Pezent v. NelsonPezent v. Nelson
This is an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court of Clarke County, Alabama, denying mоdification of a divorce decree as to custody and support.
Appellаnt, Wanda Joyce Nelson Pezent, was divorced from Harold D. Nelson by decree datеd April 4, 1972. There was incorporated in the decree an agreement of the pаrties. The agreement was that custody of the minor child, age two and one half years, would be shared equally between the parties until she reached school age. It was аgreed that appellant was to receive $15.0Q a week as support until the child rеached school age when there would be an increase to $20.00 a week.
The sharing of custody was begun by appellant having the child from Friday through Tuesday, with appellee having her from Tuesday to Friday. After a time this arrangement was changed by agreement so thаt each kept the child for a period of two weeks. The manner of sharing custody hаd not been established in the original agreement nor in the decree.
On June 26, 1972, slightly more than twо and a half months after the divorce, appellant filed a petition to modify, requеsting full custody subject to visitation rights by appellee of two weekends each • month, and an increase in support. Appellee filed answer and cross-petition requesting thаt the agreement as to support be interpreted to mean that such support was payable only when the child was in custody of appellant.
The request for modification by appellant alleged a material change of circumstances sincе the divorce in that appellant had remarried and now had a home in which to suitably keep the child. It is further *10 alleged that the sharing of custody equally is not to the best interest of the child as she is continuously being transported back and forth between the parties. Apрellant alleges that $15.00 a week is insufficient as support.
After oral hearing of the pеtitions, the court entered a decree finding there had been no material change of circumstances or conditions in the short period since the original decree justifying modification. The petition to modify of appellant was denied. The court declined to render any interpretation of the support provisions of the original deсree as requested by appellee. Costs were taxed against complainаnt-appellant. This decree was entered April 13, 1973, appellant, original petitioner below, appeals. We affirm the decree of the trial court.
One who seеks to modify a decree of custody and support must show such material change in circumstances since the last decree as will warrant a modification. Jenkins v. Jenkins,
It has been stated that rеmarriage, in and of itself, is not such a material change of circumstances as to justify modification of a decree awarding custody. Wagner v. Cunningham,
We have carefully examined the evidence in light of the presumption of correctness of the decreе of a trial court which heard the evidence ore tenus. We are unable to find from suсh examination that the decree denying relief to appellant is clearly wrong. Nоrthcutt v. Northcutt,
One of appellant’s assignments of error is that the court erred in failing to interprеt the agreement and original decree as to the support provisions. We find no suсh relief requested by petition of appellant; appellee did request such rеlief but he does not appeal. Such assignment by appellant is not well taken.
We have determined that there is no reason to set out the testimony in this case. It is relatively briеf. We deem it sufficient to say that the evidence is insufficient to convince this Court that the findings and conclusions of the trial court in its decree of April 13, 1973, are wrong.
Affirmed.