170 So. 3d 684
Ala. Civ. App.2014Background
- Child born Dec 30, 2008; father listed as father on birth certificate.
- Father moved to South Carolina, leaving child with mother and paternal grandmother; father paid child support and visited every other weekend for about three years.
- December 30, 2010, mother ended romantic relationship with father; mother later had a half-sister for the child in Oct 2011 and moved to Colorado in 2012 with her husband.
- September 19, 2012, father filed paternity and custody action; mother denied paternity and sought sole custody; genetic testing in March 2013 established father’s paternity (99.99998%).
- May 2013 visitation schedule was agreed; mother later pregnant with third child (born Aug 2013) and lived in Virginia; father and child’s contact resumed.
- February 17, 2014, juvenile court awarded father sole physical custody, finding mother had alienated the child from the father; mother appealed arguing lack of evidence for alienation; court reversed and remanded, preserving some visitation rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the custody order was properly based on parental alienation. | Mother argues there was insufficient evidence of alienation. | Father argues evidence showed alienation and warranted custody shift. | Reversed; no clear proof of parental alienation; custody to mother remanded with visitation protections. |
Key Cases Cited
- Greene v. Greene, 249 Ala. 155, 30 So.2d 444 (Ala. 1947) (trial court errors in applying law to undisputed facts in custody)
- Ex parte Perkins, 646 So.2d 46 (Ala. 1994) (presumption of correctness in custody findings; reversal only if plainly wrong)
- Ex parte Couch, 521 So.2d 987 (Ala. 1988) (no priority to parents in initial custody; best interests standard)
- Ex parte Devine, 398 So.2d 686 (Ala. 1981) (court must consider effect of disruption on child)
- Kaiser v. Kaiser, 868 So.2d 1095 (Ala.Civ.App. 2003) (primary caregiver status is important in custody decisions)
- A.B. v. J.B., 40 So.3d 723 (Ala.Civ.App. 2009) (need to consider half-siblings’ best interests)
- Dale v. Dale, 54 Ala. App. 505, 310 So.2d 225 (Ala.Civ.App. 1975) (stability and longstanding caregiver relationships favored)
- R.K. v. R.J., 843 So.2d 774 (Ala.Civ.App. 2002) (avoid disrupting cherished family relationships)
- Ex parte Byars, 794 So.2d 345 (Ala. 2001) (standard of review for initial custody determinations)