Patrick Haynes v. Ashley Haynes

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/12/2012 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 2110534 P a t r i c k Haynes v. Ashley Haynes Appeal from Lauderdale C i r c u i t (DR-10-170.01) Court THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . Patrick Haynes ("the f a t h e r " ) and Ashley Haynes ("the m o t h e r " ) were d i v o r c e d b y a S e p t e m b e r 14, 2 0 1 0 , j u d g m e n t o f the Lauderdale incorporated Circuit Court; the t h e terms o f a s e t t l e m e n t divorce judgment agreement r e a c h e d by 2110534 the p a r t i e s . the Pursuant divorce custody years of to the p a r t i e s ' s e t t l e m e n t judgment the awarded p a r t i e s ' minor o l d at the time child for one May 15 father, who i s active On modify her in each year. 3, primary who was not in the 2010, physical yet The three divorce f a t h e r have v i s i t a t i o n the At base i n H o n o l u l u , December child, t h a t the month through military mother of the p a r t i e s ' d i v o r c e . judgment a l s o p r o v i d e d the the agreement, fall the and time from was January 15 divorce, of the military, with the assigned to Hawaii. the mother filed a petition the mother alleged that the child e x p e r i e n c e d d i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h the v i s i t a t i o n arrangement. responded by filing m o d i f i c a t i o n of custody The trial court O c t o b e r 17, 2011, it, to the v i s i t a t i o n p r o v i s i o n s of the d i v o r c e judgment; i n petition, father a among o t h e r a of the conducted the t r i a l counterclaim seeking had The a child. an ore tenus hearing. On c o u r t e n t e r e d a judgment i n w h i c h t h i n g s , made f i n d i n g s of fact, f a t h e r ' s c l a i m seeking a m o d i f i c a t i o n of custody, denied and the granted the mother's c l a i m s e e k i n g a m o d i f i c a t i o n of v i s i t a t i o n ; the trial court awarded the father 2 a standard schedule of 2110534 alternating father filed appealed weekend v i s i t a t i o n . a after postjudgment the denial On November 1 motion. by 2 The operation 4, 2 0 1 1 , t h e father of law timely of h i s postjudgment motion. The hearing evidence p r e s e n t e d by t h e p a r t i e s a t t h e ore tenus reveals the following pertinent f a c t s . a member o f t h e m i l i t a r y . matter, Hawaii The The f a t h e r i s A t the time of the hearing i n this t h e f a t h e r had been s t a t i o n e d a t a m i l i t a r y base i n f o r three parties years a n d was c o m p l e t i n g d i d not dispute that that the e x i s t i n g assignment. visitation p r o v i s i o n o f t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t w o u l d no l o n g e r be n e c e s s a r y b e c a u s e t h e f a t h e r p l a n n e d t o move f r o m H a w a i i t o a l o c a t i o n much closer t o t h e mother's home i n Alabama. The father d i s p u t e d t h e mother's evidence p e r t a i n i n g t o whether t h e c h i l d had experienced difficulties with regard to the v i s i t a t i o n schedule. As i s e x p l a i n e d l a t e r i n t h i s o p i n i o n , a t t h e h e a r i n g t h e f a t h e r p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t he p l a n n e d t o move from H a w a i i t o Alabama o r Tennessee. 1 The father later filed what he c h a r a c t e r i z e d as "amendments" t o t h a t 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 h o s e f i l i n g s were made on F e b r u a r y 13, 2012, a n d M a r c h 1, 2012. Those "amended" m o t i o n s were f i l e d o u t s i d e t h e 90 d a y s a l l o w e d b y R u l e 59.1, A l a . R. C i v . P., f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o r u l e on t h e f a t h e r ' s t i m e l y , November 4, 2 0 1 1 , p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n . 2 3 2110534 The father testified that he was t o be t r a n s f e r r e d t o another m i l i t a r y base s h o r t l y a f t e r t h e h e a r i n g had requested that he be transferred K n o x v i l l e o r Memphis, T e n n e s s e e . a n d t h a t he t o Birmingham or to The f a t h e r e x p l a i n e d t h a t he e x p e c t e d t o be t r a n s f e r r e d t o e i t h e r B i r m i n g h a m o r K n o x v i l l e because, he s a i d , the m i l i t a r y member t o h i s o r h e r f i r s t usually or second assigned choice. t e s t i f i e d that, i n a n t i c i p a t i o n of the t r i a l his petition to modify i n v e s t i g a t e d schools custody arose regarding relevant on the facts t o t h e i s s u e s on The m a j o r i t y claim seeking testified some e v i d e n c e visitation S e p t e m b e r 14, 2010, d i v o r c e testimony t o modify officer granting child, he had after judgment. pertaining disputes the entry of the The p a r t i e s ' d i f f e r i n g to that issue are not appeal. custody his military to the father's of the c h i l d . career, f o r an e n g i n e e r i n g 4 The a n d he e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t he e x p e c t e d t o c o n t i n u e a planning father regarding of the evidence pertained regarding The court's the service i n b o t h Birmingham and K n o x v i l l e . The p a r t i e s p r e s e n t e d that of a division. father presented i n h i s j o b as The f a t h e r 2110534 testified the that, i n that j o b , he c o u l d properly take care of child. The father married. year also testified The f a t h e r before, that he was engaged t o be h a d been e n g a g e d t o a n o t h e r woman t h e but that r e l a t i o n s h i p had ended. The father t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d known h i s f i a n c e f o r a number o f y e a r s and that she h a d moved to Hawaii t o be the c h i l d ' s nanny d u r i n g h i s c u s t o d i a l p e r i o d i n t h e s p r i n g o f 2 0 1 1 . The f a t h e r stated that h i s romantic r e l a t i o n s h i p with h i s fiancé began a f t e r h e r move t o H a w a i i . The m o t h e r a n d t h e c h i l d in Lauderdale child was County. The m o t h e r on h i s e x t e n d e d spring H a w a i i , she a t t e n d e d a l o c a l her f a t h e r ' s b u s i n e s s . l i v e with the mother's p a r e n t s testified visit that with when t h e the father i n community c o l l e g e a n d w o r k e d i n At the time of the hearing, t h e mother was n o t w o r k i n g o r e n r o l l e d i n s c h o o l , b u t she t e s t i f i e d she planned to r e g i s t e r f o r classes The care father alleged f o r the c h i l d drugs. The f a t h e r drug-rehabilitation that i n t h e s p r i n g o f 2012. t h e mother b e c a u s e , he s a i d , t e s t i f i e d that program on 5 that could not properly she was u s i n g illegal t h e m o t h e r h a d been two occasions during in a the 2110534 p a r t i e s ' marriage. I t i s undisputed t h a t t h e mother completed t h e s e c o n d d r u g - r e h a b i l i t a t i o n p r o g r a m i n June 2008, two y e a r s before the p a r t i e s divorced, and t h a t she was t r e a t e d i n t h a t p r o g r a m f o r an a d d i c t i o n t o c o c a i n e . The father testified t h a t he s u s p e c t e d t h a t t h e mother had u s e d a l c o h o l o r d r u g s s i n c e t h e p a r t i e s ' d i v o r c e , b u t t h a t he had no explained, direct he knowledge refused of t o have such usage any c o n t a c t because, with her. he The f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he does n o t s p e a k t o t h e m o t h e r a n d t h a t when he a s s i s t s t h e c h i l d i n t e l e p h o n i n g t h e m o t h e r , he d i a l s t h e t e l e p h o n e number a n d t h e n hands t h e t e l e p h o n e d i r e c t l y t o the child. The m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t she h a d n o t u s e d c o c a i n e her completion she a t t e n d e d o f t h e second d r u g - r e h a b i l i t a t i o n program, t h a t A l c o h o l i c s Anonymous m e e t i n g s a p p r o x i m a t e l y e a c h month, a n d t h a t she m a i n t a i n e d sponsor. since The m o t h e r a d m i t t e d that, regular contact once with her i n August 2011, s h o r t l y b e f o r e t h e h e a r i n g i n t h i s m a t t e r , she t e s t e d p o s i t i v e f o r t h e use of marijuana. The m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t she h a d u s e d a s m a l l amount o f t h a t d r u g a t a p a r t y a n d t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n t o do so was "dumb." The m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t she h a d n o t u s e d 6 2110534 any other illegal rehabilitation drugs since her p r o g r a m i n 2008 and to submit to drug t e s t i n g at her completion t h a t she own of the w o u l d be drug- willing expense. W i t h r e g a r d t o d r i n k i n g a l c o h o l , t h e m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d on cross-examination that since completing r e h a b i l i t a t i o n p r o g r a m , she had The father then whether she had alleged immediately rape." p a r t i e s and incident completed the the It the and parties been "maybe one questioned the intoxicated during is trial that had the clear from the the drug- o r two beers." mother night as "of divorced. sometime a f t e r t h e The trial court the " a l l e g e d rape" mother second d r u g - r e h a b i l i t a t i o n program but had to this t r a n s c r i p t that c o u r t were aware o f t h e i t occurred second had before rejected the father's attempts to present evidence regarding that i n c i d e n t , and, t h e r e f o r e , t h e r e c o r d c o n t a i n s no e v i d e n c e r e g a r d i n g i t . Before excluding that evidence, the t r i a l c o u r t confirmed t h e m o t h e r was c o n c e d i n g t h a t she had night incident. court, of t h a t the mother stated s i n c e the n i g h t of the Also on that she consumed a l c o h o l on questioning had not from the consumed a l l e g e d rape i n c i d e n t . 7 that the trial alcohol 2110534 In i t s judgment, the trial court concluded m o t h e r had d e m o n s t r a t e d a s u b s t a n t i a l change o f warranting a change i n t h e v i s i t a t i o n award. that the circumstances The trial court d e t e r m i n e d , h o w e v e r , t h a t no m a t e r i a l change i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s had occurred t h a t w a r r a n t e d a change i n t h e p r i m a r y p h y s i c a l custody of the child, claim seeking The therefore, i t d e n i e d the certain court pertinent that concluded to the b r i e f on a p p e a l , Durrett, evidence. excluded erroneously 703 The father evidence that i t could time before the 2d 986, 988 not on but, rather, settlement judgment, conduct explained divorce agreement the in custody, a that court that may is custody-modification "facts existing [judgment] but not at the the In the hear his into parties' at of that the a reach a divorce predivorce This time for evidence parties action. disclosed 8 evidence 1997), does n o t incorporated consider the asserts, i t consider ( A l a . C i v . App. court of he that a p p e l l a t e c a s e , Blume v. trial issue contends parties divorced. t h e f a t h e r c i t e s one So. court erred i n because, p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t when t h e the father's a custody m o d i f i c a t i o n . f a t h e r a r g u e s on a p p e a l t h a t t h e t r i a l excluding trial and, court the time has original may be 2110534 considered by t h e c o u r t i n a s u b s e q u e n t [ c u s t o d y ] m o d i f i c a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g , e v e n t h o u g h t h e s e f a c t s do n o t r e l a t e t o a change of original circumstances [judgment]." App. subsequent to W i l s o n v. W i l s o n 408 the So. 2d 114, divorce 116 (Ala. Civ. 1981). The trial precedent c o u r t e x p r e s s l y s t a t e d t h a t i t was allowing conduct under the p o i n t s out, light of i t to the f a c t s of t h i s case. the t r i a l that consider aware o f parties' predivorce However, as t h e father c o u r t e x c l u d e d c e r t a i n e v i d e n c e even i n precedent. As i s explained b e l o w , we cannot h o l d t h a t , under the f a c t s of t h i s case, the t r i a l c o u r t in doing the trial to t h i s court's i s s u e , the exclusion father f i r s t takes of h i s e v i d e n c e the c i r c u m s t a n c e s of the a l l e g e d rape i n c i d e n t . on appeal, incident, the but, record contains f a t h e r makes a few trial brief that opinion, the no e v i d e n c e p e r t a i n i n g t o t h a t i n c i d e n t . The as already indicated allowed indicated that i t d i d not 9 in this t o make an o f f e r o f p r o o f "circumstances surrounding" court concerning In h i s representations issue about f a t h e r r e q u e s t e d t h a t he be about the erred so. With regard with the t h a t i n c i d e n t , and want t o get into the the 2110534 details of that granted t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o make an o f f e r the evidence So. incident. The father he w a n t e d t o p r e s e n t . requested of proof See W r i g h t 3d 901, 910 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) a n d was regarding v. W r i g h t , 19 (Generally, i n order t o p r e s e r v e an o b j e c t i o n t o t h e e x c l u s i o n o f e v i d e n c e , t h e p a r t y must d e m o n s t r a t e what t h e e v i d e n c e , i f admitted, shown.). proceeded However, the f a t h e r then w o u l d have t o argue t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f t h e e v i d e n c e , a n d he n e v e r made t h e r e q u i r e d offer of proof. We that note that there an o f f e r "'trial of proof i s an e x c e p t i o n to the requirement be made when i t i s c l e a r that the c o u r t i s f u l l y aware o f t h e n a t u r e o f t h e t e s t i m o n y ' " t o be o f f e r e d o r t h a t t h e r e l e v a n c y o f t h e t e s t i m o n y i s s e l f evident. App. 977 So. 2d 520, 526-27 ( A l a . C i v . 2 0 0 7 ) ( q u o t i n g K i l c r e a s e v. J o h n Deere I n d u s . E q u i p . Co., 663 on H e n n i s v. H e n n i s , So. 2d 900, 902 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) ) . appeal that this those grounds. note that evidence The f a t h e r h a s n o t a r g u e d i s a d m i s s i b l e under e i t h e r o f Out o f an a b u n d a n c e o f c a u t i o n , h o w e v e r , we the father argued to the t r i a l court that the r e l e v a n c e o f t h e t e s t i m o n y he w a n t e d t o p r e s e n t was t o i m p e a c h the mother's credibility concerning 10 h e r use of a l c o h o l o r 2110534 d r u g s on the night of the a l l e g e d rape i n c i d e n t ; the a r g u e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r had drugs or alcohol represented since her completion r e h a b i l i t a t i o n p r o g r a m i n 2008. t h a t the trial c o u r t was trial conclude the confirm the that of the trial she of the father has demonstrated court b r i e f l y conceded t h a t she that a l c o h o l on no f a c t u a l d i s p u t e the night of drug- deciding, evidence questioned had that still that the evidence. the mother u s e d a l c o h o l on that i t had r o l e i n t h e manner i n w h i c h t h e e v e n t s o f t h a t n i g h t of used as i s e x p l a i n e d b e l o w , we a l l e g e d r a p e i n c i d e n t and Thus, t h e r e was not the Assuming, without court erred to r e v e r s a l i n excluding First, night that had of aware o f t h e n a t u r e the f a t h e r wanted to p r e s e n t , cannot t h a t she father regarding incident. the played a unfolded. the mother's The to trial use court a s k e d t h e f a t h e r i f he had 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 m o t h e r had used a l c o h o l on any other after f a t h e r d i d not and testify m o t h e r ' s d r u g o r a l c o h o l use to the does n o t occasion 2008, b u t assert that h i s witnesses on any i n v o l v i n g the a l l e g e d rape i n c i d e n t . the father the several witnesses was regarding attempting that 11 to present i n c i d e n t was could occasion o t h e r t h a n t h e one evidence the Thus, through cumulative of 2110534 the mother's c o n c e s s i o n t h a t she h a d time W i l s o n v. W i l s o n , 3, of t h a t i n c i d e n t . 2012] So. 3d , Also, i s cumulative the trial [Ms. 2100540, ( A l a . C i v . App. e x c l u s i o n of a d m i s s i b l e evidence that evidence consumed a l c o h o l a t Feb. 2012) (The i s n o t r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r when of o t h e r court evidence.). expressed a disinclination r e q u i r e t h e m o t h e r t o t e s t i f y r e g a r d i n g an a l l e g e d r a p e . father has not argued p u r p o r t e d l y impeaching to this court any of such than the mother's c r e d i b i l i t y about her a sensitive subject. regarding This to The b a s i s , other of a l c o h o l t h a t n i g h t , f o r a l l o w i n g testimony circumstances the court use the has stated: "Of course, a trial court may limit cross-examination 'that i s r e p e t i t i o u s , i r r e l e v a n t , h a r a s s i n g , annoying, or h u m i l i a t i n g , or concerns wholly c o l l a t e r a l matters.' R i l e y v. C i t y of H u n t s v i l l e , 379 So. 2d 557, 560 ( A l a . 1980) . We note t h a t ' [ t ] h e u s u a l d i s c r e t i o n v e s t e d i n the trial court to control the extent of c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n i s narrowed i n p r o p o r t i o n to the e x t e n t of the adverseness of the t e s t i m o n y of the witness and the value to the defendant of a d i s a c c r e d i t a t i o n of the w i t n e s s . ' Hendrick v. S t a t e , 368 So. 2d 576, 578 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 7 9 ) . " Wilson v. recognized which the Wilson, the sensitive So. 3d at nature of f a t h e r wanted t o p r e s e n t 12 . the the The trial subject matter testimony court upon of s e v e r a l 2110534 w i t n e s s e s as an a t t e m p t t o p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e o f t h e m o t h e r ' s alcohol u s e on t h e n i g h t of the a l l e g e d rape incident. It determined that, given t h e mother's s t i p u l a t i o n t h a t she had consumed a l c o h o l that night, value father so. i n doing demonstrated that We there cannot the t r i a l was l i t t l e say that court erred to the the father has i n excluding that evidence. The allowed f a t h e r a l s o argues t h a t the t r i a l him t o p r e s e n t evidence d i v o r c e drug use. Durrett, supra, admissible. regarding court should have the mother's p r e - The f a t h e r i s c o r r e c t t h a t , u n d e r Blume v. the evidence However, as he already attempted stated to proffer i n this was opinion, e v i d e n c e t h a t i s a d m i s s i b l e may be p r o p e r l y e x c l u d e d when t h a t evidence i s cumulative. W i l s o n v. W i l s o n , supra. a r g u m e n t s o f t h e p a r t i e s on t h i s i s s u e , t h e t r i a l During the court noted t h a t i t was u n d i s p u t e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a d u s e d i l l e g a l drugs d u r i n g t h e p a r t i e s ' m a r r i a g e , t h a t she h a d c o m p l e t e d two d r u g rehabilitation programs by 2008, and t h a t t h e mother consumed a l c o h o l on t h e n i g h t o f t h e a l l e g e d rape The the father that trial court verified that e v i d e n c e a t t h e t i m e he e n t e r e d 13 into had incident. knew a b o u t a l l o f t h e agreement f o r 2110534 the mother t o m a i n t a i n p r i m a r y The trial of marijuana p h y s i c a l custody of the c o u r t noted t h a t , except her p u r p o r t e d during the pendency of this child. one-time use litigation, the mother d i s p u t e d u s i n g i l l e g a l drugs or a l c o h o l a f t e r the n i g h t of the alleged whether the rape incident. f a t h e r had any The trial witnesses or court inquired evidence a v a i l a b l e t e n d i n g t o i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e m o t h e r had u s e d a l c o h o l o r d r u g s since that evidence. any time. The changes The trial that circumstances father did not present any such c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t i t wanted t o focus would constitute s i n c e the p a r t i e s ' material changes on in divorce. " [ T ] h i s Court w i l l not r e v e r s e a t r i a l c o u r t ' s r e f u s a l t o admit otherwise shown a t trial admissible by means. In short, to error." C i t y o f G u l f S h o r e s v. H a r b e r t ( A l a . 1992). cumulative i f the failure 354 admit other evidence evidence same a facts trial is merely Int'l, 608 So. are court's harmless 2d F u r t h e r , " [ t ] h e law i s w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t 348, the ' t r i a l c o u r t has w i d e d i s c r e t i o n t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r e v i d e n c e is r e l e v a n t , m a t e r i a l , or remote.' 2d 416, 455 417 (Ala. (Ala. 1993)." Civ. App. Gober v. K h a l a f , T a y l o r v. 1996). In 14 Hogan, 673 this case, So. the 628 So. 2d 453, mother's 2110534 p r e d i v o r c e c o n d u c t was shown i n h e r own e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d by t h e f a t h e r . The to present a d d i t i o n a l evidence t e s t i m o n y and i n some that court focused the c i r c u m s t a n c e s had change in that was i s s u e , but i t would receive changed s i n c e the d i v o r c e custody. demonstrated admitted evidence on father clearly so We cannot say material or relevant the on trial whether that warranted that the a d d i t i o n a l evidence wanted the he father a has sought t o have the custody- to modification action that i t s exclusion constituted reversible e r r o r under the f a c t s of t h i s The the case. f a t h e r a l s o a r g u e s t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e does n o t denial of h i s c u s t o d y - m o d i f i c a t i o n claim. support The divorce judgment awarded the mother p r i m a r y p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y of child, custody and, therefore, in a r r a n g e m e n t , t h e f a t h e r was order to modify r e q u i r e d t o meet 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 that standard, demonstrating the that father a that the was change required in ( A l a . 1984) . to present custody would Under evidence materially p r o m o t e t h e c h i l d ' s w e l f a r e and t h a t t h e d i s r u p t i o n c a u s e d by the of change i n c u s t o d y t h a t c u s t o d y change. w o u l d be offset by Ex p a r t e McLendon, 15 the supra. advantages 2110534 In h i s b r i e f factual First, issues on appeal, t h a t he the father identifies says support a custody only two modification. the f a t h e r argues t h a t the e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e s t h a t m o t h e r has not stopped using illegal drugs. He the cites the mother's p o s i t i v e drug t e s t f o r m a r i j u a n a d u r i n g the pendency of that this action and several m o t h e r made on a s o c i a l - m e d i a of concern. mother i n s i s t e d there The page. to drinking or that, other alcohol since t h a t i t was than that the a bad alleged willing also assured the trial court rape she used that The had not incident, and that t o s u b m i t t o random d r u g t e s t i n g a t h e r In a d d i t i o n , the had decision. occasion, i s no e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d t o d i s p u t e mother the Those f a c t s a r e a m a t t e r However, t h e m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t she m a r i j u a n a once a t a p a r t y and used drugs references she own testimony. would be expense. father also alleges that custody should be m o d i f i e d b e c a u s e , he s a y s , the mother a c c u s e d her f a t h e r of sexually mother abusing her. 3 The testified that in 2008, We a l s o n o t e t h a t t h e f a t h e r , f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e on appeal, argues t h a t the C h i l d Custody or Domestic or F a m i l y A b u s e A c t , § 30-3-130 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975, a p p l i e s and t h a t , under t h a t a c t , t h e r e i s a presumption t h a t custody s h o u l d n o t be a w a r d e d t o t h e m o t h e r b e c a u s e she l i v e s w i t h h e r father; the father bases that argument on what he c h a r a c t e r i z e s as t h e m o t h e r ' s a c c u s a t i o n s o f abuse a g a i n s t h e r 3 16 2110534 during her p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n her second d r u g - r e h a b i l i t a t i o n p r o g r a m , she f e l t p r e s s u r e d illegal t o i d e n t i f y a r e a s o n she h a d u s e d d r u g s and t h a t , as a r e s u l t , she h a d i n c l u d e d i n h e r r e h a b i l i t a t i o n d i a r y l e t t e r s accusing her f a t h e r of molesting her as a child. allegations were However, not true letters or mentioned father. Although the mother and t h a t testified that she h a d n o t s e n t the those the a l l e g a t i o n s t o her mother or h e r t h e f a t h e r , i n h i s b r i e f on a p p e a l , does n o t f i n d the mother's e x p l a n a t i o n of those d i a r y e n t r i e s c r e d i b l e , the trial court, position to as the observe the trier of parties fact, and was i n the witnesses t e s t i f i e d and t o draw c o n c l u s i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e i r from those 695, 697 observations. ("In d e t e r m i n i n g the t r i a l c r e d i b i l i t y of witnesses, they credibility See, e.g., Bunn v. Bunn, 628 So. 2d ( A l a . C i v . App. 1993) be a c c o r d e d t e s t i m o n y , as best the weight to c o u r t , as s o l e j u d g e o f t h e c o n s i d e r s t h e demeanor and a p p a r e n t father. See § 3 0 - 3 - 1 3 1 , A l a . Code 1975 ("In e v e r y p r o c e e d i n g where t h e r e i s a t i s s u e a d i s p u t e as t o t h e c u s t o d y o f a c h i l d , a d e t e r m i n a t i o n by t h e c o u r t t h a t d o m e s t i c o r f a m i l y v i o l e n c e has o c c u r r e d r a i s e s a r e b u t t a b l e p r e s u m p t i o n b y t h e c o u r t t h a t i t i s d e t r i m e n t a l t o t h e c h i l d and n o t i n 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 t o be p l a c e d i n s o l e c u s t o d y , joint l e g a l custody, or j o i n t p h y s i c a l custody w i t h the p e r p e t r a t o r of domestic or f a m i l y v i o l e n c e . " ) . T h i s i s s u e may n o t be r a i s e d f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e on a p p e a l . 17 2110534 candor or e v a s i v e n e s s may of the The mother p r e s e n t e d doing child The liked properly i t considers the father presented his care majority and court and should fiancé f o r the of and that child the record does n o t the he child Our review McLendon, i n d i c a t i n g that the his fiancé i f he were a w a r d e d c u s t o d y . that this f o r t h a t of the t r i a l Patronas, favor 693 of So. the The evidence pertained to the mother's conduct. evidence tending The to i n d i c a t e that child's has stated that an appellate of a f a c t u a l i s s u e i n a c u s t o d y - m o d i f i c a t i o n and could a best supra. supreme c o u r t limited child her change i n c u s t o d y w o u l d m a t e r i a l l y p r o m o t e t h e interests. belief."). shared with and remainder of the contain worthy of evidence the f a t h e r ' s a l l e g a t i o n s r e g a r d i n g in trial evidence i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the w e l l i n t h e home she parents. vast and d i s b e l i e v e and d i s r e g a r d p o r t i o n s o f t e s t i m o n y accept only that testimony was witnesses, court may not trial 474-75 ( A l a . 1997) . court's m o d i f i c a t i o n a c t i o n i s b a s e d on 18 the action i s s u b s t i t u t e i t s judgment c o u r t or reweigh the evidence. 2d 473, court's judgment Ex parte The presumption in a custody- advantage t h a t the trial 2110534 c o u r t has o f s e e i n g t h e p a r t i e s and w i t n e s s e s as t h e y t e s t i f y . Thus, " [ t ] h i s case, l i k e a l l d i s p u t e d custody cases, turns on t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e e v i d e n c e . The trial c o u r t i s i n the b e t t e r p o s i t i o n to e v a l u a t e t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f t h e w i t n e s s e s ... and the 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 to c o n s i d e r a l l o f t h e e v i d e n c e , as w e l l as t h e many i n f e r e n c e s t h a t may be drawn f r o m t h a t e v i d e n c e , and to decide the i s s u e of custody." Ex p a r t e B r y o w s k y , 676 So. 2d 1322, 1326 ( A l a . 1996). T h i s c o u r t has c a r e f u l l y c o n s i d e r e d t h e e v i d e n c e and arguments of the p a r t i e s , e s p e c i a l l y i n l i g h t of the concerning the mother's use of pendency of t h i s custody a c t i o n . parties trial l o v e the c h i l d court, after an illegal evidence during the I t i s c l e a r t h a t each of the and want t h e c h i l d receiving drug the t o be happy. testimony, determined that The the evidence the p a r t i e s p r e s e n t e d d i d not warrant a m o d i f i c a t i o n of custody. Given the presumption the factual demonstrated had n o t met the evidence i n t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l i n f a v o r of the t r i a l issues, we cannot say court's resolution that the father and of has t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t he t h e Ex p a r t e McLendon s t a n d a r d and, denying h i s c l a i m seeking to modify 19 therefore, in custody of the child. 2110534 The f a t h e r l a s t a r g u e s 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 i s "impracticable" 60(b)(2), hearing assigned and should A l a . R. C i v . P. i n this matter, to either be set aside pursuant to Rule The f a t h e r a r g u e s t h a t , a f t e r t h e he d i s c o v e r e d he h a d n o t been t o which of the c i t i e s that he h a d t o l d t h e t r i a l c o u r t he w o u l d be t r a n s f e r r e d . R a t h e r , he r e p r e s e n t s i n his b r i e f t h a t he now r e s i d e s i n A t l a n t a a n d t h a t t h e d i s t a n c e for him t o t r a v e l to exercise the t r i a l court's a w a r d i s f a r t h e r away t h a n he h a d a n t i c i p a t e d . also represents that the t r i a l i s s u e when he p u r p o r t e d l y and that court failed visitation The father t o address this r a i s e d i t i n a postjudgment motion t h a t m o t i o n was p u r p o r t e d l y d e n i e d by o p e r a t i o n of law. The record father f i l e d R. and "amended m o t i o n that he court for "Rule 60(b)[, to alter, new t r i a l . " lived order that on a motion, purportedly C i v . P., alternative, indicates i n Atlanta, amend, February 13, 2012, t h e p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 59, A l a . A l a . R. Civ. P.,]" t i t l e d or vacate In that motion, the father a n d he r e q u e s t e d t h a t h i s m o t h e r be a l l o w e d judgment, that the or i n stated trial t o p i c k up t h e c h i l d t h e a l t e r n a t i n g - w e e k e n d v i s i t a t i o n awarded i n t h e October 20 2110534 17, 2011, judgment. The father s e e k s on a p p e a l , i . e . , that aside. the Further, d i d not seek the r e l i e f the v i s i t a t i o n father d i d not seek he p r o v i s i o n be s e t that relief in a l a t e r "amendment" t o t h e p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n f i l e d on M a r c h 1, 2012. Further, the February 13, 2012, "amended" motion was f i l e d f a r i n e x c e s s o f t h e 30 d a y s a l l o w e d by R u l e 5 9 ( e ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., to seek father's original, d e n i e d by trial lost of a judgment. The November 4, 2011, p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n operation court the m o d i f i c a t i o n o f l a w on jurisdiction F e b r u a r y 2, after that 2012. Thus, was the date to modify i t s judgment and c o u l d n o t have p r o p e r l y s u b s e q u e n t l y r u l e d on any purported motion. "amendments" to the timely filed Weaver v. Weaver, 4 So. 3d 1171, 1174 postjudgment ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) . The relief father under briefly Rule 60(b)(2), r e l i e f f r o m a judgment is newly f a t h e r ' s m o t i o n was, Mut. on A l a . R. appeal that C i v . P., he sought which allows i n c e r t a i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s when e v i d e n c e discovered. Ex p a r t e A l f a asserts We whether the i n s u b s t a n c e , a R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n . See Gen. need I n s . Co., 21 not determine 684 So. 2d 1281, 1282 ( A l a . 2110534 1996) (the substance, rather than the t i t l e , governs the nature of the motion). m o t i o n was made p u r s u a n t t o R u l e not ruled which Civ. on t h a t m o t i o n , to appeal. App. Rhodes 2009). opinion, the t r i a l 60(b), the t r i a l and t h e r e i s no f o r the a motion Even assuming t h a t v. Rhodes, Thus, of final court order 38 So. 3d 54, reasons s e t out that has from 63 ( A l a . in this c o u r t ' s judgment i s a f f i r m e d . AFFIRMED. Pittman, J . , concurs. Bryan, without Thomas, and Moore, writings. 22 J J . , concur i n the result,

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.