Janice Anita Jones v. Gary Tyrone McCoy

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 09/13/2013 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 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 , Alabama 36104-3741 ((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 2120145 J a n i c e A n i t a Jones v. Gary Tyrone McCoy Appeal from Montgomery C i r c u i t Court (DR-98-878.02) MOORE, J u d g e . J a n i c e A n i t a J o n e s ("the m o t h e r " ) a p p e a l s f r o m a judgment e n t e r e d b y t h e Montgomery modifying custody G a r y T y r o n e McCoy Circuit Court ("the t r i a l court") o f B r a n d o n McCoy ("the c h i l d " ) i n favor of ("the f a t h e r " ) . We a f f i r m t h e j u d g m e n t . 2120145 Background I n November 1997, by t h e m o t h e r a n d t h e f a t h e r were d i v o r c e d a judgment o f t h e 89th Texas District Court ("the T e x a s d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t " ) . o f W i c h i t a County, Pursuant t o t h e Texas d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t , t h e m o t h e r was a w a r d e d p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y o f the c h i l d , ordered who was b o r n t o pay c h i l d i n November 1996, a n d t h e f a t h e r was support. j u d g m e n t was d o m e s t i c a t e d modification action. I n 1998, t h e T e x a s i n the t r i a l court pursuant I n May 1999, t h e t r i a l judgment m o d i f y i n g t h e f a t h e r ' s v i s i t a t i o n child, limiting new h u s b a n d divorce to a court entered a schedule w i t h the c o n t a c t between t h e f a t h e r and t h e mother's ("the s t e p f a t h e r " ) , and o r d e r i n g t h e f o l l o w i n g : "7. That t h e [ m o t h e r ] s h a l l r e f r a i n from c a l l i n g [ t h e s t e p f a t h e r ] b y any n o n - s t e p p a r e n t a l name, s u c h as ' D a d d y , ' a n d s h a l l d i s c o u r a g e t h e c h i l d from d o i n g s o . The [ m o t h e r ] s h a l l r e f e r t o t h e [ f a t h e r ] i n t h e c h i l d ' s p r e s e n c e and i n s p e a k i n g t o t h e c h i l d as t h e c h i l d ' s F a t h e r , u s i n g w h a t e v e r t h e name t h e c h i l d i s accustomed t o c a l l i n g t h e f a t h e r . The [ m o t h e r ] s h a l l make a f f i r m a t i v e e f f o r t s t o t e a c h t h e c h i l d t h e a p p r o p r i a t e r e l a t i o n s h i p between a c h i l d and his biological f a t h e r and t h e a p p r o p r i a t e r e l a t i o n s h i p between a c h i l d and h i s s t e p f a t h e r . " On J u l y 12, 2 0 1 1 , t h e f a t h e r , who now l i v e s of F l o r i d a , child. filed a petition seeking t o modify i n the State custody of the On A u g u s t 2, 2 0 1 1 , a g u a r d i a n a d l i t e m was a p p o i n t e d 2 2120145 t o r e p r e s e n t t h e c h i l d ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t s , and, w i t h i n l e s s three weeks, pendente award the lite guardian relief; he litem's On moved custody f o r expedited the t r i a l court of the c h i l d . court denied On the guardian ad motion. 11, 2012, t h e g u a r d i a n that witness lite 13, 2011, t h e t r i a l June mother litem recommended t h a t the f a t h e r pendente September ad than he intended at the f i n a l to c a l l ad l i t e m n o t i f i e d the Dr. B r i d g e t t S m i t h h e a r i n g ; the guardian as ad l i t e m a also n o t i f i e d t h e m o t h e r t h a t Dr. S m i t h h a d met w i t h t h e c h i l d on two wished occasions and t h a t Dr. S m i t h t o meet w i t h t h e m o t h e r b e f o r e t h e f i n a l h e a r i n g , w h i c h was s c h e d u l e d t o b e g i n a week l a t e r . limine, On June 15, 2012, t h e m o t h e r f i l e d a m o t i o n i n seeking to prohibit the guardian f a t h e r from o f f e r i n g i n t o evidence ad l i t e m or the any t e s t i m o n y o r e v i d e n c e f r o m o r r e l a t i n g t o Dr. S m i t h , on t h e g r o u n d s t h a t t h e m o t h e r , t h e c h i l d ' s p h y s i c a l c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t , h a d n o t a u t h o r i z e d Dr. Smith to evaluate the c h i l d knowledge o f Dr. S m i t h trial court allowed until a n d t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a d h a d no one week b e f o r e t h e t r i a l . Dr. S m i t h testimony. 3 to t e s t i f y , The but l i m i t e d her 2120145 On August 7, 2012, the trial court j u d g m e n t , f i n d i n g t h a t t h e f a t h e r had met p a r t e McLendon, 455 So. 2d 863 entered a final h i s b u r d e n u n d e r Ex ( A l a . 1984); awarding custody of the c h i l d t o the f a t h e r ; s e t t i n g a v i s i t a t i o n schedule f o r the mother; o r d e r i n g amount o f $100 t h e m o t h e r t o pay child support i n the p e r month, t o c o v e r a l l c o s t s a s s o c i a t e d with h e r v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e c h i l d i n t h e S t a t e o f F l o r i d a , and t o pay in 50% of a l l r e a s o n a b l e c o s t s f o r the c h i l d sports parties and to extracurricular activities; each i n c l u d i n g any pay 50% of the f e e s owed t o Dr. On A u g u s t 31, 2012, guardian and ad to p a r t i c i p a t e ordering litem's the fees, Smith. the mother f i l e d a motion to alter, amend, o r v a c a t e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n a l j u d g m e n t , p u r s u a n t t o Rule 59, A l a . R. C i v . P., and a motion for relief j u d g m e n t , p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 60, A l a . R. C i v . P., the f a t h e r ' s c h i l d o f June 2011 stay the r a t h e r t h a n as o f June 2012; trial postjudgment s u p p o r t had e r r o n e o u s l y court's motions. judgment pending from asserting that been r e s c i n d e d she the as a l s o moved t o r e s o l u t i o n of her 1 On S e p t e m b e r 10, 2012, t h e g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m moved t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o amend t h e f i n a l j u d g m e n t t o r e d u c e t h e m o t h e r ' s v i s i t a t i o n s c h e d u l e f r o m two weekends a month t o one weekend 1 4 2120145 On September mother's motion 11, 2012, to stay that the trial portion o r d e r i n g t h e mother t o pay o n e - h a l f court granted of the f i n a l the judgment o f t h e g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m ' s fees pending r e s o l u t i o n o f the mother's postjudgment motions. On S e p t e m b e r 14, 2012, t h e t r i a l court R u l e 60, A l a . R. C i v . P., i t s f i n a l amended, p u r s u a n t t o judgment t o r e f l e c t that t h e f a t h e r ' s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n was r e s c i n d e d as o f J u n e 22, 2012. court the 26, 2012, a f t e r a hearing, d e n i e d the mother's motion t o a l t e r , final filed On O c t o b e r judgment. her notice the amend, o r v a c a t e On November 7, 2012, t h e m o t h e r of appeal; she p o s t e d a supersedeas presumably t o stay that p o r t i o n of the t r i a l o r d e r i n g h e r t o pay one-half trial court's timely bond, judgment o f t h e g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m ' s fees. Analysis We f i r s t a d d r e s s t h e m o t h e r ' s argument t h a t t h e g u a r d i a n ad litem violated r i g h t s by s u b m i t t i n g her c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y protected the c h i l d f o r a psychological parental assessment a month; t h e g u a r d i a n a d l i t e m r e p o r t e d t h a t t h e m o t i o n h a d been f i l e d a t t h e c h i l d ' s r e q u e s t . T h a t m o t i o n , h o w e v e r , was untimely f i l e d . See R u l e 59, A l a . R. C i v . P. ( r e q u i r i n g t h a t p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n s s e e k i n g t o a l t e r , amend, o r v a c a t e a j u d g m e n t be f i l e d w i t h i n 30 d a y s o f e n t r y o f a t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment). 5 2120145 without t h e mother's relying on R.S.C. v. J.B.C., 812 So. 2d 3 6 1 , 366 ( A l a . App. 2001), asserts knowledge that, custodian of the c h i l d , decisions child" concerning and t h a t and c o n s e n t . because The she was she s h o u l d have custody been Civ. the physical right she had a fundamental the "care, mother, t o make and c o n t r o l of her consulted before the c h i l d was t a k e n t o D r . S m i t h f o r a p s y c h o l o g i c a l a s s e s s m e n t o r evaluation. Although we a g r e e w i t h t h e mother t h a t , custodian of the c h i l d , regarding the c h i l d , decisions on b e h a l f she was e n t i t l e d as t h e p h y s i c a l t o make d e c i s i o n s t h e f a t h e r a l s o was e n t i t l e d of the c h i l d . Pursuant t o make t o t h e Texas d i v o r c e judgment, t h e mother and t h e f a t h e r h e l d j o i n t custody Ala. of the c h i l d . Code 1975, § "Joint legal custody" legal i s defined i n 30-3-151(2): " B o t h p a r e n t s have e q u a l r i g h t s a n d r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s f o r major d e c i s i o n s 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 education of the 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 have s o l e power t o make c e r t a i n d e c i s i o n s while both parents r e t a i n equal r i g h t s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s f o r o t h e r d e c i s i o n s . " Because both p a r e n t s h e l d l e g a l custody of the c h i l d , i t was w i t h i n e i t h e r parent's a u t h o r i t y t o a u t h o r i z e medical care f o r 6 2120145 t h e c h i l d ; we c o n c l u d e t h a t a p s y c h o l o g i c a l within that evaluation falls category. The g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m r e p r e s e n t e d to the t r i a l court that the f a t h e r had a u t h o r i z e d Dr. Smith's assessment o f the c h i l d and that the father Smith d u r i n g care. the c h i l d t o meet w i t h t h o s e t i m e s when t h e c h i l d was Because Dr. Smith a s s e s s and e v a l u a t e assessment had d r i v e n was authorized the c h i l d , and e v a l u a t i o n i n the by the Dr. father's father to we c o n c l u d e t h a t D r . S m i t h ' s of the c h i l d d i d n o t amount t o a v i o l a t i o n of the mother's c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s t o p a r e n t the child. See Morgan v. Morgan, 964 So. 2d 24 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 7 ) ( h o l d i n g t h a t , when p a r e n t s s h a r e e q u a l c u s t o d y a court welfare other the d e c i s i o n o f one parent a f f e c t i n g the o f t h e c h i l d does n o t v i o l a t e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s o f parent). We court adopting rights, next denied address her the mother's due process present her witnesses before In her b r i e f f i l e d with this of argument law by the requiring trial her to the f a t h e r had r e s t e d h i s case. court, however, t h e mother f a i l e d t o p r o p e r l y s u p p o r t h e r argument. authority provided that has The o n l y c i t a t i o n t o by t h e mother i s a s i n g l e c i t a t i o n t o t h e 7 2120145 Sixth Amendment of the United amendment relates relevancy to a settled that App. criminal "[t]his court will Constitution. prosecutions custody-modification properly presented cited." to States and action. address That has no I t i s well only those issues and f o r w h i c h s u p p o r t i n g a u t h o r i t y has been Asam v . D e v e r e a u x , 686 So. 2d 1222, 1224 ( A l a . C i v . 1996). " R u l e 2 8 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) [ , A l a . R. App. P.,] r e q u i r e s that arguments i n b r i e f s c o n t a i n d i s c u s s i o n s o f f a c t s and r e l e v a n t l e g a l a u t h o r i t i e s that support that party's p o s i t i o n . I f they do n o t , t h e a r g u m e n t s a r e w a i v e d . " v. the W h i t e Sands Group, L.L.C. PRS I I , L L C , 998 So. 2d 1042, 1058 ( A l a . 2008) . mother has n o t p r o v i d e d this court with Because citations to r e l e v a n t a u t h o r i t y , we n e e d n o t a d d r e s s t h i s a r g u m e n t f u r t h e r . We court next erred guardian address t h e mother's i n denying ad l i t e m . assertion t h e mother's motion The m o t h e r a s s e r t s t h a t that the t r i a l t o recuse the the guardian ad l i t e m f a i l e d t o p r o p e r l y understand t h a t h i s r o l e i n the case was t o a d v o c a t e f o r the c h i l d ' s best advocate f o r the c h i l d ' s personal father. The m o t h e r a s s e r t s b e c a u s e , she s a y s , that i n t e r e s t s and n o t t o wish to live s h e was u n d u l y with prejudiced as a r e s u l t o f h i s n o t u n d e r s t a n d i n g 8 the his 2120145 role i n the case, the guardian ad litem formed h i s o p i n i o n b e f o r e a l l t h e e v i d e n c e had b e e n p r e s e n t e d . We a g r e e w i t h t h e m o t h e r t h a t t h e r o l e o f t h e g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m i s to z e a l o u s l y advocate child and not necessarily f o r the b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f the to r e p r e s e n t the p o s i t i o n c h i l d i n r e l a t i o n to the l i t i g a t i o n . N. Peskind, Evidentiary Hearsay Rules Matrimonial 375, Opportunities: Applicability 396 (2013): the As r e c o g n i z e d i n S t e v e n i n C h i l d Custody Proceedings, Law. of 25 "[J]udges of J . Am. often the Acad. appoint g u a r d i a n s ad l i t e m , who s e r v e as c o u r t i n v e s t i g a t o r s and take on i n rendering opinions concerning the a quasi-expert role best i n t e r e s t of the children." " U n l i k e t h e c h i l d ' s a t t o r n e y whose r o l e i s g e n e r a l l y to r e p r e s e n t the s t a t e d wishes of the c h i l d , the [guardian ad litem] i s generally expected to advocate f o r the best i n t e r e s t s of the child, whether or not the c h i l d i s i n agreement. Moreover, t h e [ g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m ] 'owes h i s o r h e r p r i m a r y d u t y t o t h e c o u r t and n o t t o t h e child-client alone.'" M. B o u m i l , C. Freitas & D. Freitas, L e g a l and E t h i c a l C o n f r o n t i n g G u a r d i a n Ad L i t e m P r a c t i c e , 43, 45-46 (2011) (footnotes omitted). & Fam. Stud. 2 S e e a l s o A l a . Code 1975, § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 0 4 ( a ) ( m a n d a t i n g t h a t g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m be a p p o i n t e d f o r a c h i l d who i s the 2 a 13 J . L . Issues 9 2120145 I n t h i s c a s e , t h e g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m e x p r e s s e d h i s b e l i e f in a document filed with the trial court that i t was "sworn d u t y t o z e a l o u s l y a d v o c a t e f o r [the c h i l d ' s ] that transferred physical custody From t h a t s t a t e m e n t , appears t h a t the s h o u l d be and his position" to the father. others c o n t a i n e d i n the r e c o r d , i t guardian ad litem understood t h a t he was a c t i n g as an a t t o r n e y f o r t h e c h i l d , r a t h e r t h a n as a g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m . have However, t h e misunderstood itself, fact t h a t t h e g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m h i s appointed demonstrate that the role does mother's not, i n and may of rights were unduly 3 So. 3d 237 (Ala. prejudiced. The Civ. App. mother c i t e s 2008), o n l y M.B. i n support were u n d u l y p r e j u d i c e d . had v. of her I n M.B., been p r e j u d i c e d because the R.P., argument t h a t h e r rights this court held that a party juvenile court considered a r e c o m m e n d a t i o n o f a g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m who d i d not a t t e n d the subject of dependency and termination-of-parental-rights p r o c e e d i n g s and t h a t t h e g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m ' s r o l e " s h a l l be t o p r o t e c t t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d " ) ; and A l a . Code 1975, § 26-14-11 ("In e v e r y c a s e i n v o l v i n g an a b u s e d o r n e g l e c t e d c h i l d w h i c h r e s u l t s i n a j u d i c i a l p r o c e e d i n g , an a t t o r n e y s h a l l be a p p o i n t e d t o r e p r e s e n t t h e c h i l d i n s u c h p r o c e e d i n g s . Such a t t o r n e y w i l l r e p r e s e n t t h e r i g h t s , i n t e r e s t s , w e l f a r e , and w e l l - b e i n g o f t h e c h i l d , and s e r v e as a g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m f o r the c h i l d . " ) . 10 2120145 trial and, t h u s , d i d n o t c o n s i d e r t h e e v i d e n c e presented at t h e t r i a l when m a k i n g t h e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n a n d , f u r t h e r , h a d n o t been s u b j e c t t o c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n . 918 So. 2d 105 ( A l a . 2005) process is violated recommendation mother does ( h o l d i n g t h a t p a r t y ' s r i g h t t o due when of guardian See a l s o Ex p a r t e R.D.N., court considers ad l i t e m ) . In t h i s n o t a s s e r t t h a t she was d e n i e d ex parte case, the and fair a full o p p o r t u n i t y t o c o n t e s t t h e recommendations o f t h e g u a r d i a n ad litem or h i s purported misunderstanding case. find T h e r e f o r e , M.B. of h i s role i n the does n o t s u p p o r t h e r a r g u m e n t , a n d we no b a s i s f o r c o n c l u d i n g t h a t t h e m o t h e r was d e n i e d due process or that the guardian ad litem should have been recused. We unduly next address p r e j u d i c e d by t h e c h i l d ' s during her testimony. ad t h e mother's litem courtroom specifically assertion presence that i n the she was courtroom The m o t h e r p o i n t s o u t t h a t t h e g u a r d i a n requested that the c h i l d f o r o n l y t h e mother's testimony. enter the The t r i a l a l l o w e d t h e c h i l d t o e n t e r and remain i n t h e courtroom, court over t h e m o t h e r ' s o b j e c t i o n , b a s e d upon t h e p o s i t i o n t a k e n b y t h e f a t h e r ' s l a w y e r a n d t h e g u a r d i a n a d l i t e m t h a t t h e c h i l d was 11 2120145 a p a r t y t o the c u s t o d y - m o d i f i c a t i o n a c t i o n . that the child was not a party to the The m o t h e r a r g u e s custody-modification action. We to agree w i t h the mother t h a t the the c u s t o d y - m o d i f i c a t i o n 49 A l a . App. overruled (1972) 178, on 189, other 269 action. So. grounds, ( c h i l d r e n of parties See 2d 884, 289 c h i l d was to a C o c h r a n v. 895 Ala. not Cochran, ( C i v . App. 615, 269 divorce not required). cogent argument precluded present the to trial i n the court R. Evid. witnesses other ... witnesses that (i.e., ("At from child's allowing t h a t the t r i a l the request excluded motion."), the courtroom d u r i n g her mother i s c o m p l a i n i n g Ala. how i t 897 are not ad develop nonparty the testimony. litem may any status child to be Assuming the court v i o l a t e d Rule 615, o f a p a r t y t h e c o u r t may so t h a t t h e y and 2d action However, t h e m o t h e r does n o t as 1970), So. p a r t i e s t h e m s e l v e s and t h e a p p o i n t m e n t o f a g u a r d i a n is a party order cannot hear the testimony make the order of its of own the mother f a i l s t o acknowledge " [ t ] h e g e n e r a l r u l e excluding the matter l e f t witnesses upon i n v o c a t i o n of rule requiring sequestration of l a r g e l y to the d i s c r e t i o n of the 12 'the rule' witnesses) is a trial judge and 2120145 that his decision will not be d i s t u r b e d on s h o w i n g o f an abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n . " So. 2d 1338, identify 1341 any absent C h r i s t i a n s e n v. H a l l , ( A l a . 1990). The prejudice resulting undue appeal mother has from failed the a 567 to child's presence i n the courtroom d u r i n g her testimony t h a t would l e a d this court discretion. result As conclude next App. that a r e s u l t , we of the t r i a l 45, A l a . R. We to the trial court exceeded i t s f i n d no b a s i s f o r r e v e r s a l as a court's ruling on t h a t i s s u e . See Rule P. address the mother's argument that the trial c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t must be r e v e r s e d b e c a u s e t h e f a t h e r f a i l e d t o meet h i s b u r d e n u n d e r Ex p a r t e McLendon, 455 So. 2d 863 ( A l a . 1984). " I n s i t u a t i o n s i n w h i c h t h e p a r e n t s have j o i n t l e g a l custody, but a p r e v i o u s j u d i c i a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n has g r a n t e d p r i m a r y p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y t o one p a r e n t , t h e o t h e r p a r e n t , i n o r d e r t o o b t a i n a change i n c u s t o d y , must meet t h e b u r d e n s e t o u t i n Ex p a r t e M c L e n d o n [ , 455 So. 2d 463 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) ] . See S c h o l l v. P a r s o n s , 655 So. 2d 1060, 1062 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1995) . The b u r d e n s e t o u t i n McLendon r e q u i r e s t h e p a r e n t s e e k i n g a c u s t o d y change t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t a m a t e r i a l change i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s has o c c u r r e d s i n c e the p r e v i o u s judgment, t h a t the c h i l d ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t s w i l l be m a t e r i a l l y p r o m o t e d by a change o f c u s t o d y , and t h a t t h e b e n e f i t s o f t h e change w i l l more t h a n o f f s e t t h e i n h e r e n t l y d i s r u p t i v e e f f e c t r e s u l t i n g f r o m t h e change i n c u s t o d y . Ex p a r t e McLendon, 455 So. 2d a t 866." 13 2120145 Dean v . Dean, 998 So. 2d 1060, The trial thus, 1064-65 c o u r t made no s p e c i f i c we must assume ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) . findings that the t r i a l court i n i t s judgment; implicitly t h o s e f i n d i n g s n e c e s s a r y t o s u p p o r t i t s judgment. made See, e . g . , M c C o r m i c k v . E t h e r i d g e , 15 So. 3d 524, 529 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008). "A m a t e r i a l change o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s o c c u r s when i m p o r t a n t facts unknown arise that a t t h e time impact of the i n i t i a l the welfare custody of the c h i l d . " judgment K.E.W. v . T.W.E., 990 So. 2d 3 7 5 , 380 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ) . "The [Ex p a r t e ] M c L e n d o n [ , 455 So. 2d 863 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) , ] s t a n d a r d i s a 'rule of repose,' custody because meant this t o minimize Court i n h e r e n t l y more b e n e f i c i a l parte Cleghorn, disruptive presumes to a child that changes o f stability i s than d i s r u p t i o n . " Ex 993 So. 2 d 462, 468 ( A l a . 2 0 0 8 ) . "On a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w o f custody matters, [the a p p e l l a t e ] c o u r t i s l i m i t e d when t h e e v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d o r e tenus, and, i n such c i r c u m s t a n c e s , a t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d ' a b s e n t an abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n o r where i t i s shown t o be p l a i n l y a n d p a l p a b l y w r o n g . ' A l e x a n d e r v . A l e x a n d e r , 625 So. 2d 4 3 3 , 434 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1993) ( c i t i n g B e n t o n v . B e n t o n , [520 So. 2d 534 ( A l a . Civ. App. 1 9 8 8 ) ] ) . As t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t h i g h l i g h t e d i n [Ex p a r t e ] P a t r o n a s , [693 So. 2d 473 (Ala. 1 9 9 7 ) ] , '"[T]he t r i a l c o u r t i s i n t h e b e t t e r p o s i t i o n t o 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 a s 14 2120145 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 t o d e c i d e t h e i s s u e o f c u s t o d y . " ' P a t r o n a s , 693 So. 2d a t 474 ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e B r y o w s k y , 676 So. 2d 1322, 1326 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) ) . Thus, a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w o f a judgment m o d i f y i n g custody when t h e e v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d o r e t e n u s i s l i m i t e d t o d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r t h e r e was s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e to support the t r i a l court's judgment. See P a t r o n a s , 693 So. 2d a t 475." Cheek v. D y e s s , 1 So. 3d 1025, 1029 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 7 ) . We c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t h a d b e f o r e evidence from which i t c o u l d a material change r e a s o n a b l y have d e t e r m i n e d of circumstances e n t r y i n 1997 o f t h e T e x a s d i v o r c e custody of the c h i l d the mother Cochran, that 5 So. 3d 1220 v i s i t a t i o n disputes, had o c c u r r e d that since the judgment a w a r d i n g p h y s i c a l t o t h e mother. t h e mere i t sufficient passage A l t h o u g h we a g r e e of time, ( A l a . 2008), with see Cochran v. and t h e p e r s i s t e n c e of i d . , a l o n e do n o t c o n s t i t u t e a m a t e r i a l change o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h a t w o u l d j u s t i f y a m o d i f i c a t i o n o f p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e t r i a l it evidence of other previously considered factors i n 1997. that could Specifically, court had before not have been the t r i a l court h e a r d 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 was n o t m e e t i n g t h e social and a t h l e t i c behavioral needs o f t h e c h i l d a n d t h a t t h e m o t h e r ' s r u l e s were s t i f l i n g 15 the a b i l i t y of the c h i l d t o 2120145 m a t u r e i n t o an i n d e p e n d e n t and s e l f - r e l i a n t young a d u l t . evidence, since as a c c e p t e d the last circumstances welfare The trial reasonable the t r i a l custody had of the by court, demonstrated that, judgment, occurred That a change of n e g a t i v e l y impacted t h a t had material the child. court a l s o heard evidence t h a t would support conclusion that the child's social and a athletic i n t e r e s t s w o u l d be m a t e r i a l l y p r o m o t e d by m o v i n g i n w i t h the father. the The mother, he mother's was community; he allowed or to socialize although that, had testified not house neighborhood, filed, child they until the that, leave was rarely lived living children in a t o have of in gated action was backseat of the t h a t , a t t h e age f r i e n d s over his their prestigious, r i d e i n the 3 with driveway custody-modification been r e q u i r e d t o allowed the with mother's c a r , presumably f o r s a f e t y ; he while to v i s i t of 15, at the m o t h e r ' s h o u s e and t h e m o t h e r r e f u s e d t o d r o p t h e c h i l d o f f a t t h e m o v i e t h e a t e r w i t h h i s f r i e n d s t o see a m o v i e ; and t h a t had only 3 stood r e c e n t l y been A t the time of the 5'9" o r 5'10", and allowed to watch "PG" rated he movies. t r i a l , t h e c h i l d was 15 y e a r s o l d , w e i g h e d b e t w e e n 180 and 200 p o u n d s . 16 2120145 The mother admitted that, a t t h e age o f 15, t h e c h i l d h a d never had f r i e n d s sleep n e v e r been i n v i t e d t o a f r i e n d ' s house f o r a s l e e p o v e r . evidence interest his further i n playing enrollment football a t t h e mother's house and had that football, i n a magnet 4 the c h i l d had expressed an b u t t h e mother had m a i n t a i n e d school that d i d not maintain a football hand, t h e f a t h e r h a d a r r a n g e d f o r t h e c h i l d at a local high school, and, i n f a c t , t h e c h i l d h a d begun p r a c t i c i n g w i t h t h a t f o o t b a l l 2011 The program. On t h e o t h e r to play showed over summer v i s i t a t i o n with the father. team d u r i n g h i s The f a t h e r also a r r a n g e d f o r t h e c h i l d t o have a c e l l u l a r t e l e p h o n e , w h i c h t h e mother would n o t a l l o w . had also allowed child The c h i l d t e s t i f i e d that the father h i m t o have f r i e n d s o v e r a n d h a d a l l o w e d t h e to socialize with friends a t other places; that the f a t h e r had f o s t e r e d t h e c h i l d ' s independence; t h a t the f a t h e r had taught the c h i l d t o cook and t o p e r f o r m c h o r e s t h a t t h e The mother t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e c h i l d had p a r t i c i p a t e d i n numerous o t h e r a c t i v i t i e s , i . e . , t h a t he p l a y e d t e n n i s a n d swam a t t h e YMCA, h a d p a r t i c i p a t e d i n c o m p e t i t i v e b a s k e t b a l l f o r s e v e r a l y e a r s i n t h e YMCA l e a g u e s , h a d p l a y e d c h e s s a n d s t u d i e d F r e n c h , h a d p a r t i c i p a t e d i n an " U l t i m a t e F r i s b e e " C l u b a t s c h o o l , was a member o f t h e B a n j o Band a t s c h o o l , a n d p r e v i o u s l y h a d s t u d i e d Taekwondo. 4 17 2120145 m o t h e r r e g u l a r l y d i d f o r t h e c h i l d a n d t o be s e l f - r e l i a n t ; a n d that t h e f a t h e r had taught him s k i l l s live on h i s own when he l e f t home f o r c o l l e g e . Dr. and t h a t he w o u l d n e e d t o S m i t h a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e c h i l d was v e r y had articulated m o t h e r ' s home. identified reasons According why he wanted bright t o leave the t o Dr. Smith, a l t h o u g h t h e c h i l d had several negative factors associated with l i v i n g i n t h e m o t h e r ' s home, he h a d b e e n more f o c u s e d on t h e p o s i t i v e s he Dr. believed would r e s u l t f r o m a move t o t h e f a t h e r ' s S m i t h t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e c h i l d was m a t u r e i n some ways a n d immature i n others. clinical signs had home. discussed retired that with She t e s t i f i e d at-home According no h a d b e e n c o a c h e d a n d t h a t she the c h i l d that with the father, t h e m o t h e r , an u n e m p l o y e d and t h e s t e p f a t h e r , t o Dr. Smith, life a m i g h t w e l l be more s t r u c t u r e d a n d t h a n i t was w i t h mom, she h a d f o u n d the c h i l d A i r Force general, disciplined that the c h i l d a practicing was prepared stay- physician. f o r that possibility. Whether t h e b e n e f i t s from c h a n g i n g p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y from t h e m o t h e r t o t h e f a t h e r w i l l more t h a n o f f s e t t h e i n h e r e n t l y d i s r u p t i v e e f f e c t r e s u l t i n g f r o m t h e change i n c u s t o d y was a 18 2120145 question of fact f o r the t r i a l court. So. 3d 801 ( A l a . 2009) . found that The t r i a l c o u r t c o u l d have the evidence independent environment child's response child's best regarding found to that more t h a n o f f s e t t h e more reasonably social and i n t h e f a t h e r ' s home a n d t h e environment i n t e r e s t s would change o f c u s t o d y Ex p a r t e B l a c k s t o c k , 47 established that the be m a t e r i a l l y p r o m o t e d by a a n d t h a t t h e b e n e f i t s o f t h a t change w o u l d the inherently d i s r u p t i v e e f f e c t resulting f r o m a change i n c u s t o d y . We a c k n o w l e d g e t h a t t h e j u d g m e n t r e s u l t s being removed f r o m t h e home o f t h e m o t h e r , long resided with h i s h a l f brother. i n the child's i n w h i c h he h a d However, i n A.B. v. J . B . , 40 So. 2d 723, 729 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) , t h i s c o u r t h e l d t h a t a trial c o u r t may s e p a r a t e concludes, the b a s e d on s u f f i c i e n t separation w i l l at i s s u e . " half serve The c h i l d brother could during h i s v i s i t s the t r i a l half siblings evidence the best testified sufficiently 19 i n the record, that t h a t he b e l i e v e d he a n d t h e maintain t o t h e m o t h e r ' s home. Cheek v. D y e s s , court i n t e r e s t s of the c h i l d r e n c o u r t was e n t i t l e d t o a c c e p t on t h a t i s s u e . " i f the t r i a l supra. their relationship As t h e f a c t - f i n d e r , the child's testimony 2120145 The mother also challenges e s t a b l i s h e d f o r her i n the t r i a l that the t r i a l child the visitation c o u r t ' s judgment and a s s e r t s court e r r e d i n awarding her l e s s time w i t h the than the f a t h e r had p r e v i o u s l y r e c e i v e d . however, has f a i l e d argument. to cite the foregoing court i s affirmed. on a p p e a l The m o t h e r , any a u t h o r i t y i n s u p p o r t As a r e s u l t , we w i l l R u l e 2 8 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) ; Asam, s u p r a ; For a n d W h i t e Sands Group, reasons, Both p a r t i e s ' t h e judgment requests f o r attorney Thomas, a n d D o n a l d s o n , J J . , c o n c u r . Thompson, P . J . , d i s s e n t s , w i t h writing. See supra. of the AFFIRMED. 20 of her not address that i s s u e . are denied. Pittman, schedule trial fees 2120145 THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e , d i s s e n t i n g . I must r e s p e c t f u l l y d i s s e n t . T y r o n e McCoy ("the f a t h e r " ) prove that there to warrant presented s u f f i c i e n t evidence to f o r a change or that a change promote t h e c h i l d ' s w e l f a r e . 1158, 455 i n the e x i s t i n g i n custody So. 2d 863, 865-66 physical 1997, Anita would custody materially See B a i r d v. H u b b a r t , 98 So. 3d 1163 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2012) ( c i t i n g Janice Ex p a r t e McLendon, (Ala. 1984)). Jones ("the custody of the c h i l d mother") since has had primary the p a r t i e s divorced i n when t h e c h i l d was a b o u t a y e a r o l d . The c h i l d was 15 y e a r s o l d and i n h i g h s c h o o l a t t h e time o f t h e t r i a l . petition, the i n Destin, t h a t t h e m o t h e r was a t t e m p t i n g as g r o u n d s w a r r a n t i n g was Florida--and the custody m o d i f i c a t i o n . to alienate noncustodial his belief However, t h e i n d i c a t e d t h a t he h a d b e e n c o n c e r n e d t h a t attempting with t o a l i e n a t e t h e c h i l d from him the c h i l d from t h e mother him s i n c e F u r t h e r m o r e , when a c h i l d e x p r e s s e s a p r e f e r e n c e the In h i s the father c i t e d the c h i l d ' s desire to reside f a t h e r - - w h o now l i v e s father Gary h a s b e e n a m a t e r i a l change i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h e need arrangement, I do n o t b e l i e v e t h a t to live 1999. with p a r e n t i n a m o d i f i c a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g , such a 21 2120145 preference, in w i t h o u t more, i s i n s u f f i c i e n t t o j u s t i f y a change custody. See M a r u s i c h v. B r i g h t , ( A l a . C i v . App. 2006) 995, 996 947 So. 2d 1068, ( c i t i n g G l o v e r v. S i n g l e t o n , ( A l a . C i v . App. 1071 598 So. 2d 1992)). The m o t h e r has s t r e s s e d a c a d e m i c s t h r o u g h o u t t h e c h i l d ' s life. The c h i l d has c o n s i s t e n t l y e x c e l l e d i n h i s s t u d i e s , and he was a c c e p t e d i n t o t h e L o v e l e s s A c a d e m i c Magnet P r o g r a m H i g h School ("LAMP"), w h i c h i s h i g h l y mother p o i n t e d ranked n a t i o n a l l y . As t h e o u t , t h e f a t h e r d i d n o t v o i c e an o b j e c t i o n when t h e m o t h e r e n r o l l e d t h e c h i l d i n LAMP. A l t h o u g h LAMP does n o t have a f o o t b a l l team, t h e c h i l d t a k e s p a r t i n e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r activities at the school. The e v i d e n c e a l s o indicates that t h e m o t h e r t e n d s t o be p r o t e c t i v e o f t h e c h i l d . The father agrees that academics are important, a l s o f o c u s e s on d e v e l o p i n g what t h e c h i l d c a l l e d " l i f e through p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n sports father intends to e n r o l l the and s o c i a l child b u t he skills" activities. i n a more The traditional p u b l i c h i g h s c h o o l w i t h a s t u d e n t body o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y 2,000. The father school's has encouraged the football team. child Unlike the to t r y out mother, e n c o u r a g e s t h e c h i l d t o be more i n d e p e n d e n t . 22 for the that father 2120145 In Bishop v. K n i g h t , 949 So. 2d 160 (Ala. C i v . App. 2006), t h i s c o u r t r e v e r s e d a judgment m o d i f y i n g c u s t o d y o f t h e p a r t i e s ' teenage son. modification The f a t h e r i n t h a t c a s e h a d s o u g h t t h e because t h e son wanted b e c a u s e he d i d n o t l i k e the s t y l e u s e d when t h e s o n m i s b e h a v e d . t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n and of d i s c i p l i n e t h e mother F o r e x a m p l e , when t h e s o n was suspended a second time from r i d i n g t h e s c h o o l bus, t h e mother made him walk suspension the the three miles l a s t e d three days. mother's punishment. disagreed with excluding him from p a d d l i n g him. family from school. 164. The father d e c i s i o n to punish event, cutting his hair, f o r being told "yeah" i n s t e a d o f " y e s , s i r " and " y e s , suspended r e c e i v i n g bad grades. trial and I d . The s o n t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was p a d d l e d f o r t o do s o , f o r s a y i n g The also t h e son by t h i n g s l i k e n o t c l e a n i n g h i s room a f t e r r e p e a t e d l y b e i n g ma'am," The The f a t h e r d i d n o t a g r e e w i t h Id. at the mother's a t o and from the school bus, and f o r Id. court i n Bishop modified custody after finding t h a t t h e m o t h e r was p h y s i c a l l y a b u s i n g t h e s o n a n d t h a t he was s u f f e r i n g emotional style. This court harm b e c a u s e o f t h e m o t h e r ' s d i s c i p l i n a r y determined 23 that the evidence d i d not 2120145 support the not m e r i t In trial court's f i n d i n g s and a change i n c u s t o d y . this case, styles of the there is no conclusion there evidence that the Id. at i s no f a t h e r and t h a t the evidence 168. question that the parenting the mother d i f f e r g r e a t l y . in the record that mother's p a r e n t i n g c h i l d p h y s i c a l o r e m o t i o n a l harm. would style Although However, support i s causing I may not do not believe i t is this court's place, or that agree son, of t r i a l c o u r t , t o i m p l i c i t l y f i n d t h a t one s t y l e of p a r e n t i n g better custody than preference Our another of p a r e n t i n g supreme and has previously t h e McLendon s t a n d a r d based on a stated that "[t]he i s t y p i c a l l y a heavy of because stability is to a c h i l d than d i s r u p t i o n . " Ex this Court i n h e r e n t l y more b e n e f i c i a l Cleghorn, 993 p a r t e McLendon, 455 father modify is t h a t i t i s "meant t o m i n i m i z e d i s r u p t i v e c h a n g e s custody parte to the style. court b u r d e n i m p o s e d by one" and a the w i t h a l l o f t h e methods u s e d by t h e m o t h e r i n r a i s i n g h e r I did met requisite that So. So. heavy showings of 2d presumes 462, 468 2d a t 8 6 5 ) . burden in a material 24 that ( A l a . 2008) (citing I do n o t b e l i e v e t h a t this case. Ex the Without the change i n c i r c u m s t a n c e and 2120145 that a custody w e l f a r e of the who has years. been modification child, the custody would materially promote should remain w i t h the c h i l d ' s c u s t o d i a l parent f o r the mother, last A c c o r d i n g l y , I would r e v e r s e the judgment of the court. 25 the 14 trial

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.