Milligan v. Milligan, 149 So. 3d 623

Parties divorced in 2009; settlement gave them joint legal and physical custody and required Father to pay the mortgage on the marital home until it sold; child support of $1,250/month was to begin only after sale; Father could claim the two oldest children as tax dependents.
After the divorce the parents and children left the marital home; Father moved out in 2009; mother and children principally lived elsewhere by 2010, and the house was rented for a time.
Mother (represented by the State) petitioned in 2011 to modify child support; she later sought additional relief including change of custody/visitation.
Trial court (Dec. 31, 2012) found a substantial change in circumstances, ordered Father to pay child support under Rule 32 guidelines ($1,381/month) retroactive to the filing date, credited prior $1,000 rental payments, allowed Mother to claim all three children as tax dependents, and held that the two older daughters (E.M. and L.M.) would not be required to attend Father’s custodial periods.
Father appealed, challenging the child-support modification, the tax-dependency allocation (briefly), and the visitation ruling that left visitation to the daughters’ discretion.

Issue	Father’s Argument	Mother’s Argument	Held
Whether trial court properly modified child support after parties deviated from Rule 32 in settlement	Modification was improper/excessive	Material change (children no longer living in marital home) justified applying Rule 32 and modifying support	Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; material change existed and Rule 32 support applies (retroactive to petition)
Whether Mother should have to pay half the mortgage retroactively	Father argued Mother should pay half mortgage retroactively to modification petition	Mother did not concede; trial court only ordered prospective sharing of mortgage	Not considered on appeal (argument not raised below); court declined to review
Whether trial court could let E.M. and L.M. refuse visitation (leave to children to decide)	Error: court exceeded discretion by allowing children to decide and unduly impairing parent-child relationship	Mother argued daughters preferred not to stay overnight and have activities; concerns about logistics and housing	Reversed: trial court exceeded discretion; remanded for specific, narrowly tailored visitation orders rather than leaving visits to daughters’ discretion
Whether trial court erred in allowing Mother to claim all children as tax dependents	Father briefly contests but offers no developed legal argument	Mother requested tax dependency per guidelines	Waived on appeal for lack of developed argument; court did not address merits

Duke v. Duke, 872 So.2d 153 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003) (deviation from Rule 32 in an agreement may be modified upon a substantial, continuing material change in circumstances)
Cunningham v. Cunningham, 641 So.2d 807 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994) (burden on parent seeking modification; appellate standard of review for modification)
Romano v. Romano, 703 So.2d 374 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997) (trial court’s modification decision reviewed for abuse of discretion)
H.H.J. v. K.T.J., 114 So.3d 36 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012) (generally not in child’s best interest to let minor determine visitation absent extreme circumstances)
Lee v. Lee, 49 So.3d 211 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010) (trial court must avoid overly broad visitation restrictions that unduly infringe on parent-child relationship)
Jackson v. Jackson, 999 So.2d 488 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007) (visitation restrictions must be narrowly tailored)
Shires v. Shires, 494 So.2d 102 (Ala. Civ. App. 1986) (affirming refusal of visitation where child wholly refused contact)
McCreless v. Valentin, 121 So.3d 999 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012) (court generally may not modify property-settlement terms more than 30 days after final judgment)
Watson v. Watson, 555 So.2d 1115 (Ala. Civ. App. 1989) (trial court has broad discretion in visitation determinations)