H.H.J. v. K.T.J., 114 So. 3d 36

Married in 1986; one child born from the marriage; father had an extramarital relationship with C.E.C. resulting in two half-siblings; divorce in 2009 awarded joint custody with a court-ordered restriction prohibiting the father from contact with C.E.C.; the father remarried C.E.C. in 2010; mother sought modification of custody alleging material change in circumstances and contempt related to support, while father sought removal of the restriction on visitation in presence of the second wife; pendente lite orders reinforced restriction and bond requirement; modification judgment in 2011 awarded the mother primary physical custody with a visitation schedule that prohibited the child from visiting the father in the presence of the second wife; the specific modification provisions allowed the child to decide after age 16; the father appealed arguing the restriction should be lifted and asserting constitutional rights; the appellate court upheld the restriction as to the trial court’s ruling but remanded for compliance with the opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly denied modifying visitation to remove the second-wife presence restriction	Father argues material change; child’s reluctance unsupported	Mother contends continued hindering behavior warranted maintaining restriction	Restriction upheld; no error in denying modification
Whether there was a material change in circumstances warranting modification	Father asserts marriage to second wife and reduced contact constitute change	Court found changes but favored preserving child’s welfare with restriction	Modification not warranted; no material change sufficient to lift restriction
Whether the presence restriction violates the father’s rights or is in child’s best interests	Father claims constitutional rights; child’s best interests require contact with father	Restriction protects child; best interests favor continuing protection from second wife presence	Best interests and welfare support preservation of restriction; no constitutional error found radical enough to lift restriction
Whether the record supports treatment of child’s preference to not visit in presence of second wife	Child reluctant due to history; should be considered	Court weighed evidence and credibility; preservation of relationship prioritized	Record supports court’s discretion; child’s preference did not override welfare analysis

P.S. v. M.S., 101 So.3d 228 (Ala.Civ.App.2012) (trial court has wide discretion in visitation and must decide based on child’s best interests)
N.T. v. P.G., 54 So.3d 918 (Ala.Civ.App.2010) (modification focus on changed circumstances, not reweighing original judgment)
Moody v. Nagle, 811 So.2d 546 (Ala.Civ.App.2001) (change in circumstances required for modification of visitation)
Flanagan v. Flanagan, 656 So.2d 1228 (Ala.Civ.App.1995) (primary consideration in visitation is child’s best interests)
Carr v. Broyles, 652 So.2d 299 (Ala.Civ.App.1994) (trial court’s discretion in visitation matters; rely on best interests standard)
Watson v. Watson, 555 So.2d 1115 (Ala.Civ.App.1989) (exceptional cases where child’s fear can excuse visitation obligation)