Ashley v. Ashley
| Decision Date | 14 May 1980 |
| Citation | 383 So.2d 861 |
| Parties | Carol A. ASHLEY v. Charles R. ASHLEY. Civ. 2180. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Rodney B. Slusher, Florence, for appellant.
H. R. Campbell of Campbell & Hodges, Scottsboro, for appellee.
This controversy involves the custody of two boys who were three and six years of age at the time of the last trial.
After the circuit court had previously heard considerable oral testimony, the parties were divorced on October 6, 1978, and, in the divorce judgment, the court awarded custody of the two children jointly to the plaintiff and to the defendant. The judge recited in his decision that, although there had been some indiscretions on the part of both parties since their separation, each party was fully fit and capable of caring for the children. The court further stated:
The Court is well aware that a more specific award of custody may be necessary in the future, especially in view of the fact that the older child will be entering school next year, and jurisdiction of this cause is expressly reserved for the purpose of awarding custody, visitation and support of said children.
On July 30, 1979 the plaintiff-father filed his petition seeking modification of the October 6, 1978 judgment so as to award primary custody of the children to him. The mother filed her answer and a counterclaim likewise seeking custody of the children. Both parents are in agreement that the joint custody judgment should have been modified and primary custody granted to one parent. Their disagreement is, and was, over which parent should have custody of the boys.
The same circuit judge who tried the original contested divorce proceeding also heard the testimony given at the contested custody hearing on October 1, 1979. The children's custody was awarded to the father, and the mother appeals such decision.
The latest judgment contained five pages of findings or conclusions of fact as to why custody was awarded to the father. We have carefully read and studied the evidence taken at the last custody trial and we ascertain that there was evidence before the circuit judge upon which his factual findings or conclusions as to that particular trial could be reasonably based. We cannot make such verification as to findings therein involving the divorce trial since the evidence of that trial is not before us.
The defendant relies upon the presumption that a mother is normally presumed to be the proper custodian of children of tender age unless for some reason she is unfit; and she relies further upon the fact that the six year old child expressed a preference to the judge in chambers that he be allowed to live with his mother.
The lower court found that both parties were fit parents and further ascertained with regard to such presumption that it is based upon the premise that the mother has cared for the children during their earliest years more than the father, and that the children are, in fact, more dependent upon the mother for such care. The trial judge decided that the presumption did not apply in this case since all of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
J.P. v. D.P.
...is the primary reason for the strong presumption favoring the trial court's findings in cases of this nature.’" Ashley v. Ashley, 383 So.2d 861, 863 (Ala. Civ. App. 1980) (citing Mothershed, supra )." T.G.F. v. D.L.F. [Ms. 2150607, April 28, 2017] ––– So.3d –––– (Ala. Civ. App. 2017) (Donal......
-
S.P. v. E.T.
...in the case.'" Rodgers v. Hill, 453 So.2d 1057, 1058 (Ala. Civ.App.1984) (a custody-modification case) (quoting Ashley v. Ashley, 383 So.2d 861, 863 (Ala.Civ.App.1980)). Add to the foregoing the distinct concerns that are present in dependency proceedings, and the trial court's need for fle......
-
Williams v. Williams
...by the evidence that it constitutes an abuse of judicial discretion, and is therefore clearly and palpably wrong. Ashley v. Ashley, 383 So.2d 861 (Ala.Civ.App.1980). In child custody cases especially, the perception of an attentive trial judge is of great importance. Fassina v. Fassina, 401......
-
T.G.F. v. D.L.F.
...hear is the primary reason for the strong presumption favoring the trial court's findings in cases of this nature." Ashley v. Ashley, 383 So.2d 861, 863 (Ala. Civ. App. 1980) (citing Mothershed, supra).Finally, the admission of testimony from a witness hired by a party and presented as an e......