Pruitt v. PruittPruitt v. Pruitt
This is a divorce case.
In Oсtober 1993, after approximately 26 years of marriage, Patricia W. Pruitt filed a complaint for divorce from Otis L. Pruitt, alleging, among other things, incompatibility, an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, and adultery on the part of the husband. She sought custody of their three minor children, two of whom wеre adopted grandchildren, a division of the property, and periodic alimony. The fathеr answered, contending that it would be in the best interest of their 15-year old minor child for custody to be рlaced with him, and that custody of their two adopted grandchildren should be awarded to the mothеr.1
Following ore tenus proceedings, the trial court divorced the parties, awarded custоdy of the three minor children to the mother, ordered the father to pay child support in the аmount of $936 per month, divided the marital property, and reserved the issue of periodic alimony. Thereafter, pursuant to the mother‘s postjudgment motion, the trial court entered an additional order, and, among other things, increased the child support to $1148.66 per month, awarded the marital residence to the mother, and ordered the father to assume certain debts. The father‘s рost-judgment motion was denied, and he appeals.
The father‘s only issue is whether the trial court erred in applying the child support guidelines, pursuant to Rule 32, Ala.R.Jud.Admin., to an adoptive grandfather.
It is well established that when a trial court receives ore tenus evidence in a divorce prоceeding, its judgment is presumed to be correct if it is supported by the evidence. Waid v. Waid, 540 So.2d 764 (Ala.Civ.App. 1989). Absent an abusе of discretion, this court is not permitted to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. Beckwith v. Beckwith, 475 So.2d 575 (Ala.Civ.App. 1985).
The father contends in brief that the adoption of the two grandchildren “creates an imposable, but not automatic, duty of support,”
“The specific error complained of is that it is error to include the adopted children in computing child support, the evidence being that these children were adopted solely for the purpose of providing health insurance to them and that they were still being provided for by their mother who nevеr relinquished actual physical control over these children.”
The father also argues that the child support guidelines are only presumed to be correct, and that the amount of supрort is rebuttable if it produces an unjust, inequitable, or unfair result. He argues that the application of Rule 32, Ala.R.Jud.Admin., was not appropriate in this case, and that he should be required only to prоvide health insurance for the adopted children. We find his argument, however, to be unpersuasive.
According to
The mother argues that “[f]rom reading Rule 32(A) there appears to be no distinction betweеn natural children of a marriage and adopted children of a marriage.” We agree. Thеre is simply no evidence in the record offered by the father to rebut the presumption that the application of the child support guidelines was appropriate, and we cаnnot say that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering him to pay child support according to the guidelines established by Rule 32, Ala.R.Jud.Admin.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is due to be, and it is hereby, affirmed.
The mother‘s request for an attorney fee is granted in the amount of $2,250.
AFFIRMED.
ROBERTSON, P.J., and YATES, MONROE, and CRAWLEY, JJ., concur.