The appellee, Rickey T. Coleman, filed a petition to modify the terms of a divorce decree awarding custody of the parties’ minor child to his former wife, Sandra Coleman McKusick, so as to place custody in himself. The case was heard, and the Juvenile Court of Houston County issued an order granting custody of the child to appellee Coleman based on a change in circumstances materially affecting the welfare of the child.
Appellant McKusick appealed to the court in Coleman v. Coleman,
Appellant McKusick again appeals to this court complaining that the trial court erred in modifying the original award of custody of the child from her to appellee in that there was no reasonable evidence to support a finding of change in circumstances which materially affected the welfare of the child. We affirm.
The evidence presented at the hearing on the original change of custody petition showed that in October, 1973, the Superior Court of Houston County awarded custody of Belinda Coleman to her mother, the appellant in this case. Shortly before this decree, the appellant had been involved in a serious car accident from which she has never completely recovered. She has been undergoing constant medical treatment, including drug therapy for pain and counseling from psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers. Testimony elicited from various witnesses tended to show that since the original
Additional evidence presented showed that the appellee, Rickey T. Coleman, had remarried since the original custody award, and was able to provide a suitable home environment for his daughter. The court concluded that it would be in the best interests of Belinda Coleman that her custody be awarded to appellee.
"In determining whether or not a material change in circumstances substantially affecting the welfare of a child or children has taken place, 'the trial judge is vested with a discretion which will not be controlled by this court unless it is abused... When the trial judge is by law made the trior of an issue of fact, this court will not interfere with his finding when there is any evidence to support it.’ Madison v. Montgomery,
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in this case, and the evidence is ample to support the judgment. We find no error.
Judgment affirmed.
