156 So. 3d 418
Ala. Civ. App.2014Background
- Unmarried parents: D.O. (father) and T.C.S. (mother); initial 2009 juvenile-court judgment awarded joint legal and physical custody by agreement.
- June 27, 2011: juvenile court awarded father sole legal and physical custody; mother given visitation at father’s discretion; mother unsuccessfully appealed earlier issues.
- Mother filed a 2012 petition seeking defined visitation, to prevent relocation, and to require counseling; father counterclaimed for child support; ore tenus hearings held over three days.
- Sept. 6, 2013 order awarded mother a standard visitation schedule and ordered mother to pay $200/month child support; mother filed postjudgment motion; court later entered a final order (Apr. 8, 2014) disposing remaining claims.
- Record shows limited mother visitation pre-pendente lite order, concerns about mother’s relationships and housing stability, and improved exchanges after pendente lite order; mother later sought joint legal custody.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (T.C.S.) | Defendant's Argument (D.O.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether child-support award complied with Rule 32 (mandatory guidelines and required forms) | Juvenile court deviated without completing CS-42/CS-41 forms; record cannot show correct guideline amount or whether deviation increased support | Court justified deviation due to mother’s limited employment; awarded $200/mo | Reversed as to child support; remanded to complete Rule 32(E) forms, calculate guideline amount, and, if appropriate, make written findings for any deviation |
| Whether legal custody should be changed to joint legal custody | Mother: father frustrated her relationship; joint legal custody would protect her role and serve child’s best interests | Father: opposes joint legal custody; cited mother’s lifestyle, instability, and past relationships as concerns | Affirmed (trial court within discretion); modification of legal custody judged by child's best interests; appellant did not show ruling was plainly/palpably wrong |
| Whether visitation previously awarded at father’s discretion was proper | Mother: that discretionary visitation was improper | Father: initially restricted visitation, later pendente lite order granted unsupervised visitation; father raised no timely objection to trial on joint legal custody | Court observed awarding visitation at one parent’s discretion was error, but that issue had been previously affirmed earlier when not preserved; current pendente lite exchanges went well |
| Whether trial court properly disposed remaining claims (relocation, counseling) | Mother sought to prevent relocation and to return child to counseling | Father opposed; juvenile court denied mother’s relocation and counseling requests in April 2014 final order | Juvenile court’s April 8, 2014 order constituted final judgment disposing remaining claims; those denials stand on the record (no reversal on these issues) |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. Norman, 766 So.2d 857 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000) (application of Rule 32 child-support guidelines is mandatory)
- Ex parte Moore, 805 So.2d 715 (Ala. 2001) (trial court may deviate from guideline amount only with written findings of fact)
- Abbett v. Treadwell, 816 So.2d 477 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000) (trial court must complete required child-support forms before deviating from guidelines)
- Martin v. Martin, 637 So.2d 901 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994) (Rule 32(E) filing of forms is mandatory even where court finds guidelines unjust or inequitable)
- Stockton v. CKPD Dev. Co., 936 So.2d 1065 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005) (when remaining claims are disposed, order is final judgment)
- Suggs v. Suggs, 54 So.3d 921 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010) (court may deviate from guidelines with appropriate findings)
- Harris v. Harris, 775 So.2d 213 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999) (modification of legal custody governed solely by child's best interests)
- Hodgins v. Hodgins, 84 So.3d 116 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011) (appellate review limited to whether trial court's custody ruling is plainly or palpably wrong)
- Faellaci v. Faellaci, 98 So.3d 521 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012) (state policy favors parental involvement; court may award joint legal custody based on best interests)
- Fricks v. Wood, 807 So.2d 561 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001) (trial court may deny custody to parent who frustrates other parent's relationship with child)
- L.L.M. v. S.F., 919 So.2d 307 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005) (awarding visitation at one parent's discretion is error)
- SCI Alabama Funeral Servs., Inc. v. Hester, 984 So.2d 1207 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007) (postjudgment motion may only be taken in reference to a final judgment)