Ex parte Emily Richey Thompson. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS (In re: Emily Richey Thompson v. Kristopher Eric Richey)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 03/05/2010 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 , 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 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 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 . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 1080041 Ex p a r t e E m i l y R i c h e y Thompson PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF C I V I L APPEALS (In r e : Emily Richey Thompson v. Kristopher Eric Richey) ( M a r s h a l l D i s t r i c t C o u r t , DR-05-200389; C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s , 2070305) STUART, Justice. 1080041 This Court certiorari granted in this the petition child-visitation case for the writ to determine whether the Court of C i v i l A p p e a l s ' n o - o p i n i o n a f f i r m a n c e of the court's order visitation find awarding conflicts the d e c i s i o n reverse and the noncustodial father with prior d e c i s i o n s of is in conflict with prior of trial unsupervised that court. decisions, We and we remand. I. Emily Richey Richey Thompson ("Richey") thereafter. child longer born, was who born, dating. and in In O c t o b e r the p a r t i e s ' c h i l d , the met They 2001 2001, was the ("Thompson") and and started dating Thompson became born on J u l y 8, parties were not reconciled shortly t h e y m a r r i e d on May Kristopher 8, 2004. married after At the and the minor child child be visitation filed and for supervised primarily and sought that Richey's visitation. because she 2 separated 2005. divorce requested no the i n December Thompson were In September 2005, for time time was They r e c o n c i l e d b r i e f l y and t h e n final with child parties separated. the shortly pregnant 2002. Eric She custody visitation requested alleged that of the with the supervised Richey had 1080041 sexually Richey abused the child had used c o c a i n e , and also marijuana, based on the crystal facts that methamphetamine, oxycodone, Xanax, and methadone, t h a t he h a d b e e n i n d r u g alcohol of times rehabilitation relapsed, driving and that were influence divorced. had of alcohol upon agreement of A l l other issues i t s pendente In agreement he and had arrested been repeatedly twice and once The p a r t i e s a p p e a r e d a t a h e a r i n g at which, hearing. to i n 2006 the under intoxication. 2007, a number lite reserved order, the of the p a r t i e s , awarded custody Thompson and ordered that for public the parties f o r the trial final court, of the minor Richey for h e l d i n March the p a r t i e s , were and have by child supervised visitation. At the revealed with the final hearing in September the f o l l o w i n g f a c t s relevant t h e m i n o r c h i l d : R i c h e y was final under public hearing. the i n f l u e n c e . intoxication. marijuana, juvenile, and he crystal was In that He to adjudicated delinquent 3 he was having methamphetamine. evidence visitation o l d at the time arrested twice same y e a r , admitted the to Richey's 26 y e a r s I n 2 0 0 6 he was 2007, for driving arrested for used cocaine, When R i c h e y on of the was a underlying 1080041 charge of d r i v i n g under the i n f l u e n c e of a l c o h o l . He was also a d j u d i c a t e d a y o u t h f u l o f f e n d e r b a s e d on t h e u n d e r l y i n g c h a r g e of driving under the i n f l u e n c e of Richey has attended three attended a program called attended a program o f f e r e d by Thompson were dating. alcohol. rehabilitation Three Springs Rapha as Nonetheless, he 2006, another S u n r i s e Lodge At He while started Then, rehabilitation he and using i n September program at the in Russellville. the March Richey a juvenile. again and d r i n k i n g a l c o h o l . attended He Ministries Xanax and methadone he programs. claimed 2007 h e a r i n g 10 days consuming continues or four he was seen admitted at the September 2007 According t o T h o m p s o n , on occasions Richey telephoned either drugs or Much alleged between 2007 local and bar, hearing that September he three 2007, T h o m p s o n w h i l e he was u n d e r t h e i n f l u e n c e o f alcohol. of the testimony sexual March a testified hearing to drink alcohol. at He case, Within He sober. in this had n o t u s e d any d r u g s o r a l c o h o l i n s i x months. alcohol. and place he that clean took that of t o be that abuse of in this the case minor 4 focused child. on One Richey's incident 1080041 occurred living i n July 2004, together. Thompson two-year-old child hopped down, Thompson Richey acknowledged it but sitting never that sought the parties came this were m a r r i e d and home f r o m w o r k a n d f o u n d t h e on R i c h e y ' s saw t h a t was " v e r y a b n o r m a l . " he while Richey event lap. When the child was s e x u a l l y aroused. o c c u r r e d and s t a t e d He a d m i t t e d t h a t that i t"concerned" him, any c o u n s e l i n g i n c o n n e c t i o n with the event. In January 2006, the child irritation i nher genital area. irritation i n the area. complained Thompson o b s e r v e d r e d n e s s a n d Because of the i r r i t a t i o n , c o u l d n o t s i t down i n a t u b o f w a t e r . child w h a t was w r o n g , touched her. Department child-abuse but could Thompson not say whether reported the incident o f Human Resources investigator the time stated When T h o m p s o n a s k e d t h e that her father had the child had been abused. Thompson at she t o l d the child The c h i l d ' s p e d i a t r i c i a n d i a g n o s e d h e r a s h a v i n g vulvovaginitis sexually t o h e r mother o f that ("DHR"). who h a d w o r k e d of the hearing, she to the Marshall has testified performed 5 Ann County Stephenson, a f o r DHR f o r 20 y e a r s i n this "several case. She hundred" 1080041 investigations. investigation, of sexual She explained that testified a t t h e hands that believed jury After of an witnesses presented opinion case time touching was the c h i l d ' s due t o be and were DHR's presented, No e v i d e n c e at the f i n a l "that the also explained presented child. contested of a the He hearing case as t o t h e r e a s o n denied the with at DHR. which f i n d i n g was c h a n g e d hearing. to the Richey requested review complaint convened. the minor "indicated" her was " i n d i c a t e d . " Stephenson i t was administrative indicated." completing of her father the c h i l d . " the next inappropriately finding upon a f i n d i n g o f " i n d i c a t e d " means the sexual-abuse grand that s h e made a f i n d i n g t h a t abuse Department She no to "not f o r t h e c h a n g e was Stephenson maintained t h a t t h e c h i l d ' s a c c o u n t o f t h e i n c i d e n t was her truthful. S t e p h e n s o n recommended t h a t R i c h e y ' s v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e c h i l d be supervised. Sherry therapist Center Swindall, employed also by testified the c l i n i c a l the Marshall i n the trial interviewed the c h i l d extensively. child an o u t c r y of s e x u a l l y "made director 6 County of of and a Child this Advocacy case. She e x p l a i n e d inappropriate child She that the touching by 1080041 her father." that the c h i l d She remained hearing. her Based on h e r i n t e r v i e w s , have of no u n s u p e r v i s e d that same She e x p l a i n e d interviews with Following finding that presented i n this hearing and awarding child. affirmed Thompson ___ the for a writ filed a brief the father. of the "no or misconduct credible with final Court order, 2008)(table). of c e r t i o r a r i , July with of coached. its evidence committed child" the we an opinion. So. 3d petitioned granted. Richey minor Appeals 18, 2 0 0 8 ) , which final Civil without Thompson the m e r i t s ; during the minor visitation The court's addressing entered that the Defendant/father (No. 2 0 7 0 3 0 5 , ( A l a . C i v . App. date court was appealed. v. R i c h e y Court the t r i a l unsupervised trial the with t h a t t h e c h i l d had been there abuse Richey Thompson opinion the c h i l d judgment act of sexual visits recommended t h a t s h e h a d s e e n no i n d i c a t i o n the hearing, any Swindall this Thompson d i d not f i l e a brief. II. Thompson affirmance prior of asserts the t r i a l decisions of that that the Court court's order court. The 7 of Civil Appeals' i s in conflict trial court found with "no 1080041 credible evidence Defendant/father presented committed misconduct w i t h the minor in any child." this act hearing of Appeals' affirmance i s i n c o n f l i c t 1 So. 3d 1025, of Civil trial the Appeals court i s so variable substantiate ( A l a . C i v . App. stated: opposed factor 2007), "'"[W]here the to the weight i t , then the c o n c l u s i o n i n which Jacoby 2d 278, 280 the that erroneous 1274 So. of not r e a s o n a b l y is clearly quoting i n turn of Court of the evidence 742 370 or Dyess, the conclusion m u s t be r e v e r s e d . " ' " ( Q u o t i n g B . J . N . v . P.D., 1999), abuse w i t h Cheek v. o f w i t n e s s demeanor c o u l d ( A l a . C i v . App. the She u r g e s t h a t t h e C o u r t Civil 1029 sexual that So. 2 d and 1270, v. Bell, ( A l a . 1979).) Thompson a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t t h e r e was no c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e o f s e x u a l abuse i s c l e a r l y based on t h e t e s t i m o n y o f t h e DHR S t e p h e n s o n , who in this case erroneous child-abuse investigator, i n v e s t i g a t e d the a l l e g a t i o n s of s e x u a l and found them " i n d i c a t e d , " abuse recommended R i c h e y ' s v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e c h i l d be s u p e r v i s e d , and that stated a c r i m i n a l c a s e a g a i n s t R i c h e y w o u l d be p r e s e n t e d t o t h e n e x t g r a n d j u r y t o convene testimony i n Marshall County. of S w i n d a l l , the clinical 8 She a l s o c i t e s director of and the child 1080041 therapist employed C e n t e r , who, by the Marshall a f t e r conducting child, testified inappropriate that the touching County numerous her outcry f a t h e r " and visitation. testimony that touched that minor c h i l d she sexually she saw to t h a t her her own father facts in the in Cheek present v. Dyess case. are Cheek quite v. different Dyess had o f two y o u n g e r c h i l d r e n had to the f a t h e r because the to respect their supervision of and bad other adults conduct and mother encouraged because of primarily s i b l i n g whose c u s t o d y r e m a i n e d w i t h t h e m o t h e r . a custody been t r a n s f e r r e d from the c h i l d r e n were n o t b e i n g f a t h e r and from involved m o d i f i c a t i o n of c h i l d custody i n a case i n which the of no recommended points t o l d her the her. The those the Lastly, with of i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e c h i l d had b e e n c o a c h e d and who supervised Advocacy interviews c h i l d made "an by Child by an older Court of on the custody i s s u e ; t h i s Court g r a n t e d the w r i t of c e r t i o r a r i and, Civil after Appeals a review reversed of the f a c t u a l l y d i f f e r e n t , an Cheek v. Dyess and the trial record, quashed identical t h i s case. court's the The lack judgment writ. Although legal p r i n c i p l e applies in Even when t h e o r e t e n u s r u l e i s 9 1080041 a p p l i c a b l e , when the conclusion of the c o n t r a r y t o the weight of the evidence trial court that witness is so demeanor c o u l d n o t s u b s t a n t i a t e i t , i t i s c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s and must be reversed. The trial visitation will not broad d i s c r e t i o n i n determining r i g h t s o f a n o n c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t , and be Alexander c o u r t has reversed unless v. A l e x a n d e r , 625 the i t s decision i t has exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n . So. 433, 2d 435 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993). " E v e r y c a s e i n v o l v i n g a v i s i t a t i o n i s s u e must be d e c i d e d on i t s own f a c t s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s , b u t t h e primary c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n e s t a b l i s h i n g the v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s accorded a n o n c u s t o d i a l parent i s always 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 . " C a r r v. B r o y l e s , 652 When a t r i a l on ore tenus c o r r e c t , and the tenus 303 ( A l a . C i v . App. the court's without m a n i f e s t l y u n j u s t , or a g a i n s t the Rentals, ( A l a . C i v . App. rule, 2004). "where t h e presumed findings w i l l i t i s c l e a r l y erroneous, BSI 1994). case i s based f i n d i n g s are i t s j u d g m e n t b a s e d on t h o s e evidence. 1186 2d 299, c o u r t ' s judgment i n a n o n j u r y testimony, disturbed unless evidence, So. not supporting great weight I n c . v. Wendt, 893 So. 2d 10 of the trial court of 1184, "'However, e v e n u n d e r t h e conclusion be is ore so 1080041 opposed t o the w e i g h t of the e v i d e n c e t h a t the v a r i a b l e factor o f w i t n e s s demeanor c o u l d n o t r e a s o n a b l y s u b s t a n t i a t e i t , then t h e c o n c l u s i o n i s c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s and must be r e v e r s e d . " ' " Cheek v. D y e s s , 1 So. 3d a t 1029 ( q u o t i n g B.J.N. v. P.D., So. 2d a t 1274, q u o t i n g i n t u r n J a c o b y v. B e l l , 370 742 So. 2d a t 280). Furthermore, court's judgment evidence with disputed the in ore a nonjury a presumption issues of fact. Richey touched h i s daughter irritation tenus of her rule, case which based of c o r r e c t n e s s , cloaks a upon sexually, genitalia, ore applies Thus, a l t h o u g h t h e trial issue tenus only to whether l e a d i n g to redness which was and diagnosed as v u l v o v a g i n i t i s , a c l a i m he a d a m a n t l y d e n i e d , w o u l d be s u b j e c t to the ore tenus rule, numerous f a c t s present i n this w o u l d n o t be s u b j e c t t o t h e o r e t e n u s r u l e b e c a u s e were u n d i s p u t e d . case those f a c t s Those f a c t s n o t s u b j e c t t o d i s p u t e i n c l u d e : R i c h e y a t t e n d e d a " b o o t camp" as t h e r e s u l t o f a c o n v i c t i o n an a s s a u l t c h a r g e ; he h a d u s e d and a b u s e d c o c a i n e , on oxycodone, X a n a x , methadone, and a l c o h o l ; he h a d a t t e n d e d t h r e e d i f f e r e n t d r u g and a l c o h o l r e h a b i l i t a t i o n p r o g r a m s , l a s t p r o g r a m and s u b s e q u e n t completing o n l y the t o c o m p l e t i n g t h a t p r o g r a m he 11 had 1080041 recommenced d r i n k i n g a l c o h o l ; i n t h e y e a r b e f o r e hearing he h a d b e e n arrested twice the f i n a l f o r d r i v i n g under t h e i n f l u e n c e o f a l c o h o l a n d once f o r p u b l i c i n t o x i c a t i o n ; a n d a t the time of the f i n a l hearing driving-under-the-influence he h a d b e e n c o n v i c t e d charge i n t o x i c a t i o n charge and t h e o t h e r c h a r g e was s t i l l p e n d i n g . cooler, i t e m s s u c h as d r i n k down d o o r s he p u s h e d Thompson down once a n d t h r e w another t i m e ; and, s h o r t l y b e f o r e t h e f i n a l into a f i t o f rage public- Also, i t i s undisputed that Richey a n d t e l e p h o n e s ; he h a s k i c k e d occasions; the driving-under-the-influence has a v i o l e n t t e m p e r a n d h a s t h r o w n a and o f one i n the presence hearing, o f the minor cans, on two h e r down he f l e w child. In a d d i t i o n , R i c h e y d i d n o t have a v a l i d d r i v e r ' s l i c e n s e a t t h e time o f t r i a l b e c a u s e o f h i s a r r e s t s a n d c o n v i c t i o n s , b u t he c o n t i n u e d t o d r i v e e v e n t h o u g h he knew i t was i l l e g a l b e c a u s e he s t a t e d "he h a d t o . " He f a t h e r e d year o l d e r than the minor another c h i l d b y a n o t h e r woman a n d was i n the process o f consenting t o the t e r m i n a t i o n rights incident to that child. c h i l d who was a Lastly, Richey of h i s parental d i d n o t deny t h e i n w h i c h Thompson saw t h a t he was a r o u s e d when t h e minor c h i l d g o t o f f h i s l a p . He a c k n o w l e d g e d 12 that the arousal 1080041 was help inappropriate and abnormal, following the incident. award o f u n s u p e r v i s e d clearly These f a c t s visitation clearly t o seek made an i n a p p r o p r i a t e and, i n f a c t , erroneous. Thompson a l s o a l l e g e s t h a t affirmance 604 y e t he d i d n o t h i n g i n this the Court of Civil case i s i n c o n f l i c t w i t h So. 2d 425 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 2 ) . I.L. Appeals' v . L.D.L., In I.L.: "The m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t o t h e f o l l o w i n g : When t h e c h i l d was o n e - y e a r - o l d , t h e m o t h e r s u s p e c t e d an abuse p r o b l e m b e c a u s e o f t h e way t h a t t h e c h i l d was a c t i n g , a n d s h e t o o k h e r t o t h e p e d i a t r i c i a n . The p e d i a t r i c i a n t o l d t h e mother n o t t o worry i f t h e c h i l d was n o t ' r i p p e d a n d t o r n . ' A f t e r t h e d i v o r c e the mother again n o t i c e d i n a p p r o p r i a t e b e h a v i o r by t h e c h i l d a f t e r t h e c h i l d r e t u r n e d f r o m h e r weekend v i s i t a t i o n with her father. She t o o k t h e c h i l d t o t h e p e d i a t r i c i a n , who c a l l e d i n a n u r s e - s p e c i a l i s t from t h e abuse c l i n i c . "On the morning after the next weekend v i s i t a t i o n , t h e mother took t h e c h i l d back t o t h e pediatrician. The p e d i a t r i c i a n c a l l e d t h e C h i l d A d v o c a c y C e n t e r ( C e n t e r ) a n d t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s (DHR). The c h i l d was c o u n s e l e d a t l e a s t twelve times by a c e r t i f i e d c l i n i c a l p s y c h o l o g i s t a t the Center. The m o t h e r also went t o group c o u n s e l i n g so t h a t s h e w o u l d be a b l e t o h e l p t h e child. She f i l e d h e r m o t i o n t o s u s p e n d v i s i t a t i o n i n r e s p o n s e t o what s h e was t o l d b y a h e a l t h c a r e professional. " I n d e s c r i b i n g the c h i l d ' s conduct s i n c e the d i v o r c e , t h e mother s t a t e d t h a t t h e c h i l d has been v e r y s c a r e d o f men w i t h b e a r d s a n d t h a t t h e f a t h e r u s e d t o have a b e a r d . A t f i r s t the c h i l d would 13 1080041 s t i c k t h i n g s n e a r h e r v a g i n a and p l a c e h e r f i n g e r i n h e r mouth a n d s a y 'Daddy do t h i s , Momma. Daddy do it.' Then t h e c h i l d w o u l d t o u c h h e r v a g i n a l a r e a and s a y 'Daddy p e e pee, Mommy.' The c h i l d w o u l d wake up s c r e a m i n g i n t h e m i d d l e o f t h e n i g h t a n d w o u l d n o t l e t anyone t o u c h h e r . T h i s b e h a v i o r has subsided. "The m o t h e r , whose income i s $700 p e r month, t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e r e x p e n s e s f o r t h e c h i l d have i n c r e a s e d and t h a t she has been t o l d t h a t the c h i l d w i l l need c o u n s e l i n g f o r the r e s t o f her l i f e . "The m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t p r i o r t o the d i v o r c e the c h i l d had nightmares and t h a t she n e v e r w a n t e d t o be l e f t a l o n e w i t h h e r f a t h e r . She further stated that after the divorce the c h i l d would scream, k i c k , and shut t h e door i n h e r f a t h e r ' s f a c e , s a y i n g 'no, Daddy, n o , n o , n o . ' She f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t '[w]hen [ t h e c h i l d ] r e t u r n e d from v i s i t a t i o n , she l a i d i n t h e f l o o r and grabbed h e r s e l f i n t h e g r o i n a n d s a i d Daddy, ma. Daddy d o , ma. She s t u c k h e r f i n g e r i n h e r mouth a n d s h o v e d i t b a c k a n d f o r t h a n d s a i d d a d d y , ma, d a d d y . ' "A social worker i n a p r o t e c t i v e services c a p a c i t y w i t h DHR t e s t i f i e d t o t h e f o l l o w i n g : DHR does have a c o n c e r n f o r t h e c h i l d a n d recommends t h a t t h e c h i l d ' s v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e f a t h e r be supervised. The f a t h e r d i d n o t c o o p e r a t e w i t h t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o h i s l i v i n g c o n d i t i o n s , as he d i d n o t want h e r t o t a l k t o t h e p e o p l e w i t h whom he lived. She d i d n o t c o m p l e t e t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e f a t h e r ' s home, w h i c h was i n a n o t h e r c o u n t y , a n d then he j o i n e d the military. She needs t o r e i n t e r v i e w t h e f a t h e r b e c a u s e o f new i n f o r m a t i o n i n h e r r e p o r t t o t h e c o u r t t h a t was r e c e i v e d f r o m t h e child psychologist. Although the social worker asked t h e f a t h e r ' s attorney t o have t h e f a t h e r c o n t a c t h e r a s s o o n as he a r r i v e d f r o m h i s m i l i t a r y s e r v i c e , t h e f a t h e r d i d not c o n t a c t her. 14 1080041 "The r e p o r t o f t h e p s y c h o l o g i s t g a v e t h e s o c i a l w o r k e r more ' r e a s o n t o s u s p e c t . ' Some o f h e r conclusions a r e b a s e d on an i n t e r v i e w w i t h t h e child. She was u n a b l e t o t o t a l l y a s s u r e t h e c o u r t t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n o b t a i n e d from a two-and-one-halfy e a r - o l d c h i l d w o u l d be a c c u r a t e . "The s o c i a l worker submitted a report t o the trial c o u r t t h a t i n c l u d e d t h e f o l l o w i n g : I n an i n t e r v i e w t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d f a t h e r s t a t e d t h a t he had b e e n c o n c e r n e d a b o u t t h e f a t h e r s i n c e t h e c h i l d was e i g h t o r n i n e months o l d a n d t h a t he n o t i c e d t h e f a t h e r t a k i n g an e x c e s s i v e amount o f t i m e t o change the c h i l d ' s d i a p e r s . He s t a t e d t h a t he saw t h e c h i l d s i t on a m e t a l t u r t l e d o o r s t o p a n d r u b h e r s e l f on i t , a n d he f o u n d t h i s a c t i o n v e r y u p s e t t i n g . I n a d d i t i o n , the p s y c h o l o g i s t t o l d the s o c i a l worker that "'the [ c h i l d ] had t o l d her a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n a n d made a d i s c l o s u r e o f s e x u a l abuse b y h e r "Daddy" t o [ t h e p s y c h o l o g i s t ] , during several counseling sessions. The s e s s i o n s began i n March. A c c o r d i n g t o [ t h e p s y c h o l o g i s t ] , t h e c h i l d p i c k e d up t h e a n a t o m i c a l d o l l s h e c a l l e d "daddy" a n d s a i d "daddy's p e e p e e " a n d p u t i t i n h e r mouth. E a c h t i m e t h e c h i l d comes t o c o u n s e l w i t h [the p s y c h o l o g i s t ] she asks f o r t h e "Nonnie d o l l " a n d "Daddy d o l l . " When t h e c h i l d s t u c k t h e "pee p e e " i n h e r mouth, s h e s a y s "Yuk." [The p s y c h o l o g i s t ] a s k e d t h e c h i l d , "Your daddy"? a n d [ t h e c h i l d ] s a i d " Y e s . " ' "The s o c i a l w o r k e r f u r t h e r s t a t e d i n t h e r e p o r t t h a t she p l a n n e d t o t a l k t o t h e c h i l d a g a i n b u t t h a t s h e had n o t y e t done s o . She f o u n d h e r s e p a r a t e i n t e r v i e w s w i t h f a m i l y members a n d o t h e r s t o be believable." 604 So. 2d a t 427-28. The C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s 15 noted: 1080041 "The t r i a l j u d g e s t a t e d a t t h e h e a r i n g t h a t he d i d n o t have much c o n f i d e n c e i n r e p o r t s a n d t h a t ' t h i s i s t h e s o r t o f t h i n g y o u o u g h t t o have w o r k e d o u t b e t w e e n y o u r s e l v e s . ' He f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t he has ' p r o b l e m s w i t h p e o p l e who draw c o n c l u s i o n s a b o u t what two a n d o n e - h a l f o r t w o - y e a r - o l d c h i l d r e n s a y or do." 604 So. 2d a t 428. trial court's visitation. conflict The C o u r t order Thompson with I.L. of C i v i l granting argues because the that i n this Appeals reversed the father unsupervised the present case case t h e Court i s in of C i v i l Appeals a f f i r m e d the t r i a l c o u r t ' s order g r a n t i n g u n s u p e r v i s e d visitation and, i n essence, c r e d i b l e evidence the t r i a l i t s finding o f s e x u a l abuse, which c o u r t ' s h a v i n g a "problem" two e x p e r t s . We a g r e e . testimony and t h e i r unsupervised t h e r e was no Thompson e q u a t e s t o with the opinions of her The e x p e r t w i t n e s s e s b o t h supervised v i s i t a t i o n by Richey. their that The t r i a l recommended court disregarded recommendations and awarded Richey visitation. L a s t l y , Thompson a s s e r t s t h a t t h e C o u r t o f C i v i l no-opinion affirmance c o n f l i c t s Appeals' w i t h t h e h o l d i n g i n Y.A.M. v . M.R.M., 600 So. 2 d 1035 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 2 ) . I n Y.A.M. v . M.R.M., t h e m o t h e r c l a i m e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r h a d s e x u a l l y a b u s e d the p a r t i e s ' t h r e e - y e a r - o l d daughter. 16 The f a t h e r ' s v i s i t a t i o n 1080041 was t o be s u p e r v i s e d on a p e n d e n t e l i t e b a s i s . At t r i a l , the mother t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e c h i l d had t o l d h e r t h a t h e r f a t h e r had hurt her. A D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s s o c i a l worker t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e h a d an o p i n i o n a b o u t what h a d h a p p e n e d t o the c h i l d b u t she was n o t p e r m i t t e d t o s t a t e i t because she had n o t b e e n q u a l i f i e d a s an e x p e r t w i t n e s s . the C h i l d Advocacy Center A therapist with t e s t i f i e d about t h e d i s c l o s u r e s t h e c h i l d h a d made t o h e r a n d recommended t h a t v i s i t a t i o n w i t h h e r f a t h e r be s u p e r v i s e d . court granted In s p i t e of t h i s the father unsupervised of C i v i l Appeals disagreed. testimony, the t r i a l visitation. I n so d o i n g The C o u r t i t stated: " I n v i e w o f t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d , we f i n d t h a t granting unsupervised v i s i t a t i o n t o the father at t h i s time i s n o t i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s and w e l f a r e of t h e daughter. Consequently, we h o l d t h a t t h e trial court abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n by awarding u n s u p e r v i s e d and o v e r n i g h t v i s i t a t i o n t o t h e f a t h e r " The rights primary consideration f o rthe noncustodial parent welfare of the c h i l d . Appeals parents i n establishing found i s the best visitation i n t e r e s t s and I n I . L . a n d Y.A.M., t h e C o u r t supervised visitation by the of C i v i l noncustodial t o be i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s a n d w e l f a r e o f t h e m i n o r s i n t h e f a c e o f a l l e g a t i o n s o f s e x u a l abuse a n d r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s 17 1080041 by expert witnesses that v i s i t a t i o n f a c t s are present i n t h i s case. case, there i s substantial inappropriate old, of be supervised. A d d i t i o n a l l y , i n the present undisputed s e x u a l a r o u s a l when t h e evidence child, of repeated attempts at Richey's then s a t on h i s l a p , o f R i c h e y ' s a b u s e o f d r u g s his Those rehabilitation two and and years alcohol, subsequent r e l a p s e s , and o f t h r e e a l c o h o l - r e l a t e d a r r e s t s i n a v e r y s h o r t period, as w e l l alcohol and inappropriate child. for A as h i s a d m i s s i o n the fact violent trial that t h a t he he conduct has i n the continues to d r i n k exhibited presence court i n establishing of visitation rage the and minor privileges a n o n c u s t o d i a l p a r e n 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 m i n o r c h i l d and, where a p p r o p r i a t e , as i n t h i s case, The s e t c o n d i t i o n s on totality award of of visitation circumstances unsupervised indicates visitation m a k i n g s u c h an a w a r d t h e t r i a l t h a t p r o t e c t the here the trial i s improper, c o u r t exceeded the child. court's and in discretion p e r m i t t e d a t r i a l judge i n matters i n v o l v i n g c h i l d custody and visitation. Appeals is instructions to reversed, The and judgment of the the case is Court remanded 18 of C i v i l with 1080041 r e v e r s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t a n d remand t h e c a u s e t o t h e trial court. REVERSED AND REMANDED. L y o n s , S m i t h , B o l i n , M u r d o c k , a n d Shaw, J J . , c o n c u r . Cobb, C . J . , a n d W o o d a l l and P a r k e r , J J . , concur i n t h e result. 19 1080041 WOODALL, J u s t i c e The (concurring numerous i n the r e s u l t ) . undisputed facts opinion are s u f f i c i e n t to convince clearly exceeded discussed visitation in i t s discretion in to Kristopher E r i c Richey. the decision to reverse Appeals insofar trial me that majority the t r i a l awarding the judgment of the Court of as i t a f f i r m e d t h a t a s p e c t o f t h e o r d e r C . J . , and P a r k e r , J . , concur. 20 court unsupervised Consequently, I court. Cobb, i n the concur Civil of the

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.