Jackson v. Jackson
Decision Date | 13 January 1988 |
Citation | 520 So.2d 530 |
Parties | Gregory James JACKSON v. Mary Elizabeth JACKSON. Civ. 5839. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Mark Vaughan, Elba, for appellant.
Paul A. Young, Jr., Enterprise, for appellee.
This is a child visitation case.
The mother petitioned the Circuit Court of Coffee County to modify the father's visitation which had been granted under the parties' South Carolina divorce decree. The circuit court, exercising jurisdiction pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA), Ala. Code (1975), §§ 30-3-20 through -44 (1983 Repl. Vol.), granted the mother's petition.
The father appeals. We affirm.
The father contends on appeal that the trial court improperly assumed jurisdiction of the case under the UCCJA to address the matter of visitation.
Ala.Code (1975), § 30-3-23 provides:
The record reflects that the mother and child had resided in Alabama for approximately seventeen months prior to the mother's filing of the instant petition to modify. Clearly, therefore, the trial court had jurisdiction of the petition pursuant to § 30-3-23(a)(1)a., as Alabama was the child's home state at the commencement of the proceeding.
Ala.Code (1975), § 30-3-21(a)(3). This purpose is particularly carried out by the trial court's exercising jurisdiction in this case. Virtually all the significant evidence concerning the child's present care would originate in Alabama, rather than South Carolina. The latter state, moreover, is no longer even the home of the father, who, at the time the mother filed her petition to modify, was residing in Georgia.
It is interesting, if not dispositive, that, at the beginning of the trial of this case, the father actually stipulated that the trial court had "jurisdiction not only to try the case, but to dispose of all issues."
At any rate, we find no error in the trial court's exercising jurisdiction in this case under the UCCJA to modify the father's visitation rights.
The father also contends on appeal that the parties' South Carolina divorce decree should have been given full...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Marler v. Lambrianakos
... ... is guided by what will protect and enhance the best interests ... and welfare of the child. See Jackson v. Jackson , ... 520 So.2d 530 (Ala. Civ. App. 1988)." ... E.W. v. Montgomery Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res. , 602 ... So.2d 428, 429 ... ...
-
L.M. v. K.A.
...interests and welfare of the child in determining visitation rights for a non-custodial parent. Caldwell, supra, and Jackson v. Jackson, 520 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 73......
-
S.L. v. J.L.C.
...692 So.2d 130, 133 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997) ; Hodge v. Hovey, 679 So.2d 1145, 1147 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996) ; and Jackson v. Jackson, 520 So.2d 530, 531 (Ala. Civ. App. 1988). I believe that courts charged with issues concerning children are well aware of that and do their best to keep the consid......
-
T.L.H. v. R.A.R.
...in establishing visitation rights for the noncustodial parent must be the best interests and welfare of the child. Jackson v. Jackson, 520 So.2d 530 (Ala.Civ.App. 1988)." Dominick v. Dominick, 622 So.2d 402, 403 The evidence presented at trial revealed that the father had been married to hi......