Hagler v. Hagler
Decision Date | 08 August 1984 |
Citation | 460 So.2d 187 |
Parties | M. Joel HAGLER v. Rhoda HAGLER. Civ. 4128. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
George E. Trawick of Trawick & Kennington, Ariton, for appellant.
Bryant F. Williams, Jr., of Williams & Lanier, Ozark, for appellee.
This post-divorce litigation involves the visitation rights of a father with his children who were approximately eight and eleven years of age when the last judgment was rendered in November 1983, after very extensive ore tenus testimony was heard by the trial court on several occasions.
In April 1983 the trial court had entered a judgment which established specific visitation rights of the father with the children. Thereafter, the mother and the children moved from Alabama to South Carolina, a distance of about five hundred miles.
The November 1983 judgment from which the father appeals found and provided in pertinent part as follows:
Since the evidence was heard, and the witnesses were observed by the trial court, we are not permitted to alter the final judgment unless it was so unsupported by the evidence as to be clearly and palpably wrong, and this court must presume that the trial court correctly applied its discretionary authority as to visitation and adjudged the best interests of the children. Fassina v. Fassina, 401 So.2d 113 (Ala.Civ.App.1981); Fillingim v. Fillingim, 388 So.2d 1010 (Ala.Civ.App.1980). Fillingim, supra, at 1011.
In this case, the passage of time, further futile experiences in attempting to enforce the judgment, and the separation of the father and the children by distance, travel time and expense have proved that the specific brief visitation periods of the April 1983 judgment had, in the opinion of the trial court, become unworkable. Hooper v. Hooper, 428 So.2d 115 (Ala.Civ.App.1983). We have studied the fine briefs of able counsel, reviewed the law cited therein and perused the four volume record; and we gather therefrom that the evidence supports the finding of the trial court in modifying the visitation rights of the father by providing for reasonable visitation.
However, that privilege was made subject to the desires of the children and that restriction has given this court considerable concern. Every factual matter as summarized by the trial court is supported by the record and by some of the conflicting ore tenus evidence, but our supreme court has determined that a proviso in a divorce decree was inappropriate which granted to a child the sole right to determine for over one-half of each month which parent should have his custody, and therein it was stated, "Thus, a decision as to what is best for the child is made by the child himself and not by the court." Parker v. Parker, 269 Ala. 299, 303, 112 So.2d 467, 471 (1959).
The instant appeal pertains to visitation only, while the supreme court in the Parker case, supra, construed that case to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Young v. Corrigan, 2160325
...in a child, or by his or her words or actions actually encourages a child not to visit with the other parent." Hagler v. Hagler, 460 So.2d 187, 189 (Ala. Civ. App. 1984).In the present case, the evidence indicated that, when the child was 12 years old, she became angry because the father ha......
-
H.H.J. v. K.T.J.
...for the child's refusal to visit is unreasonable. Shires v. Shires, 494 So.2d 102, 103 (Ala.Civ.App.1986); see also Hagler v. Hagler, 460 So.2d 187, 189 (Ala.Civ.App.1984) (“There are circumstances where it is reasonable, equitable and to the best interest of children that they not be requi......
-
Ex Parte Snider
...long as it does not run afoul of the trial court's prohibition against the disparagement of William's beliefs. Cf. Hagler v. Hagler, 460 So.2d 187, 189-90 (Ala.Civ.App.1984) (recognizing the trial court's discretion in dealing with instances in which a custodial parent uses that position to......
-
Ezell v. Graham
...or unwillingness to visit in determining the best interests and welfare of the child.”690 So.2d at 403–04. In Hagler v. Hagler, 460 So.2d 187 (Ala.Civ.App.1984), this court stated: “There are circumstances where it is reasonable, equitable and to the best interest of children that they not ......