Wendy Graham Ezell v. Christopher Graham

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 07/12/2013 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 Reporter of Decisions, 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, 2013 2120072 Wendy Graham E z e l l v. C h r i s t o p h e r Graham Appeal from Choctaw C i r c u i t (DR-02-32.01) Court PITTMAN, J u d g e . Wendy Graham E z e l l ("the m o t h e r " ) a p p e a l s f r o m a j u d g m e n t of t h e Choctaw C i r c u i t C o u r t , h o l d i n g h e r i n contempt f o r h e r w i l l f u l f a i l u r e and r e f u s a l t o abide by the p r e v i o u s orders o f the court concerning visitation b y C h r i s t o p h e r Graham ("the 2120072 father") with the p a r t i e s ' minor s o n ; sentencing her to five d a y s i n j a i l ; and s u s p e n d i n g t h e s e n t e n c e c o n d i t i o n e d upon h e r future compliance with the v i s i t a t i o n F a c t u a l and The Procedural schedule. We reverse. Background p a r t i e s were d i v o r c e d i n 2002; t h e m o t h e r was s o l e p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y of the p a r t i e s ' f o u r - y e a r - o l d the f a t h e r was granted v i s i t a t i o n i n d i c a t e d t h a t he telephone calls d i d not from, the father. compelled the son to v i s i t with after had displayed the son the son, and I n 2006, t h e rights. want t o v i s i t son with, or to Initially, father. every time a Later, p h y s i c a l symptoms visitation m o t h e r t o o k t h e son t o be c e r t i f i e d c h i l d and Lum however, headaches, decreased approached, disorder, defiant disorder, prescribed oxalate Merrell, R i t a Lum, d i a g n o s e d t h e son as s u f f e r i n g f r o m a anxiety She by Dr. mother the adolescent p s y c h i a t r i s t . Dr. evaluated event receive the s t o m a c h a c h e s , n a u s e a , n i g h t s w e a t s , n i g h t m a r e s , and appetite awarded and a as w e l l as m a j o r d e p r e s s i o n , and possible medication recommended a t t e n t i o n - d e f i c i t disorder. counseling 2 generalized oppositional- a r i p i p r a z o l e and board-certified a board- for clinical the escitalopram son. Jean counselor and 2120072 psychotherapist, office to has b e e n t h e s o n ' s c o u n s e l o r notes r e f l e c t visit the t h a t the father after son the had both parents to discuss recommended that the father, that visitation but resumed on not f a t h e r and May 2010, the the be be in the father parties' filed a 11 days father 2011, to 10:30 met issues. to visit and She with the incrementally relationship building" filed a petition seeking a out motion i n 2010. a.m. Merrell to e x e r c i s e the v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s s e t judgment. for an In November 2010, hearing concerning emergency several continuances, on A u g u s t 10, court entered an o r d e r 2011. that On the 2011, of the August requiring that on A u g u s t 27, i n a p u b l i c park; from visitation f a c i l i t a t e d and s u p e r v i s e d by s o c i a l w o r k e r V i c k i e H e a r n ; 3 the s e e n t h e son f o r a p o r t i o n Following f a t h e r have v i s i t a t i o n b e g i n n i n g a.m. forced the had divorce the t r i a l stepmother. and m o t h e r , a l l e g i n g t h a t she t r i a l court conducted a hearing 25, remarriage gradually v i s i t a t i o n , a l l e g i n g t h a t he had only not son. f i n d i n g o f c o n t e m p t as t o t h e f a i l e d t o a l l o w him expressed a desire visitation a "slow-paced schedule of between the In son Her father's b i r t h o f a d a u g h t e r t o t h e f a t h e r and with s i n c e 2006. the 9:00 be and, 2120072 thereafter, beginning was that a t 9:00 a.m. appropriate entry visitation occur on alternating weekends and l a s t i n g as l o n g as H e a r n d e t e r m i n e d and b e n e f i c i a l t o t h e s o n . o f t h e A u g u s t 25, 2011, order, Following the f a t h e r the had three b r i e f v i s i t s w i t h t h e s o n , two o f w h i c h were c u t s h o r t by t h e s o n , who s t a t e d t h a t he was n o t f e e l i n g w e l l o r t h a t he w a n t e d t o see a movie w i t h h i s f r i e n d s . in an effort mother, but to she arrange was more The f a t h e r c o n t a c t e d visits; unsuccessful Hearn Hearn contacted i n s e t t i n g up the additional visitation. On O c t o b e r 21, 2011, t h e f a t h e r f i l e d another contempt p e t i t i o n , a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a d f a i l e d t o a b i d e by t h e trial the court's A u g u s t 25, 2011, o r d e r . On December 7, f a t h e r moved f o r an emergency o r d e r holiday v i s i t a t i o n . parties, the visitation trial concerning court ordered on December 26, 2011. court the case Christmas Following a telephone conference with the that for trial the The t r i a l c o n t e m p t p e t i t i o n s was s e t , and c o n t i n u e d , setting 2011, on September of the 5, 2012, have father's several times. o r d e r e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r have v i s i t a t i o n 4 father the In trial on J u l y 28 and 2120072 A u g u s t 12, 2012, and t e l e p h o n e c o n t a c t w i t h t h e s o n t w i c e p e r week. At t r i a l , 4 witnesses the f a t h e r , the mother, the son, who was t h e n 13 y e a r s o l d , and H e a r n court also Merrell. received The the d e p o s i t i o n father petition i n May parties' 2010 divorce, stated that because, his visits The trial t e s t i m o n y o f Dr. Lum he h a d i n the with testified. filed years the and contempt following t h e s o n h a d grown the shorter and f a r t h e r a p a r t ; s o m e t i m e s , he s a i d , he h a d n o t s e e n t h e s o n f o r months a t a t i m e . the entry of establishing able the The f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t , e v e n a f t e r trial court's a revised visitation t o see t h e son between 2012. August 2011, order s c h e d u l e , he h a d n o t been December 26, 2011, and J u l y 28, When t h e f a t h e r was q u e s t i o n e d a b o u t what a c t i o n s t h e mother had t a k e n t h a t i n d i c a t e d h e r w i l l f u l by 25, previous conclusory visitation orders, a l l e g a t i o n s contained the failure father to abide repeated the in his petitions, stating, f o r e x a m p l e , t h a t t h e m o t h e r " w o u l d n o t l e t [him] have h i s s o n when she was s u p p o s e d t o " o r t h a t t h e m o t h e r " w o u l d n o t a l l o w [him] t o p i c k up [ t h e ] s o n and have v i s i t a t i o n w i t h 5 him." 2120072 The f a t h e r m a i n t a i n e d t h a t he was p r e p a r e d t o c o n d u c t h i s visits i n a manner t h a t w o u l d the son. f u r t h e r the best i n t e r e s t s of He a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t t h e s o n ' s a n x i e t y p r o b l e m s h a d e x i s t e d s i n c e t h e son was s e v e n y e a r s o l d , and he a g r e e d t h a t , b e c a u s e o f t h e a n x i e t y p r o b l e m s , t h e son s h o u l d n o t be t o v i s i t him. the He The son t e s t i f i e d t h a t he d i d n o t want t o v i s i t f a t h e r b e c a u s e , he testified visiting forced that s a i d , he the mother " g e t s s i c k " when he had not visits. p r e v e n t e d him from the f a t h e r . 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 e v e r f a i l e d o r t o l e t the son v i s i t the f a t h e r . refused D u r i n g t i m e s when she had c o m p e l l e d t h e son t o v i s i t w i t h t h e f a t h e r , t h e son h a d become sick with vomiting, diarrhea, and n i g h t s t a t e d t h a t she was n o t w i l l i n g sweats. The mother t o p u n i s h t h e son i n o r d e r t o make h i m v i s i t t h e f a t h e r , b u t , she s a i d , she w o u l d c o o p e r a t e , w i t h i n the l i m i t a t i o n s of the recommendations made by Dr. Lum and M e r r e l l , i n o r d e r t o r e e s t a b l i s h t h e s o n ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p with the f a t h e r . Dr. Lum that the testified mother unwillingness was t h a t she h a d no i n f o r m a t i o n i n d i c a t i n g the source or to v i s i t with the f a t h e r . 6 cause of the son's To t h e c o n t r a r y , Dr. 2120072 Lum said, t h e mother had encouraged t h e son t o v i s i t the f a t h e r a n d h a d s t a t e d t h a t h e r l i f e w o u l d be e a s i e r i f t h e s o n would visit with recommendation anxiety father. Dr. Lum Nevertheless, her appeared she o p i n e d t h a t , b e c a u s e t h e t o be t r i g g e r e d f a t h e r , t h e s o n w o u l d n o t be a b l e t o v i s i t b o t h m e d i c a t i o n and t h e r a p y . the mother's a p p r o v a l , psychotropic reiterated t h a t t h e s o n n o t be f o r c e d t o v i s i t t h e f a t h e r against h i s w i l l . son's the drugs by v i s i t s with the the father without She s t a t e d t h a t the son, with had r e c e n t l y decided t o d i s c o n t i n u e the that h a d been prescribed f o r him. f a t h e r s t a t e d t h a t he h a d been unaware o f any s p e c i f i c The issues c o n c e r n i n g t h e s o n ' s m e d i c a t i o n s b u t t h a t he p r e f e r r e d that the been son n o t take drugs as s t r o n g as t h o s e that had p r e s c r i b e d b y D r . Lum. Merrell stated that during and December father, t h e p e r i o d between October 1 26, 2 0 1 1 , when t h e s o n h a d n o t v i s i t e d the t h e s o n h a d been more s o c i a b l e ; h i s mood h a d l e v e l e d off; a n d he h a d n o t e x p e r i e n c e d n i g h t t e r r o r s . with Dr. Lum t h a t t h e s o n s h o u l d the father reluctance and t h a t to v i s i t . n o t be f o r c e d t o v i s i t t h e mother She s t a t e d : 7 M e r r e l l agreed had not caused with t h e son's " I want t o make i t v e r y 2120072 c l e a r t h a t the problem i s i n s i d e of man o r t h i s woman. somehow has Okay? gotten I r e a l l y want confused. biochemistry, o k a y , and well counseling." as confirmed want to replied, the t h a t she visit the had This t h a t i s why On directly father. "Because I get [the s o n ] . To [ I ] t ' s not I understand that is medication [the her son why question, son's] i s needed cross-examination asked the this he the as Merrell did not son had sick." On September 28, 2012, the t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d a judgment that states, i n pertinent part: "2. The c o u r t f i n d s from the e v i d e n c e and t e s t i m o n y t h a t [ t h e m o t h e r ] has w i l l f u l l y f a i l e d and r e f u s e d t o a l l o w [the f a t h e r ] t o e x e r c i s e h i s c o u r t o r d e r e d v i s i t a t i o n w i t h h i s m i n o r son ... as o r d e r e d i n t h e d i v o r c e [ j u d g m e n t ] o f May 22, 2002, and t h e c o u r t o r d e r o f A u g u s t 25, 2011. The c o u r t does n o t f i n d a j u s t i f i a b l e reason f o r the a c t i o n s of [the mother]. "3. The [mother] i s h e r e b y h e l d i n c o n t e m p t o f c o u r t f o r h e r r e f u s a l t o a b i d e by t h e previous o r d e r s o f t h i s c o u r t c o n c e r n i n g v i s i t a t i o n by t h e [ f a t h e r ] w i t h h i s minor son. "4. As a r e s u l t o f h e r c o n t e m p t , t h e [mother] i s h e r e b y o r d e r e d t o s e r v e f i v e d a y s and f i v e n i g h t s i n the Choctaw County J a i l f o r her contempt of c o u r t . "5. The sentence is hereby suspended, c o n d i t i o n e d upon t h e [ m o t h e r ' s ] c o m p l y i n g w i t h t h e remaining provisions of this order concerning v i s i t a t i o n by t h e [ f a t h e r ] w i t h t h e m i n o r c h i l d . In 8 2120072 the event the [father] does not receive a l l visitation with the minor child as ordered h e r e i n a f t e r , a w r i t f o r t h e a r r e s t o f t h e [mother] s h a l l be i s s u e d w i t h o u t any a d d i t i o n a l h e a r i n g and she s h a l l be r e q u i r e d t o s e r v e t h e e n t i r e f i v e day s e n t e n c e as s t a t e d i n p a r a g r a p h f o u r . " The the judgment f u r t h e r father, supervised directed set that out a visitation visitation be by H e a r n , o r d e r e d t h a t H e a r n be r a t e o f $25 p e r h o u r , and schedule facilitated and compensated at r e q u i r e d t h e m o t h e r t o pay trial court visitation p a r t i e s would share the s e t Monday, M a r c h 11, s c h e d u l e and made t o t h e ... O c t o b e r 23, for 2012, a r r e s t on Finally, " f o r a review of t o d e t e r m i n e what c h a n g e s a r e 2012, 2012, t h e m o t h e r f o r an judgment. 2012, to the the be schedule." On O c t o b e r 22, On 2013, cost. the a l l costs a s s o c i a t e d w i t h H e a r n ' s s u p e r v i s i o n u n t i l December 31, a f t e r which the for the the mother f i l e d a n o t i c e of trial court i s s u e d a w r i t of alleged violation This court O c t o b e r 26, stayed of the arrest September 2012. Standard of execution appeal. of the writ Review "[T]he standard o f r e v i e w i n an a p p e a l f r o m an a d j u d i c a t i o n of c r i m i n a l contempt o c c u r r i n g i n a civil case i s whether the offense, i.e., the c o n t e m p t , was p r o v e d beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt. H i c k s v. F e i o c k , 485 U.S. 624, 108 S. C t . 1423, 99 9 28, of 2120072 L. Ed. 2d 721 ( 1 9 8 8 ) ; Combs v. Ryan's C o a l Co., 785 F.2d 970 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 8 6 ) ; and U n i t e d S t a t e s v. T u r n e r , 812 F.2d 1552 (11th C i r . 1987). ... In Turner, the Court, i n d i s c u s s i n g the standard of review i n a criminal-contempt case, s a i d : "'The essential elements of the c r i m i n a l c o n t e m p t f o r w h i c h p u n i s h m e n t has b e e n i m p o s e d on [ t h e d e f e n d a n t ] a r e t h a t the court entered a lawful order of reasonable s p e c i f i c i t y , [the defendant] v i o l a t e d i t , and t h e v i o l a t i o n was w i l f u l . G u i l t may be d e t e r m i n e d and p u n i s h m e n t i m p o s e d o n l y i f e a c h o f t h e s e e l e m e n t s has been p r o v e d b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t . ' " T u r n e r , 812 F.2d a t 1563. The T u r n e r c o u r t s t a t e d , q u o t i n g G o r d o n v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 438 858, 868 n. 30 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 7 1 ) : also F.2d "'"The t e s t i s w h e t h e r t h e e v i d e n c e i s s u f f i c i e n t t o j u s t i f y t h e t r i a l j u d g e , as t r i e r of the f a c t s , i n c o n c l u d i n g beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt t h a t the defendant was guilty, and that such evidence is i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h any r e a s o n a b l e h y p o t h e s i s of h i s innocence. Such i s t h e s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t e s t . " ' "Turner, 812 Ex p a r t e F e r g u s o n , F.2d 819 a t 1563." So. 2d 626, 629 ( A l a . 2001). Discussion B e f o r e p r o c e e d i n g t o t h e m o t h e r ' s a r g u m e n t s , we the father's c o n t e n t i o n t h a t we must d i s m i s s t h e address appeal as h a v i n g been t a k e n f r o m a n o n f i n a l o r d e r b e c a u s e t h e September 28, 2012, judgment s e t the m a t t e r 10 for further review of the 2120072 visitation schedule. We disagree. The September 28, 2012, judgment i s a p p e a l a b l e b y v i r t u e o f i t s b e i n g an a d j u d i c a t i o n of c r i m i n a l contempt. See R u l e 7 0 A ( g ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. The m o t h e r a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t was n o t w i t h evidence i n d i c a t i n g , beyond a reasonable had willfully failed exercise v i s i t a t i o n and refused w i t h the son. T h i s c o u r t was p r e s e n t e d v. B e n t l e y , parties' 690 So. 2d 401 15-year-old relationship with to We presented doubt, allow the father ( A l a . C i v . App. 1997) . h e r mother who during had not Shellhouse There, the had the p a r t i e s ' father, the child's custodian, had visitation exchanges, but the daughter had leave the f a t h e r ' s v e h i c l e without p h y s i c a l f o r c e . court held the father in contempt for good divorce. transported d a u g h t e r t o meet t h e m o t h e r a t t h e t i m e and p l a c e for a marriage, r e f u s e d t o v i s i t w i t h t h e mother a f t e r t h e p a r t i e s ' The to agree. with similar facts i n daughter, t h a t she the appointed refused The "'willfully to trial and i n t e n t i o n a l l y i n t e r f e r i n g ' " w i t h v i s i t a t i o n between the mother and t h e d a u g h t e r . holding that 690 So. 2d a t 402. " [ t ] h e r e was f a t h e r ha[d] w i l l f u l l y no evidence or i n t e n t i o n a l l y 11 This court reversed, to indicate that the i n t e r f e r e d with the 2120072 visitation schedule." 690 So. 2d a t 403. The c o u r t f u r t h e r stated: "We n o t e t h e c o u r t ' s c o n c e r n t o e s t a b l i s h a relationship between the daughter and mother; h o w e v e r , t h e c o u r t must c o n s i d e r t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s and w e l f a r e o f t h e c h i l d , as w e l l as t h e c h i l d ' s m a t u r i t y a n d a g e . C l a r k v. B l a c k w e l l , 624 So. 2d 610 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 3 ) ; F r e n c h v. L y f o r d , 636 So. 2d 437 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1994) . The N o r t h C a r o l i n a Court o f Appeals has d e a l t w i t h a problem s i m i l a r t o t h e one we have h e r e ; i n M i n t z v . M i n t z , 64 N.C. App. 338, 307 S.E.2d 391 ( 1 9 8 3 ) , t h a t c o u r t h e l d t h a t i t v i o l a t e d t h e c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t ' s due p r o c e s s r i g h t s t o f i n d that parent i n contempt f o r t h e c h i l d ' s r e f u s a l t o v i s i t the noncustodial parent. T h a t c o u r t a l s o s t a t e d t h a t , b a s e d on t h e c h i l d ' s age a n d m a t u r i t y , a c o u r t c o u l d c o n s i d e r t h e c h i l d ' s willingness or unwillingness to v i s i t i n determining the b e s t i n t e r e s t s and w e l f a r e o f t h e c h i l d . " 690 (Ala. So. 2d a t 403-04. In Hagler C i v . App. 1 9 8 4 ) , t h i s court v. H a g l e r , 460 So. 2 d 187 stated: " T h e r e a r e c i r c u m s t a n c e s where i t i s r e a s o n a b l e , e q u i t a b l e and t o t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t o f c h i l d r e n t h a t t h e y n o t be r e q u i r e d t o v i s i t w i t h a n o n - c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t b e c a u s e o f t h e i r u n w i l l i n g n e s s o r f e a r t o do s o . Such a d e t e r m i n a t i o n c o u l d be made by a t r i a l court i n a c a s e where t h e e v i d e n c e reasonably s a t i s f i e d t h a t c o u r t t h a t i t was n o t i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t o f c h i l d r e n t o be made t o v i s i t w i t h a n o n - c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t where t h e y were s o u n w i l l i n g t o v i s i t t h a t p a r e n t t h a t a d v e r s e p s y c h o l o g i c a l damage w o u l d r e s u l t a n d t h a t no good w o u l d r e s u l t f r o m f o r c e d v i s i t a t i o n . However, s u c h a c a s e i s r a r e a n d t h e e x c e p t i o n , f o r i t i s an e x t r e m e d e c i s i o n t h a t r e s t r i c t s an o t h e r w i s e r e l a t i v e l y q u a l i f i e d p a r e n t from v i s i t i n g h i s o r h e r c h i l d 12 2120072 "On t h e o t h e r h a n d , r e g a r d l e s s o f a c h i l d ' s f e a r s a n d w i s h e s , a t r i a l c o u r t may, a n d n o r m a l l y s h o u l d , r e q u i r e v i s i t a t i o n e v e n i f i t i s f o r c e d upon a c h i l d , f o r t h e d e s i r e s o f a c h i l d m i g h t be g i v e n a b s o l u t e l y no c r e d e n c e i n v i s i t a t i o n l i t i g a t i o n when the t r i a l c o u r t i s reasonably s a t i s f i e d from t h e evidence that a c h i l d i s merely p a r r o t i n g the wishes of t h e c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t , o r t h a t t h e c h i l d i s t o o i m m a t u r e t o f o r m a c o n s i d e r e d o p i n i o n , o r where t h e c h i l d expresses fears or unwillingness t o v i s i t w i t h o u t any r e a s o n a b l e b a s i s o r f o u n d a t i o n . " 460 So. 2d a t 189. 610, 612 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1993) ( f o l l o w i n g t h e g e n e r a l required, or conflicting continue 494 See a l s o C l a r k v. B l a c k w e l l , 624 So. 2d even forced, evidence visitation "regarding t o have v i s i t a t i o n the rights"). when father's r u l e of there was fitness to C f . S h i r e s v. S h i r e s , So. 2d 102, 103 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1986) ( d e p a r t i n g f r o m t h e general rule affirming of a trial divorce request stating that, persistent required, court's or even post- f o r v i s i t a t i o n with h i s 18-year-old son; and "given ... the reluctance child's to v i s i t with advanced visit w o u l d n o t be i n t h e c h i l d ' s b e s t present age h i s father," could properly circumstances visitation; judgment d e n y i n g a f a t h e r ' s court The forced, the and trial have f o u n d " t h a t t o f o r c e t h e c h i l d t o case presents one interest"). of those i n which i t i s not i n the best 13 exceptional i n t e r e s t s of the 2120072 child the t o be forced to v i s i t child's unwillingness the noncustodial stems f r o m an parent anxiety because disorder and f o r c e d v i s i t a t i o n c o u l d c a u s e " a d v e r s e p s y c h o l o g i c a l damage." Hagler, 460 So. 2d t e s t i m o n y of the existence should of not " a b l e " t o do 189. expert the be at witnesses, son's forced so. According anxiety to v i s i t Dr. Lum to the Dr. Lum and disorder with expressly the uncontroverted Merrell, indicates father the that before he s t a t e d t h a t t h e son he is would n o t be " a b l e " t o v i s i t w i t h t h e f a t h e r w i t h o u t b o t h m e d i c a t i o n and therapy; using the she also stated medications that that Dr. the Lum son had had prescribed Even t h e f a t h e r a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t t h e son had anxiety problems forced to v i s i t The and present because there "merely parroting i s too that the son case is does rule no to not him. experienced should which evidence the wishes f i t within the Hagler indicating of the immature t o form a c o n s i d e r e d reasonable basis or foundation." 14 the not be general, court that [mother], t h e son has e x p r e s s e d ] f e a r s o r u n w i l l i n g n e s s any long for him. required-visitation [son] admitted discontinued alluded the or son that opinion, or to v i s i t Hagler, 460 So. is the [that without 2d at 2120072 189. The expert testimony i n d i c a t e s t h a t the is e n t i r e l y biochemical, and, or therefore, has son's anxiety has been c a u s e d by a m e n t a l d i s o r d e r , a recognized, i f not a reasonable, basis foundation. At trial, t h a t the the father presented no evidence s o n ' s v i s i t a t i o n - i n d u c e d a n x i e t y had m a n i p u l a t e d by t h e m o t h e r . On appeal, him. 14, 2012] the child child's Cf. So. had H.H.J. v. 3d K.T.J., reluctance [Ms. ( A l a . C i v . App. been m a n i p u l a t e d to visit by was been c a u s e d he does n o t a r g u e t h e m o t h e r ' s a c t i o n s had b r o u g h t a b o u t t h e s o n ' s to v i s i t indicating the mother that unwillingness 2110583, 2012) December (arguing that and that the unreasonable). In his a p p e l l a t e b r i e f , however, the f a t h e r r e f e r s t o a r e p o r t of g u a r d i a n ad or litem that states, i n pertinent the part: "As [ g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m ] , I b e l i e v e t h a t i t i s i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f my c l i e n t t o have v i s i t a t i o n w i t h h i s f a t h e r . [The son] t e l l s me t h a t he d e a r l y l o v e s h i s f a t h e r and r e a l l y c a n n o t g i v e me a r e a s o n why he d o e s n ' t want t o v i s i t . I have a s n e a k i n g s u s p i c i o n t h a t [ t h e ] m o t h e r i s i n c u b a t i n g and e x a c e r b a t i n g t h e p r o b l e m s t h a t [ t h e son] i s h a v i n g . " (Emphasis added.) S e p t e m b e r 5, 2012, The guardian contains State J u d i c i a l Information no ad litem's certificate report, of s e r v i c e . S y s t e m ("SJIS") c a s e - a c t i o n 15 dated The summary 2120072 does n o t i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e r e p o r t was e v e r court. In her appellate b r i e f , r e p o r t was s u b m i t t e d before she time f i l e d i n the t r i a l t h e mother a s s e r t s t h a t t h e to the t r i a l court after the t r i a l and t h e h e a r i n g on h e r p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , b u t , she s a y s , h a d b e e n unaware o f t h e e x i s t e n c e of that hearing. refer to or e x p l i c i t l y The t r i a l of the report court's at the j u d g m e n t does n o t r e l y upon t h e r e p o r t , a n d i t i s c l e a r t h a t any s u c h r e l i a n c e w o u l d have been u n w a r r a n t e d b e c a u s e t h e guardian the ad l i t e m ' s "sneaking p a r t i e s h a d no o p p o r t u n i t y litem's conclusions So. 416, s u s p i c i o n " i s n o t e v i d e n c e and to contest i n open c o u r t . the guardian ad See Ex p a r t e R.D.N., 918 2d 100 ( A l a . 2005) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e B e r r y h i l l , 410 So. 2d 418 ( A l a . 1982) ("'The f u n d a m e n t a l p r i n c i p l e i s t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n o f a c o u r t must be b a s e d on e v i d e n c e p r o d u c e d i n open c o u r t l e s t t h e g u a r a n t e e o f due p r o c e s s So. U.S. be i n f r i n g e d . ' " ) , 918 2d a t 104, a n d C l e v e l a n d Bd. o f E d u c . v. L o u d e r m i l l , 470 532, 546 process ... a r e n o t i c e opportunity writing, (1985) why to present proposed f u n d a m e n t a l due p r o c e s s ("'The e s s e n t i a l r e q u i r e m e n t s a n d an o p p o r t u n i t y reasons, action either should requirement.'"), 16 o f due t o respond. i n person n o t be taken The or i n is a i d . , and h o l d i n g t h a t 2120072 "fundamental p r i n c i p l e s guardian regarding of the parties opportunity id. are v i o l a t e d when a a d l i t e m c o m m u n i c a t e s t o t h e t r i a l j u d g e ex p a r t e h e r recommendations consent o f due p r o c e s s custody, without and w i t h o u t t o contest those t h e knowledge o r the p a r t i e s ' recommendations having i n open an court," a t 103). We c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e was i n s u f f i c i e n t t o w a r r a n t the t r i a l the court i n determining mother had w i l l f u l l y beyond a r e a s o n a b l e failed and r e f u s e d father to exercise h i s court-ordered Therefore, v i s i t a t i o n with theson. 28, 2012, j u d g m e n t , a n d we remand t h e c a u s e w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s t o vacate contempt the t r i a l to allow the September the we r e v e r s e doubt t h a t court's finding. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d Thomas, 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 Donaldson, J . , d i s s e n t s , w i t h 17 writing. writing. 2120072 MOORE, J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g The p r i m a r y Circuit Court evidence issue f o r our review ("the t r i a l from reasonable which doubt committed provisions of a Christopher Graham order court") i t could that criminal visitation i n the result. Wendy contempt 2002 i s w h e t h e r t h e Choctaw had before have Graham by judgment i t sufficient determined Ezell violating divorcing beyond ("the m o t h e r " ) the visitation t h e mother from ("the f a t h e r " ) a s w e l l as a p e n d e n t e entered on A u g u s t 25, 2011. " ' R u l e 7 0 A ( a ) ( 2 ) ( C ) ( i i ) [ , A l a . R. C i v . P.,] d e f i n e s c r i m i n a l c o n t e m p t as " [ w ] i l l f u l d i s o b e d i e n c e o r r e s i s t a n c e o f any p e r s o n t o a court's lawful ... o r d e r , rule, or command, where t h e d o m i n a n t p u r p o s e o f t h e finding o f contempt i s t o punish the contemnor." In order t o e s t a b l i s h that a p a r t y i s i n c r i m i n a l contempt o f a c o u r t o r d e r , a c o n t e m p t p e t i t i o n e r must p r o v e beyond a reasonable doubt t h a t t h e p a r t y a g a i n s t whom t h e y a r e s e e k i n g a f i n d i n g o f c o n t e m p t was s u b j e c t t o a " ' l a w f u l o r d e r o f reasonable s p e c i f i c i t y , ' " that the party v i o l a t e d t h a t order, and t h a t t h e p a r t y ' s v i o l a t i o n o f t h e o r d e r was w i l l f u l . Ex p a r t e F e r g u s o n , 819 So. 2d 626, 629 ( A l a . 2001) ( q u o t i n g U n i t e d S t a t e s v . T u r n e r , 812 F.2d 1552, 1563 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 8 7 ) ) . ' "L.A. v . R.H., 929 So. 2 d 1018, 1019 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005) ." 18 a lite 2120072 P r e s t o n v. Saab, 43 So. 3d 595, 599 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010) . j u d g m e n t f i n d i n g t h a t a p a r t y has committed c r i m i n a l may court reasonably be a f f i r m e d o n l y i f t h e t r i a l determined that reasonable "'"evidence hypothesis innocence."'" 2001) the Ex of parte (quoting United is [the Ferguson, States v. 819 contempt c o u l d have inconsistent with alleged So. Turner, any contemnor's] 2d 812 626, 629 F.2d (Ala. 1552, 1563 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 8 7 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n G o r d o n v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , F.2d 858, The did 868 n.30 evidence (5th C i r . i n the A 438 1971)). record shows t h a t t h e parties' son n o t v i s i t w i t h t h e f a t h e r as r e q u i r e d by t h e 2002 d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t and evidence t h e A u g u s t 25, further because the son shows 2011, that experienced the visitations severe p h y s i c a l reactions to v i s i t s o f a n x i e t y and pendente l i t e and order. did t h a t the d i d not r e c o r d c o n t a i n s no e v i d e n c e (I c o n c u r t h a t t h e the guardian disregarded) trial court reasonable reasonably doubt that should could the be have visits 19 want consequences. The litem and to a v a r i e t y son to v i s i t w i t h the f a t h e r i n order to a v o i d those ad occur adverse emotional w i t h t h e f a t h e r due o t h e r d i s o r d e r s and not The report from which been convinced d i d not occur beyond due to of the a the 2120072 willful and Shellhouse contumacious v. Bentley, conduct 690 So. (contempt judgment a g a i n s t 2d of 401 the mother. See ( A l a . C i v . App. 1997) custodial parent reversed because e v i d e n c e showed t h a t v i s i t s w i t h n o n c u s t o d i a l parent d i d not take visitation and not place due due to to c h i l d ' s any willful custodial parent). c o n t e m p t i s due d e c i s i o n to and contumacious Therefore, t o be lite or schedule The visitation 2002 d i v o r c e temporary established intact. I agree t h a t the part of judgment of c o u r t d i d not modify the schedule e s t a b l i s h e d i n the pendente c o n d u c t on reversed. I note t h a t the t r i a l a forego basis. judgment, e x c e p t Thus, in the 2002 did not request p r o v i s i o n s of the 2002 d i v o r c e mother visitation divorce the visitation judgment remains a modification of the j u d g m e n t , and she does n o t a r g u e on a p p e a l t h a t t h e v i s i t a t i o n p r o v i s i o n s have been c h a n g e d . decide whether maintaining interests the of the Thus, t h i s court the evidence same visitation child. i s not supports a s p e c t of the main o p i n i o n i m p l y i n g 20 being a schedule Consequently, on I t h a t the should asked finding that serves the do join not c h i l d no to best any longer 2120072 needs t o v i s i t w i t h t h e f a t h e r o r t h a t t h e t r i a l have been a u t h o r i z e d t o t e r m i n a t e 21 visitation. court would 2120072 DONALDSON, J u d g e , d i s s e n t i n g . I respectfully dissent from decision j u d g m e n t f i n d i n g Wendy Graham E z e l l contempt. have s u p p o r t e d sufficient evidence scheduled c o u r t t h a t t h e mother the t r i a l court shows could find, doubt, t h a t t h e mother had i n t e n t i o n a l l y visitation with Christopher Graham the c h i l d to the by r e f u s i n g t o t r a n s p o r t visitation l o c a t i o n s and by r e f u s i n g t o w i t h t h e f a t h e r and a s o c i a l worker i n f a c i l i t a t i n g with the c h i l d . would B u t my r e a d i n g o f t h e t r a n s c r i p t court-ordered father") by t h e t r i a l from which beyond a reasonable ("the ("the m o t h e r " ) t o be i n Without question, the evidence a finding n o t i n contempt. thwarted the D i s p u t e d f a c t s were p r e s e n t e d t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n a ore tenus proceeding. was to reverse Unless or u n t i l the court order cooperate visitation establishing v i s i t a t i o n was v a c a t e d o r m o d i f i e d , t h e p a r t i e s were b o u n d t o comply w i t h i t . The r e c o r d c o n t a i n s a t r a n s c r i p t o f t h e p o s t - judgment m o t i o n h e a r i n g a t w h i c h t h e t r i a l referenced, specifically as an e x a m p l e o f t h e m o t h e r ' s n o n c o m p l i a n c e , t h e mother's testimony would not permit mother court argued t h a t she t o l d the c h i l d that the s o c i a l to v i s i t her reasons 22 with justified w o r k e r t h a t she the father. The her actions; the 2120072 trial court disagreed. The c r e d i b i l i t y i n c l u d i n g t h e c h i l d , was f o r t h e t r i a l of the witnesses, court to evaluate: "When e v i d e n c e i s p r e s e n t e d o r e t e n u s , i t i s t h e duty of the t r i a l c o u r t , which had the o p p o r t u n i t y t o o b s e r v e t h e w i t n e s s e s a n d t h e ii rr demeanors, a n d credibility not the appellate c o u r t , t o make d e t e r m i n a t i o n s and t o weigh t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d . B l a c k m a n v. G r a y R i d e r T r u c k L i n e s , I n c . , 716 So. 2d 698, 700 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1998) . The r o l e o f t h e a p p e l l a t e court i s not t o reweigh the evidence but to a f f i r m t h e judgment o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t i f i t s f i n d i n g s a r e r e a s o n a b l y s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e and t h e c o r r e c t l e g a l c o n c l u s i o n s have been drawn t h e r e f r o m . Ex p a r t e T r i n i t y I n d u s . , [ I n c . , ] 680 So. 2d a t 268-69 [ ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) ] ; F r y f o g l e v. S p r i n g h i l l Mem'l Hosp., I n c . , 742 So. 2d 1255 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 8 ) , a f f ' d , 742 So. 2d 1258 ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) . The ' a p p e l l a t e c o u r t must v i e w t h e f a c t s i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e f i n d i n g s o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t . ' Ex p a r t e P r o f e s s i o n a l B u s . Owners A s s ' n W o r k e r s ' Comp. Fund, 867 So. 2d 1099, 1102 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) . " Ex p a r t e H a y e s , 70 So. 3d 1 2 1 1 , 1215 ( A l a . 2 0 1 1 ) . So finding long as the evidence o f contempt, t h a t make i n t h e e x e r c i s e i s sufficient finding i s f o r the t r i a l o f i t s "sound d i s c r e t i o n . " E.D., 972 So. 2d 804, 809 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007) the t r i a l t o support court to S.A.T. v. (holding that c o u r t was i n t h e b e s t p o s i t i o n t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r the mother's excuse f o r noncompliance w i t h a v i s i t a t i o n was to credible). support a order B e c a u s e I b e l i e v e t h e e v i d e n c e was s u f f i c i e n t t h e f i n d i n g o f contempt, I r e s p e c t f u l l y d i s s e n t . 23

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.