Ex parte Stacey Annee Rose. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Stacey Annee Rose v. Dana Lorne Rice)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 8/3/12 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS SPECIAL TERM, 2012 2110597 Ex p a r t e S t a c e y Annee Rose PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : S t a c e y Annee Rose v. Dana L o r n e (Etowah C i r c u i t PER Rice) Court, DR-12-900001) CURIAM. Stacey Annee Rose ("the m o t h e r " ) f i l e d a petition w r i t o f mandamus s e e k i n g a n o r d e r r e q u i r i n g t h e E t o w a h for a Circuit 2110597 Court to dismiss a custody-modification Lorne Rice father") Etowah ("the Circuit modification the Court to petition mother's or, to i n the Circuit an the Calhoun to order father's Circuit mother and the custody- Court. the The parties, divorce which We the judgment provided seeking sole Etowah County s i n c e resided also in the 1998, in Atlanta, that the Georgia, A t l a n t a , w h e r e she had with the filed Etowah Circuit that the of the child. and that his birth that she had the i n 2000. begun w o r k i n g had leased his lived in child The for a a her had father company residence r e s i d e d Monday t h r o u g h T h u r s d a y of 2 a In mother a l s o m a i n t a i n e d County, m o t h e r had and and father f a t h e r a l l e g e d t h a t he Etowah child the custody i n Etowah County s i n c e alleged their parties judgment i n the divorce physical modification petition, residence I n J a n u a r y 2012, of Calhoun the p a r t i e s were to a l t e r n a t e c u s t o d i a l p e r i o d s to modify the custody" that the legal deny incorporated that a weekly b a s i s . shared by have Court and divorced to petition "joint were were on the History father C o u r t i n June 2003. agreement of child Dana petition. Procedural The f i l e d by alternative, transfer the petition in each 2110597 week s i n c e A u g u s t since 1, 2 0 1 0 . at l e a s t August father during weekends and Finally, the father 1, 2 0 1 0 , t h e c h i l d t h e week times had r e s i d e d and had v i s i t e d at other alleged with mutually that, with the the mother agreed upon by on the parties. On F e b r u a r y or, 9, 2 0 1 2 , t h e m o t h e r f i l e d i n the a l t e r n a t i v e , petition to modify. because the p a r t i e s ' parent a and, thus, action that over she which Court The action reasons." resided that divorce i n Etowah either parent Code 1975, § "change transfer of The m o t i o n of venue from judgment, was 30-3-5, t h e venue this stated the Court to-wit: to the mother's motion. the p a r t i e s i n the Calhoun He n o t e d of Ala. that, The County." responded response father's argued neither of the other." original of Calhoun the mother custodian, could t o any the father that divorce parent "objects as t o t h e dismiss judgment d i d not d e s i g n a t e physical the objection entered Circuit in divorce f o r purposes neither venue In her motion, as t h e p r i m a r y custodial parent t o change a motion to again that County, had Circuit chosen Court the p a r t i e s despite 3 the to for He stated file the "personal and t h e c h i l d a l l mother's part-time 2110597 residence parent i n Atlanta. of the child. mandamus p e t i t i o n by had the father a during father during primarily The filed argument 2012, which that that t h e week to the mother's states t h e mother t h e mother and that executed t h e mother maintained a leased regularly resided i n had visited since August court denied with the mother 1, 2 0 1 0 . the mother's motion t o d i s m i s s o r , t o c h a n g e v e n u e o n F e b r u a r y 1 5 , 2 0 1 2 . The her p e t i t i o n on M a r c h 2 7 , 2 0 1 2 . father answer t h e week, a n d t h a t t h e c h i l d h a d l i v e d w i t h t h e the alternative, court the i n January on t h e w e e k e n d s trial father's i n c l u d e s as an e x h i b i t an a f f i d a v i t i n Atlanta, Atlanta mother The job i n Atlanta, residence in He a l s o s t a t e d t h a t h e was a c u s t o d i a l and b r i e f s for a writ This from court o f mandamus called the parties, with this f o r an a n s w e r from a n d we oral held on J u l y 1 0 , 2 0 1 2 . Standard of Review "'A p e t i t i o n f o r t h e w r i t o f mandamus is the appropriate means b y w h i c h to challenge a t r i a l court's order regarding a c h a n g e o f v e n u e . The w r i t o f mandamus i s an e x t r a o r d i n a r y r e m e d y ; i t w i l l n o t b e i s s u e d u n l e s s t h e p e t i t i o n e r shows " ' " ( 1 ) a clear legal right i n the p e t i t i o n e r to t h e o r d e r s o u g h t ; (2) a n i m p e r a t i v e duty upon t h e r e s p o n d e n t t o p e r f o r m , a c c o m p a n i e d b y a r e f u s a l t o do s o ; (3) t h e l a c k o f 4 2110597 a n o t h e r a d e q u a t e r e m e d y ; a n d (4) p r o p e r l y invoked j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e c o u r t . " ' " Ex parte Inverness Constr. C o . , 775 S o . 2 d 153, 156 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) ( q u o t i n g E x p a r t e G a t e s , 675 S o . 2 d 371 , 374 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) ) ; E x parte Pfizer, I n c . , 74 6 S o . 2 d 960 , 962 (Ala. 1999).' "Ex p a r t e C h i l d r e n ' s 5-6 ( A l a . 2 0 0 5 ) . H o s p . o f A l a b a m a , 931 S o . 2 d 1, "Applying the general rules to a p e t i t i o n f o ra w r i t o f mandamus c h a l l e n g i n g a r u l i n g r e l a t e d t o v e n u e , t h i s C o u r t h a s h e l d : 'The b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g i m p r o p e r v e n u e i s on t h e p a r t y r a i s i n g t h e i s s u e a n d on r e v i e w o f a n o r d e r t r a n s f e r r i n g o r r e f u s i n g t o t r a n s f e r , a w r i t o f mandamus w i l l n o t b e granted u n l e s s t h e r e i s a c l e a r s h o w i n g o f e r r o r on t h e p a r t o f t h e t r i a l j u d g e . ' Ex p a r t e F i n a n c e A m e r i c a C o r p . , 507 S o . 2 d 458 , 4 60 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) . 'Our r e v i e w i s l i m i t e d t o only those f a c t s t h a t were b e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t . ' E x p a r t e K a n e , 98 9 S o . 2 d 5 0 9 , 5 1 1 (Ala. 2008)." Ex p a r t e Lugo de V e g a , 65 S o . 3 d 8 8 6 , 891 ( A l a . 2010). Analysis The of mother mandamus contends directing that t h e Etowah dismiss the father's p e t i t i o n Calhoun Circuit provides father's Court. the basis this court should either or t r a n s f e r the p e t i t i o n to the parties f o r determining custody-modification agree 5 that the proper petition. provides: Court a writ to Both Circuit issue venue Section § 30-3-5 for the 30-3-5 2110597 " N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g any law t o t h e c o n t r a r y , venue of a l l proceedings f o r p e t i t i o n s or other a c t i o n s seeking m o d i f i c a t i o n , i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , or enforcement of a f i n a l decree awarding custody of a c h i l d or children to a parent and/or g r a n t i n g v i s i t a t i o n rights, and/or awarding child support, and/or awarding other expenses i n c i d e n t to the support of a minor child or children, and/or granting p o s t - m i n o r i t y b e n e f i t s f o r a c h i l d or c h i l d r e n i s c h a n g e d so t h a t v e n u e w i l l l i e i n : (1) t h e o r i g i n a l c i r c u i t c o u r t r e n d e r i n g t h e f i n a l d e c r e e ; o r (2) i n the c i r c u i t c o u r t of the county where b o t h the current custodial parent or, in the case of post-minority benefits, where the most recent c u s t o d i a l parent, t h a t parent having custody at the time of the c h i l d ' s a t t a i n i n g m a j o r i t y , and the c h i l d or c h i l d r e n have r e s i d e d f o r a p e r i o d of at least three consecutive years immediately preceding the f i l i n g of the p e t i t i o n or o t h e r a c t i o n . The c u r r e n t or most r e c e n t c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t s h a l l be able to choose the particular venue as herein provided, r e g a r d l e s s of which party files the p e t i t i o n or o t h e r a c t i o n . " Section sole 30-3-5 has been c o n s t r u e d t o p e r m i t a p a r e n t physical choose divorce venue custody, as between a c t i o n was and custodial parent and requisite period The 682 So. 2d precise "primary the county d e c i d e d and custodial parent Hester, or in 6, the 7 or county (Ala. question custody," in the which children of provided that have resided residence. to original of r e s i d e n c e of or c h i l d r e n , child their physical the county the c h i l d with Ex the the the parte 1996). presented 6 by this petition is 2110597 whether § 30-3-5 p e r m i t s custody the right neither parent mother to e i t h e r parent choose venue holding joint or holding j o i n t p h y s i c a l custody c o n t e n d s t h a t § 30-3-5 p r o v i d e s physical circuit whether custody the option court that entered i t permits that right. only a parent to choose physical a venue The with other sole than the o r i g i n a l d i v o r c e judgment. the She c o n t e n d s t h a t , because t h e p a r t i e s were awarded e q u a l p h y s i c a l custodial rights designated as agreement "the be a b l e party. clarified situations custodial in rendering were awarded "custodial because parent" their that Court, she § was settlement judgment, neither f o r the 30-3-5(1) awarded argues could i . e . , "the decree." their counsel § are petition in party over the o b j e c t i o n of the only parties neither divorce argument, Therefore, the f i n a l Conversely, oral which rights. Circuit into position custody-modification Calhoun and t o choose venue During her child custodial incorporated party should other to the be in physical the filed original applies equal that mother father's only circuit in the court 30-3-5(1). the f a t h e r contends t h a t , because the p a r t i e s equal parents" p h y s i c a l custody, and either 7 both p a r t i e s q u a l i f y c u s t o d i a l parent i s able as to 2110597 choose one provided resided o f t h e two proper venues identified t h a t one o f t h e c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t s i n a county divorce judgment immediately other was than preceding for the f i l i n g 30-3-5, and t h e c h i l d the county entered in § where three the original consecutive years of a m o d i f i c a t i o n p e t i t i o n . The f a t h e r a r g u e s t h a t , b e c a u s e b o t h t h e mother and t h e f a t h e r are c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t s , h i s c u s t o d y - m o d i f i c a t i o n p e t i t i o n have been properly filed in either C o u n t y b e c a u s e he a n d t h e c h i l d for of three the consecutive years Calhoun County or could Etowah have r e s i d e d i n Etowah County immediately custody-modification have preceding petition. Under the the filing father's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of § 30-3-5, because both p a r e n t s are c u s t o d i a l parents of a with modification modification To the be arrangement; petition the divorce that and j o i n t 151(1), to determine petition, sure, parties' legal the r i g h t may the parent settlement judgment agreement created i s , the mother 1975 who custody- first files a choose the venue. p h y s i c a l custody A l a . Code the venue (defining 8 and incorporated into a "true" joint-custody the father of t h e i r child. "joint custody" have See as § joint 30-3"joint 2110597 legal custody parent and joint i s favored neither has by custodial Roth, So. a joint the the 2d custodial but instead custody). See also App. sharing rights The 2007) joint child; each the child. See provides law to the c a r e , custody, Hester, supra, as neither parent was parent" in Morgan, custody mother c i t e s each 2004) ... ... and parent 964 have control equal for designated divorce argument as the over a period 2d 24, 31 that of (Ala. parents constitutional "). i n Ex that, "primary neither v. parent of the c h i l d her judgment, has that our supreme c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n support parent (noting one recognizes and Rehfeld with So. neither custody with Morgan v. legal to the ( A l a . C i v . App. ("Alabama their i n regard arrangement does not p r e f e r other Civ. 795 Thus, 1 with periods 791, custody"). judgment only v i s i t a t i o n specified 885 physical parent parte because custodial is "the " J o i n t p h y s i c a l custody" i s defined i n § 30-3-151(3), which reads, i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : " [ p ] h y s i c a l custody i s shared b y t h e p a r e n t s i n a way t h a t a s s u r e s t h e c h i l d f r e q u e n t a n d s u b s t a n t i a l c o n t a c t w i t h each p a r e n t . " J o i n t l e g a l custody i s defined i n § 30-3-151(2), which r e a d s : "Both p a r e n t s have equal rights and responsibilities for major decisions concerning the c h i l d , i n c l u d i n g , but not l i m i t e d t o , the e d u c a t i o n o f t h e c h i l d , h e a l t h c a r e , and r e l i g i o u s t r a i n i n g . The c o u r t may d e s i g n a t e one p a r e n t t o h a v e s o l e p o w e r t o make c e r t a i n d e c i s i o n s w h i l e b o t h p a r e n t s r e t a i n e q u a l r i g h t s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s for other decisions." 1 9 2110597 current custodial 5(2). parent" In Hester, a f o r purposes judgment of applying of the Colbert awarded t h e mother and t h e f a t h e r j o i n t § 30-3- Circuit Court l e g a l custody of t h e i r two c h i l d r e n ; t h e f a t h e r was a w a r d e d p r i m a r y p h y s i c a l custody of primary the parties' physical The son custody father years l a t e r the p a r t i e s ' Court, seeking custody Circuit Court, father's request. mandamus, primary and and because physical i n Franklin underlying involved was awarded 682 S o . 2 d a t 6. the mother f i l e d judgment i n the Colbert of the son. I d . petition the Id. The f a t h e r our supreme The transferred Colbert a petition to Circuit father moved t o to the Franklin Court denied sought a p e t i t i o n court held Circuit that the fora writ the Colbert C o u r t h a d no d i s c r e t i o n t o d e n y t h e f a t h e r ' s m o t i o n t o transfer lived divorce the modification Circuit mother a n d t h e s o n s u b s e q u e n t l y moved t o F r a n k l i n C o u n t y , modify of the of the p a r t i e s ' daughter. and more t h a n t h r e e have and the custody demonstrated f o r over three that that he had he a n d t h e s o n h a d years, a custody-modification the custody To t h e e x t e n t had of the son, that County a c t i o n was only father and t h a t proceeding the that o f t h e s o n . I d . a t 7-8. the mother 10 argues that Hester stands 2110597 for the proposition "primary p h y s i c a l two proper construe as a parent only custodian" venues Hester that a party designated has t h e o p t i o n pursuant to § 30-3-5, as r e j e c t i n g t h e m o t h e r ' s with joint legal custody as t h e t o choose we one o f disagree. argument We that she, of t h e son, "ha[d] as much r i g h t u n d e r § 3 0 - 3 - 5 a s t h e f a t h e r t o c h o o s e v e n u e . " supreme c o u r t legal i n Hester determined that p h y s i c a l custody, not custody, was custodial parent" the i n this present case case have father i n Hester greater physical t o be conclude a that conclusion modify 30-3-5, because equal was parent" the mother physical clearly determining § 30-3-5. custodial c u s t o d i a l r i g h t s over the absence only legislature two v e n u e find rights, i n the and t h e as t h e p a r t y i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e was of such § options a designation 30-3-5(1) applies arrangement. provided "the designated cannot necessitates to actions By e n a c t i n g current i n " a l l proceedings 11 with the p a r t i e s ' son. p h y s i c a l 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 , we that "the We and t h e f a t h e r identifiable a joint-physical-custody the when t o be m a t e r i a l l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m t h e Although neither party with greater considered f o r purposes of applying facts i n Hester facts The to § custodial for petitions 2110597 ... seeking modification, final decree interpretation, or enforcement of a or children to a 1984, custody of a c h i l d " (Emphasis parent awarding added.) S e c t i o n 3 0 - 3 - 5 was e n a c t e d i n and, recognized at that time, i n Alabama. 2 joint or "split" custody S e e Emmons v . Emmons, 450 S o . 2 d 148 (Ala. C i v . App. 1984) ( a w a r d i n g their c h i l d with a l t e r n a t i n g periods of p h y s i c a l custody six weeks); 1984) Ezell custody); App. the the parents joint custody of every v . Hammond, 447 S o . 2 d 7 6 6 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . ( m o d i f y i n g t h e judgment the p a r t i e s ' was children Lightfoot awarding t h e mother so t h a t t h e p a r e n t s v. Bylsma, were custody of awarded joint 412 S o . 2 d 8 1 3 , 814 ( A l a . Civ. 1982) ( r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n judgment awarded parents Ashley, custody 3 8 3 S o . 2 d 8 6 1 , 8 62 the p a r t i e s pursuant joint had been to legislature a have and A s h l e y ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 1 98 0 ) ( n o t i n g awarded divorce could of the children); joint judgment custody of their entered specifically limited in § v. that children 1978). 30-3-5 The in a S e c t i o n 3 0 - 3 - 5 was a m e n d e d i n 1 9 9 0 " t o p r o v i d e f u r t h e r f o r venue w i t h r e s p e c t t o p e t i t i o n s r e s p e c t i n g any p r o v i s i o n of a d i v o r c e decree relating t o : awarding child custody, v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s , c h i l d s u p p o r t payments, and/or awards f o r c h i l d p o s t - m i n o r i t y b e n e f i t s . " T i t l e , A c t No. 9 0 - 6 6 6 , A l a . A c t s 1 9 9 0 . B e f o r e § 3 0 - 3 - 5 was a m e n d e d i n 1 9 9 0 , i t d i d n o t p r o v i d e f o r t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n o f a d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t i n an a c t i o n f o rp o s t m i n o r i t y support. 2 12 2110597 manner t h a t would have had for parties with to desired have o n l y the one original judgment. circuit on court not will parents mother's rendering joint the did final not parents "current equal opportunity modification Such purpose court, of a to choose proceeding. conclusion a venue i s "to prevent a the such and this with custodial c u s t o d i a l parent" venue of a agree T h u s , we d e s i g n a t i o n as c o - e q u a l party divorce p h y s i c a l custody, impose such a l i m i t a t i o n . each rights place the f a t h e r t h a t the p a r t i e s ' made i f i t physical custodial legislature with argument in a modification action, i.e., court the the equal venue o p t i o n However, limitation supported a with custody- 3 is supported s t a t u t e , which, inconvenience by law according relating to our to the p a r t i e s . " to the supreme Ex parte We r e j e c t the mother's argument t h a t such a c o n c l u s i o n allows the father to trump her desire to conduct the modification proceeding i n Calhoun County d e s p i t e the fact that she and the f a t h e r have c o m p l e t e l y equal custodial rights. E i t h e r way t h i s c o u r t d e c i d e s t o r u l e , t h e w i s h e s o f one p a r e n t w i t h e q u a l c u s t o d i a l r i g h t s w i l l be " t r u m p e d . " We a r e s i m p l y c o n c l u d i n g t h a t t h e f a t h e r , as t h e p l a i n t i f f i n t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n a c t i o n and t h e f i r s t p a r t y t o f i l e a p e t i t i o n t o m o d i f y t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t , i s a b l e t o c h o o s e b e t w e e n one o f two p r o p e r v e n u e s p u r s u a n t t o § 3 0 - 3 - 5 . See Ex p a r t e S t a t e e x rel. C.M., 828 So. 2d 2 9 1 , 294 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) ("When v e n u e i s p r o p e r i n m o r e t h a n one c o u n t y , t h e p l a i n t i f f may c h o o s e t h e county i n which to f i l e the a c t i o n . " ) . 3 13 2110597 City of H a l e y v i l l e , court explained, designed 827 S o . 2 d 7 7 8 , 782 "'[v]enue to f a c i l i t a t e ( A l a .2002). ... i s s i m p l y and b a l a n c e a statutory f o r p a r t i e s and w i t n e s s e s of j u d i c i a l resources.'" and e f f i c i e n t allocation Ex p a r t e C i t y o f H a l e y v i l l e , 2 d a t 781 ( q u o t i n g J a c k H. F r i e d e n t h a l e t a l . , (3d e d . device t h e o b j e c t i v e s o f optimum convenience § 2.1 As t h a t Civil 827 S o . Procedure 1999)). "Venue i s important because i t can affect fundamental i s s u e s o f j u s t i c e and t h e convenience o f the p a r t i e s . Venue i s d e f i n e d a s : " ' 1 . The p r o p e r o r a p o s s i b l e p l a c e f o r t h e t r i a l of a l a w s u i t , usu. because the place h a s some c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e e v e n t s that have g i v e n r i s e t o t h e l a w s u i t . 2. The county or other territory over which a trial court has jurisdiction. Cf. J U R I S D I C T I O N . 3. L o o s e l y , t h e p l a c e w h e r e a c o n f e r e n c e o r m e e t i n g i s b e i n g h e l d . 4. In a p l e a d i n g , t h e s t a t e m e n t establishing t h e p l a c e f o r t r i a l . 5. I n a n a f f i d a v i t , t h e d e s i g n a t i o n o f t h e p l a c e w h e r e i t was made.'" Id. ( q u o t i n g B l a c k ' s Law D i c t i o n a r y 1 5 5 3 ( 7 t h e d . 1 9 9 9 ) ) . another way, "'[v]enue' refers to the p a r t i c u l a r county or of convenience or other s u b d i v i s i o n i n which, other commanding policy heard or t r i e d . " P e p p e r e l l M f g . Co. v . A l a b a m a N a t ' l Bank o f Montgomery, f o r t h e sake Put c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , the cause 2 6 1 A l a . 6 6 5 , 6 6 7 , 75 S o . 2 d 6 6 5 , 667 14 i s t o be (1954). 2110597 Although purpose the legislature for allowing venue d i d not expressly t o be p r o p e r state i n the county t h e o r i g i n a l d i v o r c e was e n t e r e d o r w h e r e t h e c u s t o d i a l and the c h i l d or children reside or state the where parent the reason f o r a l l o w i n g t h e c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t t o choose venue i n t h e a c t which has been codified as underlying venue give determining § the purpose 30-3-5, this and the court general some reasoning principles assistance behind the statute. Because any venue s t a t u t e i s c o n c e r n e d w i t h c o n v e n i e n c e parties and resources, between the forum persons that the involved c h i l d r e n would likely basis similar -to to allow giving of parent the custodial judicial to the action in and c h i l d to the or surmise county of or c h i l d r e n i s t o t h a t p a r e n t a n d on t h e f a c t and any w i t n e s s e s for allowing of the on t h e c o n n e c t i o n rise f o r venue be more r e a d i l y remain use i s often based on t h e c o n v e n i e n c e the evidence best i n i t , i t i s not d i f f i c u l t of the c u s t o d i a l p a r t l y based the and t h e event decision residence venue determining and because venue the that with in concerning available the custodial parent's i n the court 15 that the c h i l d or i n that county. parent t o choose i s convenience. originally The Permitting handled the 2110597 divorce action is economy, b e c a u s e the also based the petition and judicial t h a t c o u r t w o u l d l i k e l y be m o r e f a m i l i a r present case, indisputably mother and t h e f a t h e r , and that years they have immediately petition to Moreover, we Court done so indication a trial live for a period custody-modification we be fail filings. the mother's the in father's the i n Etowah conducted Etowah i n the were d i v o r c e d . filing to Thus, see to proceed how s e r v e d i f we were in three of Circuit the Court. agreement, to the mother's Calhoun Circuit the purposes f u r t h e r e d by a l l o w i n g action County f a r exceeding i n the attachments was v e n u e s t a t u t e w o u l d be would and t h e c h i l d custody when t h e p a r t i e s statute to note t h a t t h e p a r t i e s were d i v o r c e d by that Furthermore, attachments preceding modify t h e r e i s no petition the with show t h a t b o t h c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t s , i . e . , the the convenience p a r t i e s and w o u l d have e a s y a c c e s s t o t h e e a r l i e r In and on of the father's Etowah County. the purposes to conclude of that, a 4 venue unless As n o t e d above, the a t t a c h m e n t s to the mother's p e t i t i o n i n d i c a t e t h a t the p a r t i e s chose to f i l e for a divorce i n Calhoun County f o r " p e r s o n a l r e a s o n s . " The r e c o r d d o e s n o t i n d i c a t e what t h o s e " p e r s o n a l r e a s o n s " a c t u a l l y were, and t h e m o t h e r d o e s n o t a r g u e i n h e r p e t i t i o n t h a t E t o w a h C o u n t y i s an i n a p p r o p r i a t e forum f o r reasons r e l a t i n g to the " p e r s o n a l reasons" that caused the p a r t i e s to f i l e f o r a d i v o r c e i n Calhoun County. 4 16 2110597 the p a r t i e s agreed confined circuit a to otherwise, litigate parties with future modification actions traveling modify could from their divorced one conceivably end of divorce i n one northeast of s t a t e to judgment county, corner the southwest corner During concern of oral that only the in because and they to to "race the to proper argument, conclude the that with courthouse" venues to choose the mother's Although mother and equal rights to are not the the and there whichever to could party i n order they had been (located in their to the child had (located in the could determine the in this case. are venue proverbial potentially be filed a choice would be conceivably competing p e t i t i o n s 17 father m o d i f i c a t i o n a c t i o n s of scenario father the expressed first i n the venue of t h e i r venue f o r the that parties' attorney the because and note that there mother County § 30-3-5 w o u l d u l t i m a t e l y l e a d modification proceeding parties. and Such state). c u s t o d i a l parents pursuant able are the other DeKalb County state), the in the simply s u c h as the result m o v e d t o a n o t h e r c o u n t y , s u c h as M o b i l e two custody c o u r t t h a t i s s u e d the o r i g i n a l d i v o r c e judgment. conclusion both joint both occur, we to modify f i l e d by The facts presented 2110597 to this court at this in a forum that t i m e i n v o l v e o n l y one p e t i t i o n i s proper pursuant to § to modify 30-3-5. B a s e d on t h e a r g u m e n t s p r e s e n t e d b y t h e m o t h e r , we conclude that the undisputable right 7 (citing (emphasis Ex mother demonstrated to the order sought." parte added). has Smith, 619 So. Bryan, and 2d 1374 ( A l a . 1 993)) i s denied. DENIED. Pittman, clear H e s t e r , 682 S o . 2 d a t Accordingly, the p e t i t i o n PETITION "a cannot and Moore, Thompson, P . J . , c o n c u r s Thomas, J . , recuses J J . , concur. i n the r e s u l t , herself. 18 without writing.

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.