Hall v. Hall
Decision Date | 29 May 1998 |
Citation | 717 So.2d 416 |
Parties | Shannon Renea HALL v. Eddie Dale HALL. 2970256. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Randall W. Nichols of Nichols Law Office, P.C., Birmingham, for appellant.
Sherman B. Powell, Jr., Decatur, for appellee.
The mother sued the father for a divorce in December 1995, seeking, among other things, custody of the parties' minor daughter. The court entered a pendente lite order awarding temporary custody to the mother and standard visitation to the father. In June 1996, the father petitioned for a rule nisi, alleging that the mother had failed to abide by the terms of the pendente lite order regarding visitation. The court ordered the parties to comply with the previous order and deferred the father's petition for a rule nisi until trial.
In July 1996, the father petitioned for an immediate hearing on the rule nisi petition, alleging that the mother was continuing to deny him visitation. The court set the matter for a hearing. The parties subsequently agreed to continue the matter until trial. In October 1996, the father petitioned to have the mother held in contempt for violating the pendente lite visitation provisions. The court entered an order instructing the mother to be prepared to show cause at trial why she should not be held in contempt. On December 6, 1996, the mother amended her complaint to allege that the father had sexually abused the child, requesting that he be allowed only supervised visitation with the child. On December 9, 1996, the court entered an order restricting the father's visitation to supervised visitation.
In January 1997, the court appointed a special master to investigate the allegations against the father. The special master's report was filed with the court on July 15, 1997. It stated, in pertinent part:
The final hearing was held on September 23, 1997. Regarding visitation, the court entered the following order:
The court also found the mother to be in contempt. The mother appeals.
The mother initially asserts that the court erred in providing for an automatic modification of the judgment to convert supervised visitation to unsupervised visitation.
Visitation is a matter within the discretion of the trial court. E.W. v. Montgomery County Dep't of Human Resources, 602 So.2d 428 (Ala.Civ.App.1992). The court's discretion is guided by what will protect and enhance the best interests and welfare of the child. Id. The court's decision regarding visitation will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion or a showing that it is plainly in error. Id.
Although we have not previously addressed this precise issue, we have held similar automatic modifications within the contexts of child support and custody to be in error. In Hovater v. Hovater, 577 So.2d 461 (Ala.Civ.App.1990), this court struck down a custody reversionary clause that modified custody from one parent to the other in the event of a parent's move from a geographical area. We found the clause to be of no effect because "it is premised on a mere speculation of what the best interest of the children may be at a future date." Id., at 463. In Morrison v. Kirkland, 567 So.2d 363 (Ala.Civ.App.1990), the trial court had entered an order providing for the automatic escalation of child support payments. We reversed that provision, finding that "there is no evidentiary basis for the determination of future events...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pratt v. Pratt
...ad litem). A trial court is not empowered to delegate its judicial functions even to another governmental agency. Hall v. Hall, 717 So.2d 416 (Ala.Civ.App.1998) (a trial court cannot delegate the decision whether to terminate father's supervised visitation to those who would decide whether ......
-
Barrett v. Barrett
...that automatically changed visitation from being supervised to being unsupervised after the passage of six months), and Hall v. Hall, 717 So.2d 416 (Ala.Civ.App.1998) (reversing a judgment containing an automatic modification of visitation, from supervised to unsupervised, based upon whethe......
-
McQuinn v. McQuinn
...of the trial court; however, this discretion is guided by what will protect the best interests of the child. See Hall v. Hall, 717 So.2d 416 (Ala.Civ.App.1998). I. Visitation A. Visitation with the Father's Natural Children The trial court originally granted the father's request for modific......
-
Ex parte Standard Furniture Mfg. Co.
...state agency the purely legal jurisdictional question of whether a filing fee was due to be collected. See Hall v. Hall, 717 So. 2d 416 (Ala. Civ. App. 1998) . As a matter of law, the filing fee was payable, as the trial court should have determined. See Hicks v. Hicks, 130 So. 3d 184 (Ala.......