Bobby Joe Bearden III v. Angel Murphy

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 02/15/2013 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 2110966 Bobby Joe Bearden I I I v. Angel Murphy Appeal from Calhoun C i r c u i t (DR-09-998) Court THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . Bobby Joe Bearden I I I ("the f a t h e r " ) j u d g m e n t a w a r d i n g A n g e l Murphy parties' child ("the c h i l d " ) . appeals ("the m o t h e r " ) c u s t o d y from a of the 2110966 On November 30, 2009, the father filed a complaint s e e k i n g a d i v o r c e , t o s e v e r what he a s s e r t e d was t h e p a r t i e s ' common-law m a r r i a g e , mother and s e e k i n g answered, c l a i m i n g t h a t common-law father's marriage. action. She his complaint in of the c h i l d . the p a r t i e s requested I t i s obvious p a r t i e s have an a c r i m o n i o u s filed custody a from this the r e c o r d action, Before the competing o r d e r s o f p r o t e c t i o n from abuse. of the complaint, the custody of the c h i l d , father, who d i d n o t have dismissal relationship. was the that the the f a t h e r parties awarded temporary has a l l e g e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r p h y s i c a l l y drugs. requiring He a l s o o b t a i n e d with the c h i l d right sought Since the f i l i n g t h e mother o f u s i n g mother's a of a b u s e d t h e c h i l d and has a c c u s e d visitation The t o have orders illegal t h a t the mother's be s u p e r v i s e d and t e r m i n a t i n g t h e overnight visitation. The mother s o u g h t t o have t h e f a t h e r h e l d i n c o n t e m p t a t l e a s t t w i c e and s o u g h t c o u r t i n t e r v e n t i o n t o have u n s u p e r v i s e d v i s i t a t i o n and h o l i d a y v i s i t a t i o n with the c h i l d . this matter was h e l d on May The h e a r i n g on 26, 2011, and F e b r u a r y 10, 2 0 1 2 . 1 T h e r e c o r d does n o t i n d i c a t e why t h e r e was a d e l a y more t h a n e i g h t months b e f o r e t h e h e a r i n g was resumed. 1 2 On of 2110966 the first there day o f t h e h e a r i n g , t h e p a r t i e s was insufficient proof that a stipulated common-law that marriage e x i s t e d , a n d t h e h e a r i n g went f o r w a r d on t h e i s s u e o f c u s t o d y and o t h e r r e l a t e d m a t t e r s . On A p r i l 24, 2012, t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r f i n d i n g t h a t t h e f a t h e r h a d f a i l e d t o p r o v e that the p a r t i e s were p a t e r n i t y of the c h i l d . ever married and adjudicating the The o r d e r went on t o s a y : "3. T h a t t h e p a r t i e s s h a l l i m m e d i a t e l y meet and r e s o l v e t h e i s s u e s o f c u s t o d y and placement o f [ t h e c h i l d ] and o f c h i l d s u p p o r t i n o r d e r t o a v o i d a d i s m i s s a l of t h i s case. "4. T h a t t h i s c a s e s h a l l be CLOSED f o r t y - t w o (42) d a y s f r o m t h e d a t e o f t h i s O r d e r , a t w h i c h t i m e the custody o f the c h i l d s h a l l r e v e r t t o t h e mother, u n l e s s t h e p a r t i e s e - f i l e a s e t t l e m e n t agreement s e t t l i n g a l l o f t h e i s s u e s b e t w e e n them, a l o n g w i t h a proposed f i n a l order, w i t h i n t h a t time p e r i o d . " (Emphasis The i n the o r i g i n a l . ) f a t h e r f i l e d a motion t o a l t e r , order. timely and c a p i t a l i z a t i o n The t r i a l court denied amend, o r v a c a t e t h e the motion, and t h e f a t h e r appealed. Neither over t h i s p a r t y has a d d r e s s e d a p p e a l as i t r e l a t e s this court's jurisdiction to the f i n a l i t y of the t r i a l c o u r t ' s A p r i l 24, 2012, o r d e r f r o m w h i c h t h i s a p p e a l i s t a k e n ; however, j u r i s d i c t i o n a l i s s u e s a r e of such s i g n i f i c a n c e 3 that 2110966 an appellate c o u r t may W a l l a c e v. Tee App. 1997). be 1034 taken notice Co., J a y s Mfg. 689 question." only from A final determines So. Johnson ( A l a . C i v . App. 12-22-2. of them 2d 210, So. 3d 392, mero 211 motu. (Ala. Civ. the a final So. 2d may judgment. judgment issues Johnson, before is the 2d 1249, 395 1253 A l a . Code 'one that c o u r t and (Ala.1990)." ( A l a . C i v . App. 835 is a " G e n e r a l l y , an a p p e a l 2002). v. d e c l a r e s the r i g h t s of the p a r t i e s i n v o l v e d . ' 557 ex "[T]he q u e s t i o n whether a judgment i s f i n a l jurisdictional 1032, take 1975, § conclusively ascertains Bean v. and Craig, W a r r e n v. W a r r e n , 94 So. 2012). T h i s c o u r t has h e l d t h a t a l o w e r c o u r t ' s r e s e r v a t i o n jurisdiction occurrence to decide the i s s u e of c h i l d support pending of a specific event, such as submission of the of the a p p r o p r i a t e c h i l d - s u p p o r t forms, r e n d e r s a judgment n o n f i n a l , see N a y l o r v. Naylor, 981 So. 2d 440, 441 (Ala. Civ. 2 0 0 7 ) , and t h a t a l o w e r c o u r t ' s f a i l u r e t o a c t u a l l y an amount o f child judgment n o n f i n a l , (Ala. 57, 58 C i v . App. support owed by a party also see T u r n e r v. T u r n e r , 883 So. 2 0 0 3 ) ; and T o m l i n s o n v. T o m l i n s o n , ( A l a . C i v . App. 2001). 4 App. determine renders 2d 233, 816 So. a 234 2d 2110966 In t h i s case, the t r i a l c o u r t ' s o r d e r does n o t ascertain and d e c l a r e t h e r i g h t s o f t h e p a r t i e s on any i s s u e s r e l a t e d t o c h i l d custody. The trial c o u r t ordered the p a r t i e s to reach a s e t t l e m e n t on t h e i s s u e s o f c u s t o d y and c h i l d s u p p o r t o r t h e case would be d i s m i s s e d ; however, t h a t , d u r i n g t h e two m a t t e r was the record demonstrates and a h a l f y e a r s t h e l i t i g a t i o n pending, in this t h e p a r t i e s were u n a b l e t o a g r e e on such r o u t i n e m a t t e r s as t a k i n g t h e c h i l d t o T - b a l l p r a c t i c e . The l i k e l i h o o d of the p a r t i e s ' case i s negligible. parties are unable s e t t l i n g the major Although to reach the order states a custody days, then custody of the c h i l d would the trial court made no factual issues i n this i f the settlement within 42 " r e v e r t " t o the mother, findings and e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the a p p a r e n t award of c u s t o d y . judgment i s s i l e n t that offered Moreover, no the as t o w h e t h e r t h e m o t h e r i s t o have sole p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y o n l y , o r w h e t h e r t h e m o t h e r i s t o have b o t h legal and Furthermore, physical the t r i a l custody, at the end of c o u r t d i d not determine the 42 days. parties' r e s p e c t i v e c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n s and r e l a t e d i s s u e s ; f o r example, the c o u r t f a i l e d to determine 5 which p a r t y would be 2110966 responsible f o r maintaining the child's health-insurance coverage. We note visitation relying well. that the t r i a l schedule also d i d not e s t a b l i s h a f o r the noncustodial on t h e p a r t i e s Although court parent, apparently t o e s t a b l i s h and implement a failure to include a visitation that as schedule does n o t r e s u l t i n a n o n f i n a l j u d g m e n t f o r p u r p o s e s o f a p p e a l , leaving parent visitation does to the sole require d i s c r e t i o n of the c u s t o d i a l reversal. I t i s well although this court recognizes left the sound discretion to discretion 638, 644 propriety i s n o t unbounded. that of visitation the noncustodial parent trial that, i s a matter court, such I n P r a t t v. P r a t t , 56 So. 3d ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 0 ) , t h i s o f [a v i s i t a t i o n ] settled court held that "[t]he j u d g m e n t depends on w h e t h e r t h e has a s u f f i c i e n t , specified visitation s c h e d u l e t o r e l y upon, i n d e p e n d e n t o f t h e c u s t o d i a l parent's discretion." ... has on the affirmed We awards also of noted that unspecified "[t]his visitation a g r e e m e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s when t h e t r i a l that, i n the event of disagreement, some o t h e r court 'standard court based also v i s i t a t i o n ' or s p e c i f i e d v i s i t a t i o n w o u l d be i m p o s e d . " 6 provides Id. 2110966 Because the t r i a l c o u r t d i d not d i s p o s e o f a l l the i s s u e s before i t , the order father's appeal. 529, 531 See i s nonfinal, and we must dismiss Baugus v. C i t y o f F l o r e n c e , the 968 So. 2d ( A l a . 2007). APPEAL Pittman DISMISSED. and D o n a l d s o n , J J . , c o n c u r . Moore, J . , c o n c u r s specially, 7 w h i c h Thomas, J . , j o i n s . 2110966 MOORE, J u d g e , I concur dismissal concurring specially. i n a l l respects of the appeal opinion's of a final t o a d d r e s s two o t h e r a s p e c t s t h e o r d e r e n t e r e d by t h e t r i a l that I believe t h e main due t o t h e a b s e n c e judgment, b u t I w r i t e s p e c i a l l y of with c o u r t on A p r i l s h o u l d be n o t e d f o r t h e g u i d a n c e 25, 2012, of the t r i a l court. First, the t r i a l court's order provides, i n pertinent part: "3. T h a t t h e p a r t i e s s h a l l i m m e d i a t e l y meet a n d r e s o l v e t h e i s s u e s o f custody and placement o f [the c h i l d ] and o f c h i l d support i n o r d e r t o a v o i d a d i s m i s s a l of t h i s case." Although mediate a trial their upon p a r t i e s . " c o u r t may o r d e r d i s p u t e , "[a] c o u r t cannot trial Here, before i t to 'force' settlements H e n r y v . P r u s a k , 229 M i c h . App. 162, 170, 582 N.W.2d 193, 196 ( 1 9 9 8 ) . unable the parties to resolve When p a r t i e s b e f o r e a t r i a l c o u r t a r e their differences, i t i s the duty of the court t o resolve the issues p r o p e r l y brought before i t . the t r i a l court eschewed i t s duty by effectively d i s m i s s i n g t h e case s o l e l y because the p a r t i e s d i d n o t s e t t l e their issues themselves, thereby meaningful access t o the j u d i c i a l 8 depriving system. the parties of 2110966 Second, the trial court's order provides: "4. T h a t t h i s c a s e s h a l l be CLOSED f o r t y - t w o (42) d a y s f r o m t h e d a t e o f t h i s O r d e r , a t w h i c h t i m e the custody of the c h i l d s h a l l r e v e r t t o the mother, u n l e s s the p a r t i e s e - f i l e a s e t t l e m e n t agreement s e t t l i n g a l l o f t h e i s s u e s b e t w e e n them, a l o n g w i t h a proposed f i n a l order, w i t h i n t h a t time p e r i o d . " (Emphasis and c a p i t a l i z a t i o n i n t h e o r i g i n a l . ) T h a t l a n g u a g e , h o w e v e r , amounts t o a r e v e r s i o n a r y disfavors. App. 1990), I n H o v a t e r v. this court c l a u s e , which Alabama H o v a t e r , 577 addressed a So. 2d custody 461 law (Ala. Civ. provision in a d i v o r c e judgment t h a t awarded c u s t o d y of the p a r t i e s ' c h i l d t o one parent, but ordered would r e v e r t to the occurred i n the that of the child other parent i f c e r t a i n s p e c i f i e d events future. that provision, this p h y s i c a l custody court 577 So. 2d at 463. In addressing stated: "We f i n d ... t h e c u s t o d i a l r e v e r s i o n a r y c l a u s e i n t h i s i n s t a n c e t o be o f no e f f e c t b e c a u s e i t i s p r e m i s e d on a mere s p e c u l a t i o n o f what t h e best i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d r e n may be a t a f u t u r e d a t e . We have f o u n d t h a t an a g r e e m e n t o f t h e p a r e n t s i s c o n c l u s i v e o f t h e c h i l d r e n ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t s o n l y as l o n g as t h e s t a t u s o f t h e p a r t i e s a t t h e time r e m a i n s u n c h a n g e d . Means v. Means, 512 So. 2d 1386 (Ala. C i v . App. 1 9 8 7 ) . The t r i a l c o u r t ' s r e l i a n c e on t h e o p e r a t i v e l a n g u a g e o f t h e r e v e r s i o n a r y c l a u s e in changing the c u s t o d i a l arrangement i n this instance i s misplaced." Id. 9 2110966 Although, i n the present case, paragraph 4 of the trial c o u r t ' s o r d e r e n v i s i o n s a change i n c u s t o d y o c c u r r i n g o n l y 42 d a y s a f t e r t h e e n t r y o f t h a t o r d e r , I c o n c l u d e t h a t i t amounts to an i m p e r m i s s i b l e r e v e r s i o n a r y c l a u s e . s h o u l d be b a s e d than on t h e p a r t i e s ' s p e c u l a t i o n as the f u t u r e . An a w a r d o f custody current circumstances rather t o what t h o s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s m i g h t be in Id. Moreover, I note t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t v e s t e d custody w i t h the mother custody A without any determination court exercising the c h a n c e r y c o u r t , s u c h as t h e t r i a l proper care jurisdiction." 441 (1916). and custody of whether of the traditional powers child. of minors c o u r t may a "no than to look after coming within their M u r p h r e e v. Hanson, 197 A l a . 246, A trial that c o u r t i n t h i s c a s e , has more i m p o r t a n t o r s a c r e d d u t y t o p e r f o r m 437, to arrangement s e r v e d the b e s t i n t e r e s t s circuit the as 256, 72 So. e n t e r a judgment g r a n t i n g one p a r e n t c u s t o d y o f a c h i l d o n l y a f t e r c o n d u c t i n g a h e a r i n g and d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t s u c h c u s t o d y s e r v e s t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f the c h i l d , see C h a n d l e r v. W h a t l e y , 238 A l a . 206, 189 So. 751 (1939), because i t i s the c h i l d ' s i n t e r e s t s t h a t are p r i m a r i l y at stake. See Montgomery v. Hughes, 4 A l a . App. 10 245, 58 So. 2110966 113 (1911). awarding A trial custody court f a i l s to one i n i t s duty t o t h e c h i l d by parent or the other d e t e r m i n i n g t h e e f f e c t t h a t custody arrangement w i l l the child. (Ala. See g e n e r a l l y C i v . App. 2008) S.A.N. v. S.E.N., (visitation case without have on 995 So. 2d 175 i n which trial court awarded v i s i t a t i o n t o f a t h e r w i t h o u t c o n s i d e r i n g i f v i s i t a t i o n served best i n t e r e s t s of c h i l d r e n ) . In t h i s c a s e , t h e t r i a l custody issue, which c o u r t r e c e i v e d e v i d e n c e as t o t h e evidence was heavily nature, but i t d i d not resolve that issue. simply decided that, themselves i f the p a r t i e s who s h o u l d have c u s t o d y conflicting The t r i a l c o u l d n o t agree of the c h i l d , in court between t h e mother w o u l d a u t o m a t i c a l l y be g i v e n c u s t o d y a t t h e n e n d o f 42 d a y s , w i t h o u t f i n d i n g t h a t t h e mother's h a v i n g custody would the best i n t e r e s t s trial court exclusively, interests based of the c h i l d . i t s custody on c o n v e n i e n c e of the c h i l d . reconsider i t s custody I t appears order serve t o me t h a t t h e primarily, i f not t o t h e c o u r t a n d n o t on t h e b e s t On remand, t h e t r i a l determination Alabama law. Thomas, J . , c o n c u r s . 11 court i n accordance should with

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.