David Mark Hodgins v. Sarah E. Hodgins., 84 So. 3d 116

2008 divorce judgment merged a settlement: joint legal custody, father has sole physical custody subject to mother’s visitation, and mother pays $100/month in child support due to deviation from guidelines.
Settlement gave father final decision-making authority on major decisions; mother retained visitation and was to be involved in health, education, and religion discussions.
2009 petition to modify custody filed by mother; guardian ad litem appointed; trial court held initial hearings October 2009 and June 2010, preserving joint legal custody but reallocating final decision-making authority (education/religion to mother; medical/extracurricular to father).
Visitation schedule modified to give mother unsupervised visits, including extended summer and school-break time, with various conditions and therapies; temporary-distances and travel considerations noted.
Trial court ordered new provisions on TDY (temporary duty) periods: if TDY > 90 days, mother can have Alabama visitation; if TDY ≤ 30 days, mother may visit in California; later amended for consistency with best interests.
On appeal, issues include careful review of final decision-making authority allocation, TDY visitation clause, overall visitation, drug-screen provision removal, and attorney’s fees; court remanded for further proceedings consistent with opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Final decision-making authority over education and religion	Hodgins argues mother cannot have final authority given distance and communication problems.	Hodgins contends trial court did not err in designating mother for教育/religion under § 30-3-151.	Affirmed; order allocating educational/religious final authority to mother upheld.
Visitation during TDY of 90 days or more	Father argues automatic shift to mother during TDY is improper.	Mother contends provision serves child’s best interests during father’s absence.	Reversed and remanded; automatic visitation provision not anchored to current best interests; must reconsider.
Visitation schedule broadly addressing school breaks	Father argues visitation during most breaks harms child’s interests; schedule too expansive for mother.	Mother argues breaks are essential to maintaining relationship given distance.	Affirmed; court did not abuse discretion; but some scheduling specifics require refinement on remand.
Drug-screen provision removal	Father argues drug-screen clause remains essential.	Mother seeks removal as unsupported by changed circumstances.	Affirmed; removal of drug-screen provision affirmed.
Attorney's fees	Father seeks fees due to perceived frivolous action by mother.	Mother argues costs justified; trial court’s discretion should stand.	Affirmed; trial court did not abuse discretion in denying father’s fee request.

Lackey v. Lackey, 18 So. 3d 393 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009) (attorney's-fee discretion; domestic-relations considerations)
West v. Rambo, 786 So.2d 1138 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000) (best-interests standard in modifying custody)
Long v. Long, 781 So.2d 225 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000) (trial court discretion in visitation awards)
Korn v. Korn, 867 So.2d 338 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003) (automatic custody modification; caution against speculative future changes)
Ex parte McLendon, 455 So.2d 863 (Ala. 1984) (drug-testing provisions in custody orders; modification standards)
Ex parte Monroe, 727 So.2d 104 (Ala. 1999) (custody modification tied to current, not speculative future, circumstances)
Hovater v. Hovater, 577 So.2d 461 (Ala. Civ. App. 1990) (custody provisions and future modifications premised on best interests)
City of Prattville v. Post, 831 So.2d 622 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002) (ore tenus standard; deference to trial court findings)