Cooper v. Cooper
160 So. 3d 1232
Ala. Civ. App.2014Background
- Husband Mark Cooper and wife Diana Cooper married in 1988; two children were born, C.H.C. (1999) and M.A.C. (2000).
- Wife filed for divorce in 2009; sought custody, property division, alimony, and child support.
- Trial court issued pendente lite orders; wife moved with children in 2010 to a separate residence; husband sought custody but the wife obtained residency with children.
- Trial spanned five days (2011–2012); guardian ad litem (GAL) was appointed after initial delay and testified via a later report.
- On final judgment (Dec 4, 2012): wife awarded primary physical custody, husband ordered to pay child support and alimony ($300/mo for 60 months), joint legal custody, and GAL fees.
- Husband filed post-judgment motions; 2018 order reduced alimony to $150/mo; husband appeals asserting no testimony from children, alimony error, and custody award error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether alimony award was proper | Cooper argues alimony exceeds ability to pay and needs evidence. | Cooper contends trial court abused discretion; insufficient need/ability findings. | No reversible error; court’s discretion supported alimony. |
| Whether exclusion of children’s testimony was reversible | Cooper asserts he was denied child testimony to express preferences. | Cooper’s request was contrary to GAL report and child protection concerns. | No reversible error; trial court properly denied in-camera testimony. |
| Whether physical custody award to wife was in error | Cooper claims he was better caregiver and enrolled; wife allegedly unstable. | Wife shown to provide stable home; best interests supported by ore tenus findings. | No reversible error; custody supported by substantial evidence and best interests. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shewbart v. Shewbart, 64 So.3d 1080 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010) (standard for reviewing alimony awards on appeal)
- Middleton v. Lightfoot, 885 So.2d 111 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003) (evidence-evaluation standard in appellate review)
- Ellison v. Ellison, 628 So.2d 855 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993) (child witnesses may testify if competent and relevant)
- Ex parte Harris, 461 So.2d 1332 (Ala. 1984) (protecting child from emotional stress in custody cases)
- Ex parte Perkins, 646 So.2d 46 (Ala. 1994) (presumption of correctness in ore tenus custody findings)
- Ex parte Bryowsky, 676 So.2d 1322 (Ala. 1996) (standard for review of custody determinations)