Schotz v. Oliver
Decision Date | 23 August 1978 |
Citation | 361 So.2d 605 |
Parties | In re Janet Louise Oliver SCHOTZ v. Donald D. OLIVER. Ex parte Janet Louise Oliver Schotz. Civ. 1541. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
James F. Hinton, Gadsden, for petitioner.
J. Todd Caldwell, Anniston, for respondent.
Petitioner Janet Louise Oliver Schotz seeks review by writ of certiorari of an order of the Circuit Court of Calhoun County adjudging her in contempt of that court for failure to comply with the court's order regarding visitation rights of respondent, Donald D. Oliver. Petitioner was sentenced to three days' confinement in the Calhoun County jail and fined $200 plus court costs. We affirm.
The contempt citation upon which this petition is based was issued after a hearing by the court for petitioner's failure and refusal to abide by the court's order of January 10, 1978, pertaining to respondent's visitation rights. That order, amending an earlier order requiring monitored visitation privileges, provided that during the period from January 28, 1978 to the end of March 1978, respondent should have the right to visit Teresa on the first, second and fourth Saturday of each month from 9:00 a. m. until 6:00 p. m. On these visitation days petitioner was ordered to bring the child to the reading room of the Calhoun County Public Library in Anniston, Alabama. Respondent was to pick up the child at the library and return her by 6:00 p. m. to the same location. Commencing in April 1978 respondent's visitation rights were to be altered to include full weekend visits on certain weekends each month, a two week summer visit, and a two day Christmas visit.
On March 29, 1978 the court heard testimony Ore tenus on respondent's petition for rule to show cause why petitioner should not be held in contempt. This testimony indicated that on January 28, 1978 petitioner, Teresa and Mr. Schotz arrived at the library at the designated time. However, petitioner and Teresa remained in the front seat of the car, which was parked on the street in front of the library. They did not go to the reading room.
Respondent, petitioner and petitioner's husband all asked Teresa if she would get out and go with respondent, but the child would not leave the car. Petitioner refused to compel the child to accompany respondent against the child's will. Petitioner also refused to allow respondent to remove the child from the car, and respondent made no attempt to do so. Mr. Schotz then suggested that they drive to respondent's home, where Teresa might be persuaded to leave the car. Upon arrival there Teresa still refused to leave the car, locking all the car doors. Respondent was unable to exercise his visitation rights that weekend.
Mr. Schotz testified that both he and petitioner tried to prepare the child for the next scheduled visitation. But they concluded that, in light of the child's anxiety during the first attempted visitation and the continued insistence by the child that she did not wish to go, the only way to have accomplished the visitations would have been to forcibly drag or pull the child from the car. Petitioner refused to do this, and consequently, decided not to bring the child to the library for the scheduled visits. Respondent came to the library for the next three scheduled visits, but petitioner did not appear with the child.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ex parte Anonymous
...functions, performed by a trial court only after hearing the minor's live testimony and viewing her demeanor."); Schotz v. Oliver, 361 So.2d 605, 607 (Ala.Civ.App. 1978) ("[T]he question of what is or is not in `the best interests of the child' is a question of fact...."); Pace v. Pace, 22 ......
-
Noojin v. Noojin
...would support finding the behavior Mother displayed was willful disobedience and constituted contempt.6 See Schotz v. Oliver , 361 So.2d 605, 606 (Ala. Civ. App. 1978) (affirming a finding of contempt when a mother “informed the court that she was not willing to force the unwilling child to......
-
In re Anonymous
...stated: "`[T]he question of what is or is not in the "the best interests of the child" is a question of fact....' Schotz v. Oliver, 361 So.2d 605, 607 (Ala.Civ.App.1978). `The determination of the best interests of the child is a question for the trier of fact. "We do not overturn the decis......
-
Ex parte Anonymous
...253 (Tex.2000). "[T]he question of what is or is not in `the best interests of the child' is a question of fact...." Schotz v. Oliver, 361 So.2d 605, 607 (Ala. Civ.App.1978). "The determination of the best interests of the child is a question for the trier of fact. `We do not overturn the d......