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d r e v e a l s no e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g w h e t h e r S y l v e s t e r is a licensed child-care provider. Regardless, not present first 7 This this provider or an informal care the record reveals that the father d i d argument to the juvenile r a t e became e f f e c t i v e O c t o b e r 1, 2009. 19 court f o r 2110260 consideration. A c c o r d i n g l y , we may n o t a d d r e s s i t on a p p e a l . See A n d r e w s , s u p r a . F i n d i n g no m e r i t i n t h e f a t h e r ' s argument t h a t h i s c h i l d - s u p p o r t c a l c u l a t i o n was e r r o n e o u s l y we also conclude determining that the juvenile court the father's child-support determined, d i d not e r r in arrearage. Conclusion The j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t i s r e v e r s e d i n s o f a r as t h e father's minimum visitation schedule award failed of v i s i t a t i o n . to set forth Every j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s judgment i s a f f i r m e d . for proceedings AFFIRMED consistent with this IN PART; REVERSED other a aspect specific of the The c a u s e i s remanded opinion. IN PART; AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, concur. P . J . , and P i t t m a n , 20 Thomas, a n d Moore, J J . ,

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.