B.F.G. v. C.N.L., 204 So. 3d 399

Father (Nevada resident) sued in Alabama (Houston Circuit Court) to establish paternity of his daughter and seek visitation; paternity uncontested. Mother counterclaimed for sole custody and sought protection from abuse.
Case was transferred to juvenile court and later back to circuit court. Trial focused solely on visitation because parties stipulated paternity and custody (mother physical custody, joint legal custody agreed).
The child's paternal teenaged half-brother pleaded guilty in Nevada to sexual-abuse offenses involving the child; he is a registered sex offender and barred from contact. The alleged abuse occurred in the home where father resides.
Mother testified father disbelieved the child, threatened her after prosecution, and had previously exposed the child to inappropriate media; child has anxiety, is in counseling, and does not want to visit father.
Father sought visitation in Nevada (alternating holidays/summers), offered phased-in contact and video contact, and claimed he would prevent contact between the child and his son.
Trial court denied court-ordered visitation as not practical or in the child’s best interest; left open that parties may mutually agree to visitation and that the order is modifiable on changed circumstances. Appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Father’s Argument	Mother’s Argument	Held
Subject-matter jurisdiction of circuit court to decide paternity/custody	Court could and should hear paternity; juvenile jurisdiction not exclusive	Juvenile court lacked jurisdiction because child was not a dependent	Circuit court had jurisdiction; affirmation (AUPA/AJJA and Brock v. Herd cited)
Appropriateness of denying court-ordered/scheduled visitation	Visitation should be awarded (at least supervised/in-Alabama or phased); restrictions were overbroad	Court-ordered visitation would harm child given abuse history, father's disbelief, and threats	Trial court did not abuse discretion in denying mandatory visitation; affirmed
Whether judgment impermissibly vested visitation in mother’s discretion	Judgment improperly left visitation to mother’s agreement (giving her total control)	Court’s language merely allowed parties to mutually agree; the denial was primary, not delegation	Majority: not impermissible because court denied scheduled visitation and only permitted voluntary agreement; concurrence: would impermissibly delegate judicial power and should be reversed
Standard of review and burden to deny visitation	Father: trial court abused discretion	Mother: evidence supports best-interest denial	Abuse-of-discretion standard; factual findings upheld because supported by testimony and counselor reports

Nunn v. Baker, 518 So.2d 711 (Ala. 1987) (courts may raise jurisdictional issues sua sponte)
Brock v. Herd, 187 So.3d 1161 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015) (juvenile courts’ jurisdiction over paternity actions is not exclusive)
Pratt v. Pratt, 56 So.3d 638 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010) (trial court has broad discretion over visitation; cannot delegate visitation to custodial parent)
M.B. v. L.B., 154 So.3d 1043 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014) (denial of visitation may be affirmed if in child’s best interest)
Ex parte Farm, 810 So.2d 631 (Ala. 2001) (appellate deference to trial court’s credibility findings)
K.L.U. v. M.C., 809 So.2d 837 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001) (reversal where judgment vests custodial parent with unchecked discretion over visitation)