Fanning v. Fanning
Decision Date | 18 March 1987 |
Citation | 504 So.2d 737 |
Parties | Betsy Claire FANNING v. Timothy Charles FANNING. Civ. 5586. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Jack Keyes of Ausman, Keyes & Keyes, Bessemer, for appellant.
No brief for appellee.
Betsy Claire Fanning and Timothy Charles Fanning were divorced in April 1984. Custody of the parties' two minor children was given to the mother with the father receiving limited visitation rights. In November 1985, the father filed a petition in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County for modification and rule nisi, alleging that the mother was violating the final divorce decree by not allowing visitation called for in the decree. The mother answered the petition and cross-petitioned for rule nisi, claiming her former husband had failed to pay child support. She also cross-claimed for modification of the decree, requesting an increase in child support payments.
The trial court denied the father's petition for rule nisi, finding that the mother had been justified in limiting visitation. The court further found that visitation as it existed under the original decree was unworkable and required modification through expansion of visitation rights. The mother's cross-petition for rule nisi and petition for modification were both denied. The mother appeals the decision of the trial court to expand visitation rights, and we affirm.
The visitation provision in the decree of divorce was modified and expanded. The court deleted the former visitation provision, which read:
"The defendant will be entitled to weekly non-cumulative visitation rights on alternate Sunday afternoons, from noon until 8:00 p.m. and one additional day per week from 8:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m."
Substituted in place of this provision was the following:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Y.N. v. Jefferson County Dep't of Human Res..
...welfare of the child. Furthermore, each child visitation case must be decided on its own facts and circumstances.’ Fanning v. Fanning, 504 So.2d 737, 739 (Ala.Civ.App.1987) (citations omitted). ‘When the issue of visitation is determined after oral proceedings, the trial court's determinati......
-
H.H.J. v. K.T.J.
...welfare of the child. Furthermore, each child visitation case must be decided on its own facts and circumstances.” Fanning v. Fanning, 504 So.2d 737, 739 (Ala.Civ.App.1987) (citations omitted). “When the issue of visitation is determined after oral proceedings, the trial court's determinati......
-
L.M. v. K.A.
...So.2d 530 (Ala.Civ.App.1988). Further, each child visitation case must be decided on its own facts and circumstances. Fanning v. Fanning, 504 So.2d 737 (Ala.Civ.App.1987)."Watson v. Watson, 555 So.2d 1115, 1116 (Ala.Civ.App.1989).In this case, the record shows that the trial court applied t......
-
KB v. CLEBURNE COUNTY DEPT. OF HUMAN RES.
...welfare of the child. Furthermore, each child visitation case must be decided on its own facts and circumstances." Fanning v. Fanning, 504 So.2d 737, 739 (Ala.Civ.App.1987) (citations omitted). "When the issue of visitation is determined after oral proceedings, the trial court's determinati......