K.T.D. v. K.W.P.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 11/9/12 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 R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 2110531 K.T.D. v. K.W.P. K.W.P. v. K.T.D. Appeals from Cleburne C i r c u i t (CS-07-6.01) Court 2110531 PER CURIAM. K.T.D. ("the m o t h e r " ) Cleburne C i r c u i t Court appeals from ("the t r i a l a judgment court") of the that modified her c u s t o d i a l r i g h t s t o K.P. ("the c h i l d " ) . K.W.P. ("the f a t h e r " ) cross-appeals insofar court from t h e same judgment as t h e trial f a i l e d t o modify h i s child-support o b l i g a t i o n . Procedural History The c h i l d was b o r n i n M a r c h 2007 when t h e m o t h e r was 16 years o l d and t h e f a t h e r i n d i c a t e s that the t r i a l was 21 court entered December 4 , 2 0 0 7 , t h a t a d j u d i c a t e d the c h i l d , awarded s o l e "phase-in" month period, i n child ordered to provide parties were "noncovered" indicates required medical that to mother the father expenses Neither share party the f o r the c h i l d . 2007 j u d g m e n t but the cost The stated was of record that the t h e ... c h i l d t h r o u g h t h e and t h e [ m o t h e r ] ' s 2 t o p a y $548 a f o r the c h i l d , equally p a r t i e s " s h a l l communicate r e g a r d i n g [father]'s to the mother, v i s i t a t i o n with the c h i l d a f t e r insurance t h e December record a j u d g m e n t on o r a b o u t t o t h e mother. health The t h e f a t h e r as t h e f a t h e r o f and o r d e r e d support old. custody of the c h i l d awarded t h e f a t h e r " s t a n d a r d " a years mother." The father's 2110531 mother ("the p a t e r n a l mother grandmother") ("the m a t e r n a l and surname her o f t h e c h i l d , w h i c h was t o t a k e p l a c e a t the H e f l i n P o l i c e Department. the c h i l d ' s and g r a n d m o t h e r " ) were t h e o n l y i n d i v i d u a l s a u t h o r i z e d t o exchange custody ordered t h e mother surname at the time, T., The t r i a l court also t o be c h a n g e d f r o m t h e m o t h e r ' s t o t h e f a t h e r ' s surname, On J u l y 26, 2010, t h e m o t h e r f i l e d P. a petition to modify t h e December 2007 j u d g m e n t , and she s o u g h t : (1) s p e c i f i c and reasonable the f a t h e r was father telephone visitation with exercising visitation, to provide her w i t h the child (2) an o r d e r advance written while r e q u i r i n g the notice of h i s i n t e n t i o n to t r a v e l w i t h the c h i l d f o r distances greater 60 m i l e s , the child (3) an o r d e r stays than r e q u i r i n g the f a t h e r to n o t i f y her i f anywhere other than the father's home overnight, (4) an o r d e r r e q u i r i n g t h e f a t h e r t o n o t i f y h e r i f the child requires visitation periods, medical (5) an treatment order during the r e q u i r i n g the father's father to n o t i f y h e r i f someone e l s e i s c a r i n g f o r t h e c h i l d d u r i n g h i s visitation father periods, (6) t h e " r i g h t requires child visitation periods, care (7) of f i r s t refusal" i f the f o r more t h a n 3 h o u r s d u r i n g h i s removal of 3 the requirement i n the 2110531 December 2007 j u d g m e n t t h a t t h e p a r t i e s communicate through t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r and t h e p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r , and (8) an o r d e r modifying the father's visitation rights with the child. The father subsequently filed an answer counterclaim t o m o d i f y t h e December 2007 j u d g m e n t . sought custody sole of the c h i l d and a The f a t h e r or, i n the a l t e r n a t i v e , a m o d i f i c a t i o n o f h i s v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s so t h a t he h a d t h e c h i l d "50% of the time." him The f a t h e r a l s o s o u g h t an o r d e r t o pay h e a l t h i n s u r a n c e modification requiring f o r t h e c h i l d and a c o r r e s p o n d i n g of h i s c h i l d - s u p p o r t obligation. Finally, f a t h e r sought t o h o l d t h e mother i n contempt f o r h e r t o change t h e c h i l d ' s surname use the father's The t r i a l days 7, to the father's failure surname or t o surname. court 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 J a n u a r y 30, 2012, and F e b r u a r y 2, 2012. 2012, the the t r i a l court entered a over On two February judgment m o d i f y i n g the December 2007 j u d g m e n t b y a w a r d i n g t h e p a r t i e s j o i n t l e g a l and joint that p h y s i c a l custody of the c h i l d . there warranted had been a m a t e r i a l a modification of court found change i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s custody, 4 The t r i a l that the change that in 2110531 custody would m a t e r i a l l y promote the c h i l d ' s best i n t e r e s t , and t h a t t h e b e n e f i t s o f t h e change i n c u s t o d y w o u l d more t h a n offset the disruptive Specifically, the t r i a l unable to cannot co-parent another court communicate the effects with child about the c h i l d , caused by the change. f o u n d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s had b e e n one another, without that the communicating parties one "used v e r y t h a t t h e m o t h e r had with poor j u d g m e n t i n h e r b e h a v i o r t o w a r d s t h e [ f a t h e r ] and h i s f a m i l y , " t h a t t h e m o t h e r ' s b e h a v i o r had b e e n d e t r i m e n t a l and that the mother had attempted r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e c h i l d and The father was awarded d u r i n g weeks c o n t a i n i n g the f i r s t , period, T u e s d a y a t 6:00 i n t e r f e r e with the father. custody third, p.m. he p.m. was and of the fifth child weekends u n t i l Monday a t awarded custody u n t i l Thursday of the a t 9:00 a.m. child 9:00 The from father a w a r d e d f o u r weeks o f p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y i n t h e summer, week d u r i n g C h r i s t m a s , and o t h e r s p e c i f i c The child, D u r i n g t h e weeks t h a t t h e f a t h e r d i d n o t have a weekend custodial was the physical o f e a c h month f r o m Wednesday a t 6:00 a.m. to to the trial provisions court, i n i t s lengthy i n an a t t e m p t holiday visitation. j u d g m e n t , s e t f o r t h numerous to f a c i l i t a t e communication 5 one between 2110531 t h e m o t h e r and t h e f a t h e r , i n c l u d i n g an o r d e r t h a t t h e m o t h e r , t h e f a t h e r , and t h e c h i l d a t t e n d f a m i l y c o u n s e l i n g . c o u r t h e l d the mother i n contempt f o r w i l l f u l l y t h e c h i l d ' s surname as o r d e r e d The judgment did not The trial f a i l i n g to use i n t h e December 2007 j u d g m e n t . modify the father's child-support obligation. On February 20, 2012, the mother filed postjudgment motion pursuant to Rule 59(e), arguing that modifying the father among had failed p h y s i c a l custody of the McLendon, 455 the father So. filed other 2d 863 a timely responsible for child's modify child-support his the meet On postjudgment that A l a . R. trial On March 5, 2012, motion child on F a t h e r ' s the maternal of in parte him of to be and costs light 2012, requesting, order health-insurance to the new paying the insurance. the trial amending i t s j u d g m e n t t o p r o v i d e the P., F e b r u a r y 21, court obligation child's health Civ. burden the c u s t o d i a l a r r a n g e m e n t and t h e e v i d e n c e t h a t he was c o s t of the timely c h i l d p u r s u a n t t o Ex ( A l a . 1984). things, the to a Day and grandmother and court the father with t o remove t h e the 6 entered paternal an order custody requirement grandmother of that "be 2110531 involved child i n arranging with the physical parties." postjudgment requests and the The custody trial for relief. father timely f i l e d a or placement court denied of the a l l other The m o t h e r t i m e l y a p p e a l e d , cross-appeal. Issues In erred her by appeal, the concluding mother that the argues father that had the met trial his court burden of p r o v i n g 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 s u f f i c i e n t to warrant a m o d i f i c a t i o n of custody p u r s u a n t to p a r t e McLendon, s u p r a . that the support trial court In h i s c r o s s - a p p e a l , erred by failing Ex the f a t h e r argues to modify h i s child- obligation. Facts At the f a t h e r was years old. time until trial, approximately The f a t h e r d i d not telephone of the years old, indicates record 25 m o t h e r was that speak t o each o t h e r , numbers, from e a r l y summer 2010. b i r t h d a y i n M a r c h 2010, week o f v i s i t a t i o n with before 21 and years the the old, child mother child was A f t e r the child reached her the child 7 the in 2007 third able to exercise a f o r the first 4 other's the t h e f a t h e r was born was and o r e v e n have e a c h the time i n full the 2110531 summer o f 2010, so t h e m o t h e r b e g a n c o n t a c t i n g the father i n o r d e r t o s p e a k t o t h e c h i l d w h i l e she was v i s i t i n g t h e f a t h e r . B o t h p a r t i e s a g r e e d t h a t t h e c h i l d d i d n o t l i k e t o t a l k on t h e telephone before The t h i s p o i n t because o f h e r age. record i n d i c a t e s that there i s a h i s t o r y of animosity between t h e f a t h e r and t h e mother and h e r f a m i l y . t h e f a t h e r was c o n v i c t e d o f t h i r d - d e g r e e communications. not clear The c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n the record, f a t h e r was a l s o unrelated visible" of those convicted i n d i c a t e s that the The r e c o r d o f menacing convictions are indicates that the i n 2008, i n a matter t o t h e m o t h e r o r h e r f a m i l y , when he "made during busy road. jail a s s a u l t and h a r a s s i n g but the record m o t h e r ' s f a t h e r was i n v o l v e d . a traffic dispute I n 2007, with another [a] gun d r i v e r on a The f a t h e r a d m i t t e d t h a t he h a d s p e n t 40 d a y s i n f o r that charge. 1 The f a t h e r a d m i t t e d t h a t he h a d h a d an a n g e r p r o b l e m a n d t h a t he h a d begun s e e i n g a p s y c h i a t r i s t . He t e s t i f i e d t h a t h i s p s y c h i a t r i s t h a d p r e s c r i b e d two m e d i c a t i o n s to stabilize h i s mood and t h a t approximately every three he sees his psychiatrist months. The t r i a l c o u r t s p e c i f i c a l l y s t a t e d i n i t s j u d g m e n t t h a t " t h e [ f a t h e r ] u s e d v e r y p o o r j u d g m e n t i n p u l l i n g a f i r e a r m on a n o t h e r d r i v e r w h i l e d r i v i n g down t h e r o a d . " 1 8 2110531 The lengthy inability of communicate admitted record the with appeal reveals mother each the other about the tried about h i s v i s i t a t i o n w i t h the c h i l d by g r a n d m o t h e r , by by calling almost to to The s e n d i n g messages she had r e c e i v e d t h e f a t h e r ' s c o m m u n i c a t i o n s and not responded of father that he took took the the without informing the father did child child her not to child that to the he did not called The answer not her rights called the mother telling for medical i t was with the calls on his one way her telephone calls during and he p r e s e n t e d t e l e p h o n e r e c o r d s 9 that treatment that when he child. the mother b e f o r e had her, c o m p l e t e d , and telephone that visitation The he occasion home the was father took from f a t h e r d i s p u t e d the mother's c o n t e n t i o n answer visitation, doctor e m e r g e n c y room f o r s t i t c h e s on had hospital. the said, without with t h a t she mother c o m p l a i n e d vacation u n t i l after exercising his visitation a d m i t t e d t h a t he had on The she her certified mother a d m i t t e d them b e c a u s e , m a t t e r s d i d not concern the c h i l d . the The mother a and any mother communicate w i t h letter, to complete effectively child. sending the the mother. an father had paternal the and father the that on that the but the he child's to support h i s 2110531 testimony. The m o t h e r a d m i t t e d t h a t she h a d n e v e r informed t h e f a t h e r o f any m e d i c a l i s s u e s c o n c e r n i n g t h e c h i l d a n d t h a t she had never informed c h i l d on v a c a t i o n . the father that she was The f a t h e r d i d n o t i n f o r m taking the t h e m o t h e r when he g o t m a r r i e d i n O c t o b e r 2009, a n d t h e m o t h e r d i d n o t i n f o r m the f a t h e r when she g o t m a r r i e d i n December 2010. The f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he w a n t e d c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d because t h e mother was d o i n g everything that she c o u l d a l i e n a t e t h e c h i l d from t h e f a t h e r and h i s f a m i l y . testified child's that t h e mother s t i l l surname instead to The f a t h e r u s e d h e r m a i d e n name as t h e of using the father's surname o r d e r e d b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n t h e December 2007 j u d g m e n t . as The f a t h e r p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e , namely, t h e c h i l d ' s m e d i c a l records and p r e s c r i p t i o n r e c o r d s , surname i n d i c a t i n g that the c h i l d ' s was t h e same as t h e m o t h e r ' s m a i d e n name. t h a t t h i s had caused a great The f a t h e r deal of confusion stated and s t r e s s f o r t h e c h i l d , who, he s a i d , g o t v i s i b l y t e n s e w h e n e v e r a s t r a n g e r a s k e d h e r what h e r name was. In addition, the father testified that t h e mother was u n w i l l i n g t o c o m m u n i c a t e w i t h h i m a b o u t t h e c h i l d a n d t h a t she was i n f l e x i b l e regarding h i s court-ordered 10 visitation. For 2110531 e x a m p l e , t h e f a t h e r a s k e d i f he c o u l d switch his visitation weekend a n d have one e x t r a day o f v i s i t a t i o n so he c o u l d the child t o Tennessee A f t e r attempting to v i s i t to contact h i s family take f o r Christmas. t h e mother s e v e r a l t i m e s without r e c e i v i n g a response, the f a t h e r e v e n t u a l l y r e c e i v e d a l e t t e r from t h e mother's attorney willing the father to allow that stated t h e mother custody t o have that of the was child d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d he r e q u e s t e d i n r e t u r n f o r h i m g i v i n g up h i s week o f C h r i s t m a s v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e c h i l d . not to give child, up h i s week so t h e c h i l d According was t o the father, of Christmas not permitted the c h i l d The f a t h e r c h o s e visitation t o go was v e r y with the on t h e upset The m o t h e r h a d a l s o trip. that she could n o t go t o T e n n e s s e e . refused to allow t h e f a t h e r t o have a few " u n s c h e d u l e d " h o u r s w i t h t h e c h i l d so t h a t t h e c h i l d ' s p a t e r n a l g r e a t - g r a n d m o t h e r , who was c o m i n g t o town f o r a f u n e r a l , c o u l d first meet t h e c h i l d f o r the time. The father stated b e c a u s e she h a d s o l e that t h e mother had t o l d custody of the c h i l d , him that, the father could n o t t a k e t h e c h i l d more t h a n 60 m i l e s away f r o m h i s home, t h a t the father could not take the c h i l d 11 to the doctor, and t h a t 2110531 the father child. had He no rights further to the testified child that except the to mother visit had, on o c c a s i o n , r e q u i r e d the f a t h e r to take a p i c t u r e of the dinner to prove another that occasion, she the c h i l d was not eating mother d i n n e r o f m a c a r o n i and the was had told child's that, the f a t h e r had fixed for father t e s t i f i e d that The the m o t h e r ' s comments and a c t i o n s s e n t a message t o t h e c h i l d the f a t h e r c o u l d not a d e q u a t e l y care f o r the A c c o r d i n g to the his half day w h i c h was 9:00 a.m. of f a t h e r , the visitation with the child b e c a u s e he was p.m., which the father when t h e a l l o w the child i s with father to t a l k the mother. The the to the f a t h e r but his could not The c h i l d when t h e p.m., exercise also child every she does child that mother t e s t i f i e d t h a t the f a t h e r never communication the about December the 2007 child 12 to judgment go through called required the not i s with her to t a l k to the c h i l d d u r i n g her c u s t o d i a l p e r i o d s , but admitted to father to the that changed birthday, t o 6:00 a t work d u r i n g t h o s e h o u r s . t e s t i f i e d t h a t the mother e x p e c t s t o t a l k day on p.m. that child. mother a r b i t r a r i l y i n i t i a l l y s c h e d u l e d f r o m 12:00 t o 3:00 on that the the and one child cheese t h a t sufficient. spaghetti the she all paternal 2110531 g r a n d m o t h e r and t h e m a t e r n a l The paternal grandmother she had problems grandmother paternal grandmother. had during with testified the visitation mother exchanges. at and length the maternal According g r a n d m o t h e r , t h e m o t h e r d i d n o t answer t h e telephone c a l l s , about to the father's she d i d n o t s i g n f o r c e r t i f i e d m a i l sent to h e r by t h e f a t h e r , and she d i d n o t a c k n o w l e d g e t h e r e c e i p t o f regular mail of s e n t by t h e f a t h e r , so t h e f a t h e r ' s o n l y communicating with the mother grandmother a t v i s i t a t i o n exchanges. s t a t e d , however, t i m e was front was through the The p a t e r n a l method paternal grandmother t h a t she t h o u g h t t h a t c o m m u n i c a t i n g a t t h a t inappropriate of the c h i l d . b e c a u s e i t meant d i s c u s s i n g i s s u e s i n According to the p a t e r n a l the mother had r e f u s e d to accept the b i r t h the f a t h e r had o b t a i n e d t h a t the father's surname, t h a t grandmother, certificate changed the c h i l d ' s the mother that surname t o had r e f u s e d to accept w r i t t e n communication from the f a t h e r a t v i s i t a t i o n exchanges, and t h a t t h e m o t h e r visitation refused to discuss a l t e r i n g the father's schedule. On May 28, 2010, t h e m o t h e r r e f u s e d t o a l l o w t h e p a t e r n a l grandmother t o take custody of the c h i l d because the p a t e r n a l 13 2110531 grandmother had t h e c h i l d ' s c h i l d - r e s t r a i n t seat of t h e back seat the back seat. on one s i d e of her v e h i c l e instead of i n the middle of The p a t e r n a l grandmother explained t h a t she h a d t o p u t t h e c h i l d ' s c h i l d - r e s t r a i n t s e a t on t h e s i d e o f h e r b a c k s e a t b e c a u s e she h a d a s e c o n d c h i l d - r e s t r a i n t s e a t on t h e other s i d e o f t h e back seat f o rthe father's t h a t she h a d h a d b o t h c h i l d - r e s t r a i n t s e a t s fire department. grandmother that When the she c o u l d mother i n f a n t son and i n s t a l l e d by t h e told the not take the c h i l d , paternal the paternal g r a n d m o t h e r o f f e r e d t o move t h e c h i l d ' s c h i l d - r e s t r a i n t to the middle o f h e r back grandmother, t h e mother did n o t move seat. According to the paternal stated that the paternal the c h i l d - r e s t r a i n t seat seat fast grandmother enough so t h e mother " s n a t c h e d " t h e c h i l d , p u t t h e c h i l d i n t h e back seat o f the mother's v e h i c l e w i t h o u t b u c k l i n g and left. station The p a t e r n a l to file grandmother testified a report, eventually that grandmother t h e mother "throwing a f i t " the c h i l d i n her seat, went i n s i d e t h e p o l i c e and t h e mother returned. and t h e m a t e r n a l Officer John and t h e m a t e r n a l grandmother Daniel were i n f r o n t o f t h e c h i l d about t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e c h i l d - r e s t r a i n t s e a t a n d t h a t he h a d c a l l e d t h e D e p a r t m e n t 14 2110531 of Human R e s o u r c e s at the request of maternal grandmother b e c a u s e t h e p a r t i e s c o u l d n o t r e s o l v e t h e i s s u e on t h e i r own. J e n n i f e r R i o s , f r o m t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s , came t o the l o c a t i o n o f t h e v i s i t a t i o n exchange. Rios s t a t e d that the m o t h e r was y e l l i n g a n d b e h a v i n g i r r a t i o n a l l y a n d t h a t s h e was concerned down. risks f o r the c h i l d because However, s h e t e s t i f i e d to the c h i l d initiating an t h e mother that and t h a t she i d e n t i f i e d she l e f t investigation would or not calm no s a f e t y t h e scene doing any without follow-up investigation. R i o s and D a n i e l b o t h t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e mother had to the s i t u a t i o n . an overreacted The r e c o r d indicates that o f f i c e r e v e n t u a l l y moved t h e c h i l d ' s c h i l d - r e s t r a i n t seat to t h e c e n t e r o f t h e p a t e r n a l grandmother's back s e a t , and t h e paternal grandmother left with the c h i l d a p p r o x i m a t e l y two h o u r s a f t e r s h e h a d a r r i v e d t o p i c k up t h e c h i l d . On August 22, 2010, t h e m o t h e r v i s i t a t i o n exchange because t h e p a t e r n a l return the c h i l d ' s explained that b o a t on a l a k e the "sippy the sippy cup." b o a t was r e t u r n e d later upset left grandmother on h e r s i s t e r ' s 45 m i n u t e s away a n d t h a t , that 15 night, at a grandmother d i d n o t The p a t e r n a l cup h a d b e e n approximately became when she would b r i n g t h e 2110531 sippy cup paternal to the mother. grandmother The mother immediately drive demanded back that the to the lake to r e t r i e v e t h e s i p p y cup, and when t h e p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r told the that mother that she would return the sippy cup later e v e n i n g , t h e m o t h e r s t a t e d t h a t she was g o i n g t o f i l e a p o l i c e report and say t h a t the sippy cup h a d been t h i s was done i n t h e p r e s e n c e o f t h e c h i l d . returned, the the p a t e r n a l mother returned p.m. record The A l l of When t h e b o a t was grandmother a r o u n d 8:30 stolen. the sippy cup t o indicates that the p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r w a n t e d t o make a r e c o r d o f t h e f a c t that she went had returned the sippy cup t o the mother i n s i d e t h e p o l i c e d e p a r t m e n t and f i l e d a so she "report." I n December 2010, t h e p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r p i c k e d up t h e child for visitation and h e r v e h i c l e was p a c k e d so t h a t the f a t h e r c o u l d t a k e t h e c h i l d on a t r i p t o T e n n e s s e e t o see h i s family. The m o t h e r s t a t e d t h a t t h e c h i l d c o u l d n o t go b e c a u s e she d i d n o t know a b o u t t h e t r i p and she was u p s e t b e c a u s e t h e c h i l d ' s c h i l d - r e s t r a i n t s e a t was n o t i n t h e c e n t e r o f t h e b a c k seat of the v e h i c l e . The p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d she and t h e f a t h e r h a d t r i e d t o c o n t a c t that t h e mother about t h e t r i p b u t t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a d r e f u s e d t o communicate w i t h them. 16 2110531 The m o t h e r began t o p u t t h e c h i l d b a c k i n h e r v e h i c l e , a n d t h e child began crying and t r y i n g t o t e l l t h e mother that the p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r w o u l d move t h e c h i l d - r e s t r a i n t s e a t . The p a t e r n a l grandmother s t a t e d t h a t , a t t h a t time, t h e mother had allowed on one s i d e o f the c h i l d to r i d e i n a "booster" seat t h e b a c k s e a t o f h e r v e h i c l e b u t she w o u l d n o t a l l o w t h e c h i l d to r i d e i n a regular back seat December allow c h i l d - r e s t r a i n t seat of the paternal grandmother's 2010, t h e m a t e r n a l the c h i l d to v i s i t grandmother the father on one s i d e o f t h e vehicle. threatened because Also i n t o not the paternal g r a n d m o t h e r h a d t h e c h i l d ' s h a l f b r o t h e r , who was s e v e n months old a t the time, The paternal i n the v e h i c l e with her. grandmother stated stopped speaking t o her at v i s i t a t i o n dates were s e t on the p a r t i e s ' that t h e mother exchanges pending had after court petitions. The p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t , when she a s k s t h e m o t h e r a question, t h e mother ignores her, but the c h i l d w i l l tell the mother t o r e s p o n d o r t h e c h i l d w i l l prompt t h e mother t o respond. The p a t e r n a l grandmother s t a t e d t h a t the c h i l d had t o l d h e r t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a d t o l d h e r t h a t she d i d n o t have t o obey t h e p a t e r n a l grandmother. 17 2110531 The mother missing sippy admitted cup and that she h a d o v e r r e a c t e d the p o s i t i o n of the about the child's child- r e s t r a i n t s e a t , b u t she s t a t e d t h a t she h a d been t h i n k i n g o n l y of the c h i l d ' s best allowed the c h i l d interests. to c a l l She also her current admitted husband that "daddy." she 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 m i n d i f t h e c h i l d c a l l e d t h e father's current wife "mommy." continued t o use h e r m a i d e n name f o r t h e c h i l d ' s surname e v e n a f t e r the c h i l d ' s b i r t h She certificate admitted h a d been that the child. The the mother t o decrease the f a t h e r ' s v i s i t a t i o n parties also had changed. D u r i n g t h e f i r s t day o f t h e o r e t e n u s h e a r i n g , withdrew her request she s t i p u l a t e d that the with maternal g r a n d m o t h e r and 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 no l o n g e r a c t as intermediaries maintain f o r the health-insurance parties, that the father coverage f o r the c h i l d , p a r t y w o u l d have t h e " r i g h t o f f i r s t would that r e f u s a l " t o care each f o r the c h i l d during the other p a r t i e s ' c u s t o d i a l periods, that each party would have with the child, and that c h i l d ' s medical reasonable each party telephone would visitation notify the other of the issues. The f a t h e r a d m i t t e d t h a t t h e c h i l d was happy and h e a l t h y , 18 2110531 t h a t she a p p e a r e d w e l l c a r e d considered f o r , and t h a t t h e c h i l d t h e m o t h e r ' s h o u s e t o be h e r "home." probably He a c c e p t e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r some o f t h e c o m m u n i c a t i o n p r o b l e m s b e t w e e n himself and the mother, and he testified that the c o m m u n i c a t i o n p r o b l e m s m i g h t be r e s o l v e d b y some o f t h e j o i n t s t i p u l a t i o n s t h a t h a d b e e n made b y t h e p a r t i e s . A l t h o u g h she t e s t i f i e d t h a t she was w i l l i n g t o make some changes i n o r d e r mother admitted limiting t o communicate b e t t e r w i t h that the father's she h a d d i s c u s s e d visitation l a s t day o f t h e o r e tenus h e a r i n g . not t h i n k t h a t t h e f a t h e r s h o u l d the father, the the p o s s i b i l i t y time w i t h the c h i l d of on t h e She t e s t i f i e d t h a t she d i d get a d d i t i o n a l time w i t h the c h i l d b u t t h a t , i f t h e f a t h e r was a w a r d e d c u s t o d y , she s h o u l d get more t i m e w i t h the c h i l d t h e n what t h e f a t h e r h a d . She s t a t e d t h a t she h a d e n c o u r a g e d t h e c h i l d ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e f a t h e r b y n o t t a l k i n g n e g a t i v e l y a b o u t t h e f a t h e r , b u t she admitted that she d i d n o t t a l k f r o n t on t h e c h i l d . about the father During her testimony, at a l l i n t h e mother could n o t t h i n k o f a n o t h e r way t o e n c o u r a g e t h e c h i l d ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p with the father. The m o t h e r s t a t e d t h a t a l l t h e h o s t i l i t y a n d the problems she had w i t h t h e f a t h e r a n d h i s f a m i l y were n o t 19 2110531 having a very The until good a f f e c t on t h e c h i l d . 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 h a d b e e n on Medicaid a p p r o x i m a t e l y May 2010 when t h e f a t h e r added t h e c h i l d to h i s f a m i l y health-insurance wife's employer. health insurance periods The f a t h e r of custody with that ineligible t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d the c h i l d longer i n case something happened she was v i s i t i n g h i m a n d t h a t he d i d n o t h i s actions f o r Medicaid. would As operate noted s t i p u l a t e d that the f a t h e r would maintain the c h i l d . obtained f o r t h e c h i l d when he b e g a n e x e r c i s i n g to the c h i l d while know coverage through the f a t h e r ' s to make above, the the child parties health insurance f o r The f a t h e r ' s c o s t o f m e d i c a l a n d d e n t a l insurance f o r t h e c h i l d was $465.26 p e r month, a n d t h e f a t h e r testified that that amount was t a k e n o u t o f h i s w i f e ' s paycheck every month. Standard o f Review "When e v i d e n c e i n a c h i l d c u s t o d y c a s e h a s b e e n p r e s e n t e d ore tenus t o the t r i a l c o u r t , t h a t court's f i n d i n g s o f f a c t b a s e d on t h a t e v i d e n c e a r e p r e s u m e d t o be c o r r e c t . The 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 e v i d e n c e and o b s e r v e s t h e w i t n e s s e s . Appellate 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 d i s p u t e d e v i d e n c e t h a t was p r e s e n t e d o r e t e n u s b e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n a c u s t o d y h e a r i n g . See Ex p a r t e P e r k i n s , 646 So. 2d 46, 47 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) , w h e r e i n t h i s C o u r t , q u o t i n g 20 2110531 P h i l l i p s v. P h i l l i p s , 622 So. 2d 410, 412 App. 1 9 9 3 ) , s e t o u t t h e w e l l - e s t a b l i s h e d (Ala. Civ. rule: "'"Our s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w i s v e r y l i m i t e d i n c a s e s where t h e evidence i s p r e s e n t e d ore tenus. A custody d e t e r m i n a t i o n of the trial c o u r t e n t e r e d upon oral testimony is accorded a presumption of c o r r e c t n e s s on a p p e a l , Payne v. Payne , 550 So. 2d 440 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 9 ) , and V a i l v. V a i l , 532 So. 2d 639 (Ala. C i v . App. 1 9 8 8 ) , and we will not reverse unless the e v i d e n c e so f a i l s t o s u p p o r t t h e determination that i t i s p l a i n l y and p a l p a b l y wrong, o r u n l e s s an abuse of the trial court's discretion is shown. To s u b s t i t u t e our judgment f o r t h a t o f t h e 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 not allow. Gamble v. Gamble, 562 So. 2d 1343 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 0 ) ; F l o w e r s v. F l o w e r s , 479 So. 2d 1257 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1985) Ex p a r t e B r y o w s k y , 676 So. 2d 1322, 1324 ( A l a . 1996). Discussion I . The In support of Mother's i t s judgment Appeal modifying c h i l d , the t r i a l c o u r t s p e c i f i c a l l y found were u n a b l e t o c o m m u n i c a t e , custody of (1) t h a t t h e p a r t i e s (2) t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a d u s e d j u d g m e n t i n h e r b e h a v i o r t o w a r d t h e f a t h e r and h i s f a m i l y , 21 the poor (3) 2110531 t h a t t h e mother's b e h a v i o r had been d e t r i m e n t a l and (4) t h a t to the c h i l d , t h e mother had a t t e m p t e d t o i n t e r f e r e w i t h t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e c h i l d and t h e f a t h e r . On a p p e a l , t h e mother contends t h a t those f i n d i n g s a r e n o t s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e and t h a t , even i f t h e y a r e , support a finding of a material they are i n s u f f i c i e n t t o change i n circumstances s u f f i c i e n t t o meet t h e b u r d e n s e t f o r t h i n Ex p a r t e McLendon, supra. R e g a r d i n g t h e McLendon b u r d e n , t h i s c o u r t has h e l d : "The b u r d e n s e t o u t i n McLendon r e q u i r e s t h e p a r e n t s e e k i n g a c u s t o d y change t o d e m o n s t r a t e [ ( 1 ) ] t h a t 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 h a s o c c u r r e d s i n c e t h e p r e v i o u s judgment, [(2)] t h a t t h e c h i l d ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t s w i l l be m a t e r i a l l y p r o m o t e d b y a change o f c u s t o d y , a n d [ ( 3 ) ] t h a t t h e b e n e f i t s o f t h e change w i l l more t h a n o f f s e t t h e i n h e r e n t l y d i s r u p t i v e e f f e c t r e s u l t i n g f r o m t h e change i n c u s t o d y . Ex p a r t e McLendon, 455 So. 2d a t 866." Dean v. Dean, Regarding above, the f i r s t the "material child's welfare 455 (Ala. 998 So. 2d 1 0 6 0 , 1065 ( A l a . C i v . prong App. 2008) . o f t h e McLendon b u r d e n change" must s i n c e t h e most r e c e n t be set forth one " ' a f f e c t i n g the decree McLendon, So. 2d a t 865 ( q u o t i n g Wood v. Wood, 333 So. 2d 826, 828 C i v . App. 1 9 7 6 ) ) . Our supreme c o u r t notion that a party seeking has r e j e c t e d t h e t o m o d i f y a p r i o r c u s t o d y judgment 22 2110531 must p r o v e t h a t t h e r e i s an change i n c u s t o d y . See Ex p a r t e C l e g h o r n , 993 69 "overwhelming n e c e s s i t y " So. 2d 462, the 468¬ (Ala. 2008). We trial find sufficient court's the b e h a v i o r toward the b e h a v i o r had mother had f a t h e r and the in an was i m p a c t on to The immature with about four-year-old the child had to poor judgment i n her the child, as The the the and sole attempted to displays of demonstrates unreasonable that the hostility i n f r o n t of the c h i l d . b e t w e e n h e r s e l f and The the behavior, 23 and the the mother or his her father, mother a d m i t t e d t h a t father from t h a t most o f a t t e m p t s t o keep t h e c h i l d f r o m s p e n d i n g t i m e w i t h t h e occurred in paternal individual reason with the manner c o u l d communicate w i t h record the child's the d u r i n g h e r d i s p l a y s o f u n r e a s o n a b l e b e h a v i o r and mother's that indicates that unreasonable father mother's and with record and the designated child. were the unable interfere t h e f a t h e r ' s s i d e o f t h e f a m i l y who mother parties h i s f a m i l y , t h a t the father. interactions g r a n d m o t h e r , who the record to support mother e x e r c i s e d attempted behaved various that a detrimental relationship with mother evidence i n the conclusion communicate, t h a t the for family the was 2110531 n o t h a v i n g a good a f f e c t on t h e c h i l d and t h a t she had done t o f o s t e r a r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e and t h e c h i l d was We cannot palpably had t o not say a n y t h i n g conclude wrong by that we a the child's welfare We was plainly or had child. must c o n s i d e r material change trial court's a conclusion. w h e t h e r t h o s e f i n d i n g s were court's in conclusion circumstances A l t h o u g h we a l i e n a t i o n , s e e , e.g., do not believe the the evidence a f i n d i n g of parental C . L . J . v. M.W.B., 879 So. 2003) ( a f f i r m i n g a j u d g m e n t m o d i f y i n g children in favor concluded that recognized there affecting that C i v . App. the from the that s u f f i c i e n t evidence to support such p r e s e n t e d r i s e s to a l e v e l of s u p p o r t i n g alienate factual s i n c e t h e e n t r y o f t h e December 2007 j u d g m e n t . c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e r e was visitation father mother's b e h a v i o r the the s u f f i c i e n t to support the t r i a l been court support to thing about the f a t h e r at a l l . trial that i m p a c t on evidence determinations, the concluding a detrimental Finding had t h a t the o n l y of the m o t h e r had, the father children that a father from after among o t h e r in the an c u s t o d i a l parent's 24 trial things, to this attempts (Ala. custody of the attempt father), 2d 1169 to the court withheld completely court has interfere 2110531 with a should noncustodial be c o n s i d e r e d parent's i n determining c h i l d s h o u l d be m o d i f i e d . 2d from the father indicated that whether the custody child of the See, e.g., S a n k e y v. S a n k e y, 961 So. 896 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007) custody relationship with ( a f f i r m i n g a judgment t o t h e mother the f a t h e r had a c l o s e when the modifying evidence r e l a t i o n s h i p with the c h i l d r e n , t h e f a t h e r had encouraged and s u p p o r t e d t h e mother's relationship with t h e c h i l d r e n , t h e mother had c o n s i s t e n t l y a t t e m p t e d t o harm t h e f a t h e r ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e c h i l d r e n , and the quantity and q u a l i t y o f t h e c h i l d r e n ' s contact with b o t h p a r e n t s w o u l d be b e t t e r s e r v e d b y a w a r d i n g c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d r e n t o t h e f a t h e r ) ; a n d Adams v. Adams, 21 So. 3d 1247, 1254 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) custody of the c h i l d ( a f f i r m i n g a judgment modifying f r o m t h e m o t h e r t o t h e f a t h e r when t h e e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e mother had exposed t h e c h i l d r e n t o f o u l language and i n a p p r o p r i a t e children i n her e f f o r t s to c o n d u c t a n d "had i n v o l v e d t h e fight with or t o punish the father"). The m o t h e r c o n t e n d s t h a t she d i d n o t i n t e r f e r e w i t h t h e child's relationship with withhold court-ordered the father because she d i d n o t v i s i t a t i o n from t h e f a t h e r and because 25 2110531 the f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d a good r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e child. We should n o t be visitation 1220, agree w i t h t h e mother's modified because she w i t h h e l d (Ala. 2008), and t h a t visitation w i l l n o t s u p p o r t a judgment m o d i f y i n g v. C a r d e n , 1987)). serious that custody supplemental f r o m t h e f a t h e r , s e e C o c h r a n v. C o c h r a n , 5 So. 3d 1228 Foster contention However, of this problem than a v i s i t a t i o n alone c u s t o d y , see i d . ( c i t i n g 515 So. 2d 1258, 1260 the facts disputes (Ala. case dispute. C i v . App. present a The t r i a l more court c o u l d have c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a d e n g a g e d i n b e h a v i o r designed with t o f r u s t r a t e and t h w a r t the c h i l d . The t r i a l the father's relationship c o u r t was p r e s e n t e d w i t h evidence i n d i c a t i n g t h a t e v e n a f t e r she h a d made c e r t a i n s t i p u l a t i o n s that the father himself attorney thought might improve c i r c u m s t a n c e s and t h e mother, t h e mother had s t i l l on t h e l a s t between inquired of her day o f t h e o r e tenus h e a r i n g about t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f l i m i t i n g the f a t h e r ' s time w i t h the c h i l d . mother's t e s t i m o n y clearly she t o co-parent d i d n o t have because she had sole s t i p u l a t i o n s made, t h e r e indicated that custody, the c h i l d and, she b e l i e v e d with despite The that the father the joint i s no i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a d 26 2110531 swayed f r o m h e r p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e f a t h e r i s s i m p l y of the child with additional the child's rights. custodian gave h e r s u p e r i o r c u s t o d i a l r i g h t s t o t h e c h i l d , see (5) c u s t o d y " and " s o l e p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y " ) , as t h e c h i l d ' s s o l e c u s t o d i a n use legal and the status Code 1975, § 3 0 - 3 - 1 5 1 ( 4 ) and sole Certainly, mother's Ala. as no a visitor physical (defining "sole legal but the mother's s t a t u s d i d not give her the a b i l i t y to those r i g h t s t o the detriment of the c h i l d . Accordingly, we e r r e d by c o n c l u d i n g cannot conclude that there that the trial court h a d been a m a t e r i a l change i n circumstances that a f f e c t e d the welfare of the c h i l d since the e n t r y o f t h e December 2007 j u d g m e n t . 2 A l t h o u g h t h e m o t h e r has c i t e d c a s e l a w i n h e r b r i e f on a p p e a l t h a t g e n e r a l l y s e t s f o r t h the burden the father was required to meet pursuant McLendon, t h e m o t h e r does n o t a r g u e on a p p e a l t h a t t h e r e to was T h e m o t h e r c o n t e n d s , f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e on a p p e a l , t h a t t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n o f c u s t o d y was e r r o n e o u s b e c a u s e t h e r e was not a c o m p e l l i n g reason t o s e p a r a t e the c h i l d from her h a l f s i s t e r , i . e . , the mother's c h i l d w i t h her c u r r e n t husband. 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 on a p p e a l t h a t t h e m o t h e r p r e s e n t e d t h i s argument t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t . A c c o r d i n g l y , we w i l l n o t c o n s i d e r i t on a p p e a l . See Andrews v. M e r r i t t O i l Co., 612 So. 2d 409, 410 ( A l a . 1992) (an a p p e l l a t e court c a n n o t c o n s i d e r argument t h a t was n o t f i r s t p r e s e n t e d t o t h e t r i a l court f o r i t s consideration). 2 27 2110531 i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence to support that the change in custody the t r i a l would the support the trial conclusion m a t e r i a l l y promote c h i l d ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t s o r t h a t t h e r e was to court's insufficient evidence c o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t the b e n e f i t s of change w o u l d more t h a n o f f s e t the inherently disruptive e f f e c t s c a u s e d by t h e change i n c u s t o d y . See McLendon, Therefore, a r g u m e n t s on See Gary 2005) 1982)) the v. m o t h e r has Crouch, 923 waived those So. ( c i t i n g B o s h e l l v. 2d 1130, Keith, 418 1136 So. 2d appeal. 89, Accordingly, custody raised we affirm of the by the the parties trial court's App. 92-93 to (Ala. addressing t h e a r g u m e n t s r a i s e d by t h e p a r t i e s i n t h e i r b r i e f s on not supra. (Ala. Civ. ("[T]his court i s confined i n i t s review arguments the appeal; are waived."). judgment modifying child. II. The Father's Cross-Appeal On a p p e a l , t h e f a t h e r c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d by f a i l i n g t o m o d i f y 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 the t r i a l support guidelines judgment, child, c o u r t s h o u l d have and which in awarded He argues (1) d e v i a t e d f r o m t h e child- light of him joint (2) t h a t t h e t r i a l its custody-modification physical custody of the c o u r t s h o u l d have r e c a l c u l a t e d 28 2110531 his child-support child's health to include the cost of the R. Jud. Admin., insurance. Initially, provides obligation we that an that note award of Rule 32, Ala. "[s]hared physical custody or v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s p r o v i d i n g f o r p e r i o d s of p h y s i c a l custody or c a r e o f c h i l d r e n by t h e o b l i g o r p a r e n t s u b s t a n t i a l l y i n e x c e s s of those c u s t o m a r i l y approved or ordered by t h e c o u r t " may a reason f o r d e v i a t i n g from a p p l i c a t i o n of the guidelines. Rule considering the his 32(A)(1)(a), A l a . R. Jud. child-support Admin. a b s e n c e o f a u t h o r i t y c i t e d by the b r i e f on a p p e a l i n s u p p o r t o f t h i s a r g u m e n t , we address i t further. See Rule 28(a)(10), be Ala. However, father in will not App. P. R. ( r e q u i r i n g an a p p e l l a n t t o c i t e a u t h o r i t y t o s u p p o r t a r g u m e n t s presented Motley, Showers, on 909 812 appeal); So. So. 2d 2d and 806, 277, State 822 Farm Mut. (Ala. 281 Auto. 2005) (Ala. 2001)) Ins. (citing Co. Ex ("[I]t i s v. parte well s e t t l e d t h a t a f a i l u r e t o comply w i t h Rule 2 8 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) r e q u i r i n g citation of provides [an those a u t h o r i t y i n support of appellate c]ourt with the arguments a basis for presented disregarding arguments."). R e g a r d i n g h i s second argument, t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t 29 erred 2110531 by f a i l i n g t o i n c l u d e the a c t u a l c o s t of the c h i l d ' s h e a l t h - insurance coverage obligation, the denying this in determining his f a t h e r argues t h a t the trial request for relief child-support court erred i n h i s postjudgment without f i r s t conducting a hearing. The motion record indicates that t h e f a t h e r r e q u e s t e d a h e a r i n g on h i s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , there i s no conducted indication i n the record by that the trial and court a h e a r i n g before i t denied the f a t h e r ' s requests f o r an amended j u d g m e n t m o d i f y i n g 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 . "'Rule 59(g), Ala. R. Civ. P., provides t h a t post-judgment motions " s h a l l n o t be r u l e d upon u n t i l t h e p a r t i e s have had an o p p o r t u n i t y t o be h e a r d t h e r e o n . " We have s a i d t h a t i f a h e a r i n g i s r e q u e s t e d , i t must be g r a n t e d . S t a a r u p v. S t a a r u p , 537 So. 2d 56 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1988) . On a p p e a l , h o w e v e r , i f an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t d e t e r m i n e s t h a t t h e r e i s no p r o b a b l e m e r i t t o t h e m o t i o n , i t may a f f i r m b a s e d on t h e h a r m l e s s e r r o r r u l e . W a l l s v. Bank o f P r a t t v i l l e , 554 So. 2d 381 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) . ' " C a r l e t o n v. C a r l e t o n , 84 (quoting 1996)). probable Hill v. Hill, Accordingly, merit postjudgment to the motion, So. 681 we So. 2d must 86 ( A l a . C i v . App. 617, 619 consider arguments which s h o u l d have o r d e r e d him 3d 84, were: whether presented (1) (Ala. Civ. that there i n the the 30 App. was father's trial to maintain health insurance 2011) court f o r the 2110531 b e n e f i t o f t h e c h i l d and (2) t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t s h o u l d have r e c a l c u l a t e d 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 o g i v e him f o r p a y i n g the c o s t of the c h i l d ' s h e a l t h - i n s u r a n c e credit coverage. R u l e 3 2 ( B ) ( 7 ) ( a ) , A l a . R. J u d . Admin., p r o v i d e s , i n p a r t : " M e d i c a l support i n the form of h e a l t h - i n s u r a n c e coverage and/or cash medical support shall be ordered p r o v i d e d t h a t h e a l t h - i n s u r a n c e coverage i s a v a i l a b l e to e i t h e r parent at a reasonable cost and/or cash m e d i c a l support i s c o n s i d e r e d reasonable in cost." (Emphasis added.) The d e t e r m i n a t i o n w h e t h e r , g i v e n t h e p a r t i e s ' i n c o m e s and t h e s u p p o r t t o be p a i d t o t h e c h i l d , h e a l t h - i n s u r a n c e c o v e r a g e is a v a i l a b l e at a reasonable t o be made by t h e t r i a l the t r i a l c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n and w i l l Egres, So. 85 So. neither party insurance although 3d t h e r e i s no by reversed 1030 ( A l a . C i v . App. below the that father indication the was absent [Ms. 2110218, Aug. ( A l a . C i v . App. contended obtained n o t be J o n e s v. J o n e s , , 3d 1026, determination c o u r t ; such a d e t e r m i n a t i o n i s w i t h i n an abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n . 2012] cost i s a factual 2012); Egres 2011). cost not of 3, v. Although the health reasonable i n the r e c o r d t h a t the and trial c o u r t concluded t h a t the c o s t of the h e a l t h i n s u r a n c e p r o v i d e d by t h e f a t h e r was not reasonable, 31 a judgment t h a t i s c o r r e c t 2110531 for any r e a s o n may c o u r t does n o t judgment or M a g n o l i a Bay, The be a f f i r m e d on expressly 570 even i f the an So. incorrect 2d 639, reason. 642 Boykin insurance in the v. ( A l a . 1990). c h i l d - s u p p o r t g u i d e l i n e s define "reasonable health trial r e l y on t h a t r e a s o n i n r e a c h i n g i t s i f i t cites Inc., appeal, c a l c u l a t i o n of child cost" for support to include: "[T]he cost of private health insurance is considered reasonable i n cost i f the cost to the parent responsible for providing medical support does n o t e x c e e d 10% o f h i s o f h e r g r o s s i n c o m e . For p u r p o s e s o f a p p l y i n g t h e 10% s t a n d a r d , t h e c o s t i s the c o s t of adding the c h i l d or c h i l d r e n to e x i s t i n g c o v e r a g e o r t h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n s e l f - o n l y and f a m i l y coverage, whichever i s g r e a t e r . " R u l e 3 2 ( B ) ( 7 ) ( c ) ( 3 ) , A l a . R. In t h i s case, the Jud. Admin. f a t h e r , who had 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 was Parker v. Parker, failed to present 87 any So. 3d 581, evidence the burden of due 583 t o be m o d i f i e d , ( A l a . C i v . App. regarding proving the see 2012), difference in c o s t of "adding the c h i l d or c h i l d r e n to e x i s t i n g coverage or the d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n s e l f - o n l y and record indicates that the father sought m o n t h l y c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n by health-insurance premiums that 32 f a m i l y coverage." to reduce h i s a proportionate cost his wife The $548 share $465.86 of per 2110531 month. The evidence demonstrates payment f o r h e a l t h - i n s u r a n c e the court could providing Accordingly, have d e t e r m i n e d i n c o m e s and t h e l e v e l private the father's coverage i s e q u i v a l e n t f a t h e r ' s g r o s s income. trial that that, insurance given i n this r e a s o n a b l e u n d e r t h e R u l e 32 c h i l d - s u p p o r t cost of providing that insurance t o 17% o f we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e the p a r t i e s ' of support f o r the c h i l d , health wife's the cost of case was not guidelines. would exceed The the presumed "reasonable cost" to warrant i n c l u s i o n i n the c a l c u l a t i o n of c h i l d support. would reduce Further, the m o d i f i c a t i o n the father proposed the father's child s u p p o r t by $316, more h a l f t h e amount he was o r d e r e d t o p a y i n t h e o r i g i n a l support judgment. evidence supports claim seeking Given 3 those the t r i a l t o modify facts, court's child we of the and, c a n n o t c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e r e was p r o b a b l e m e r i t postjudgment court's his for his failure In h i s proposed the f u l l wife, to 3 motion to on that issue. conduct a on father's therefore, we to the father's Accordingly, hearing child- conclude that the denial support, than the the trial father's CS-42 c h i l d - s u p p o r t f o r m , t h e f a t h e r c a l c u l a t e d child-support o b l i g a t i o n , i n c l u d i n g the o f f s e t amount o f t h e h e a l t h - i n s u r a n c e premium p a i d b y be $232.57 p e r month. 33 2110531 p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n was h a r m l e s s error. Conclusion The modifying mother's custody appeal of the c h i l d cross-appeal of the t r i a l APPEAL from the t r i a l court's i s affirmed. The c o u r t ' s judgment i s a l s o judgment father's affirmed. AFFIRMED. CROSS-APPEAL AFFIRMED. P i t t m a n , B r y a n , a n d Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . 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 writing. Thompson, P . J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t as t o t h e c r o s s a p p e a l a n d d i s s e n t s as t o t h e a p p e a l , w i t h w r i t i n g . 34 2110531 THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g i n t h e r e s u l t as t o t h e c r o s s - a p p e a l a n d d i s s e n t i n g as t o t h e a p p e a l . As t o the mother's appeal, I must r e s p e c t f u l l y dissent from t h a t p a r t o f t h e main o p i n i o n a f f i r m i n g t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n of custody. I modification agree that the evidence of custody under the standard p a r t e McLendon, had cannot available 455 So. 2d 863 to i t methods ensuring a set forth ( A l a . 1984). of supports i n Ex The t r i a l court that the mother complied w i t h i t s orders other than a m o d i f i c a t i o n of custody. In this case, the trial court has judgment t h a t e n s u r e s t h a t t h e p a r e n t s set forth a detailed a c t i n a m a t u r e manner t h a t w i l l n o t n e g a t i v e l y i m p a c t t h e c h i l d , and t h e t r i a l may enforce that commend t h e t r i a l the judgment court through court i t s contempt powers. for ordering that these parents I and c h i l d p a r t i c i p a t e i n counseling. As t o t h e f a t h e r ' s c r o s s - a p p e a l , I concur i n the r e s u l t w i t h r e g a r d t o t h a t p a r t o f t h e main o p i n i o n t h a t a f f i r m s t h e trial court's judgment on the award. 35 issue of the child-support

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.