Anonymous v. Anonymous
| Decision Date | 29 January 1993 |
| Parties | ANONYMOUS v. ANONYMOUS. 2910499. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
J. Michael Manasco of Manasco & Wise, Montgomery, for appellant.
W. Clark Campbell, Jr. of Campbell & Campbell, Montgomery, for appellee.
Pamela J. Gooden of Pilgrim & Gooden, Montgomery, guardian ad litem.
This is a post-divorce action involving child visitation.
The parties divorced in September 1990, and at that time, inter alia, the mother was awarded custody of the two minor children, subject to the visitation granted to the father. Although there have been numerous legal actions between these parties, we are concerned here only with the matter of visitation.
The father filed a petition in July 1991, alleging that the mother was denying his visitation rights and requesting that she be held in contempt. The mother answered and filed a counter-petition for modification of the visitation, alleging, inter alia, that the father and another individual were engaging in "highly inappropriate" behavior with the children during his visitation. The mother also requested the appointment of a guardian ad litem to represent the children's interests. In September 1991, the trial court entered an order finding that the evidence did not support the allegations against the father, denying appointment of a guardian ad litem for the children, and declining to hold the mother in contempt. In October 1991, acting upon information provided by the Department of Human Resources (DHR), the trial court ex mero motu set the matter for reconsideration and appointed a guardian ad litem for the children. Ultimately, in April 1992, the trial court, inter alia, affirmed its refusal to require supervised visitation with the father, found the mother in contempt, assessed the father's attorney's fee against the mother, and encouraged both parties to consider the need for individual psychotherapy. The mother appeals.
On appeal, the mother contends that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to order supervised visitation; that the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are contrary to the evidence; and that the trial court erred in holding the mother in contempt and taxing attorney's fees to her.
The trial court has broad discretion in determining the visitation rights of a noncustodial parent. Andrews v. Andrews 520 So.2d 512 (Ala.Civ.App.1987). Andrews, supra, at 513. (Citations omitted.) The primary consideration in establishing visitation rights for a noncustodial parent must be the best interests and welfare of the children. I.L. v. L.D.L., Jr., 604 So.2d 425 (Ala.Civ.App.1992). We have carefully and thoroughly considered the voluminous record in the instant case and do not deem it necessary or prudent to detail specifics here. Applying the appropriate principles of law to the facts, we cannot find that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to order supervised visitation with the father and his children. The trial court expressly found that supervised visitation "is not necessary or in the best interest of the minor children." Although the trial court did not require the parties to obtain psychotherapy, it encouraged the parties to consider the need for such therapy and required counseling for the parties in an effort to establish "open lines of communication" specifically in hopes "that both parties can recognize the necessity of each parent's role in the emotional growth of the children." Our review of the record reveals that the trial court acted conscientiously in safeguarding the interests of the children.
The mother next contends that the trial court erred in its findings and conclusions. The testimony in this case was conflicting. The trial court considered and evaluated the evidence and explicitly concluded that it was "unconvinced that any sexual abuse has occurred." This court does not reweigh the evidence on appeal and is not allowed to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. Flowers v. Flowers, 479 So.2d 1257 (Ala.Civ.App.1985). Each visitation case must be decided on its own peculiar facts. Barran v. Barran, 431 So.2d 1278 (Ala.Civ.App.1...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stack v. Stack
...628 So.2d 698 (Ala.Civ.App.1993); State Dep't of Human Resources v. Kelly, 623 So.2d 738 (Ala.Civ.App.1993); Anonymous v. Anonymous, 620 So.2d 43 (Ala.Civ.App.1993); Hill v. Frye, 603 So.2d 1073 (Ala.Civ.App.1992); Grimes v. Grimes, 601 So.2d 1053 (Ala.Civ.App.1992); and Lundy v. Lundy, 586......
-
Jackson v. Jackson
...degree of discretion in visitation matters, see, e.g., Smith v. Smith, 887 So.2d 257, 264 (Ala. Civ.App.2003); Anonymous v. Anonymous, 620 So.2d 43, 44 (Ala.Civ.App.1993), a trial court's decision on such matters may be reversed if the appellant demonstrates a clear and palpable abuse of th......
-
KB v. CLEBURNE COUNTY DEPT. OF HUMAN RES.
...court reversed, based on K.L.R. v. L.C.R., supra, K.L.U. v. M.C., supra, and Bryant v. Bryant, supra, as well as Anonymous v. Anonymous, 620 So.2d 43, 44 (Ala.Civ.App.1993), and Baugh v. Baugh, 567 So.2d 1358 (Ala.Civ.App.1990) (both reversing trial court judgments for failing to set out a ......
-
Patterson v. Patterson
...Chappel v. Esty, 655 So.2d 1011 (Ala.Civ.App.1995); Stack v. Stack, 646 So.2d 51 (Ala.Civ.App.1994); Anonymous v. Anonymous, 620 So.2d 43 (Ala.Civ.App.1993); Wright v. Wright, 630 So.2d 450 (Ala.Civ.App.1992); Hill v. Frye, 603 So.2d 1073 (Ala.Civ.App.1992); Hill v. Moree, 602 So.2d 903 (Al......