Scott v. Scott
| Decision Date | 02 May 1990 |
| Citation | 563 So.2d 1044 |
| Parties | Steven A. SCOTT v. Wanda Lynn SCOTT. Civ. 7313. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Lisa Milner Karch of Warnes, Roadruck and Karch, Guntersville, for appellant.
Claude E. Hundley III of Barnett, Hundley & Driskill, Guntersville, for appellee.
ROBERT P. BRADLEY, Retired Appellate Judge.
The father appeals from an order which granted the mother physical custody of the parties' two children.
The parties were originally divorced by the District Court of McLeod County, Minnesota. Custody of the children was awarded jointly to the father and mother. Subsequently, the mother and children moved to the city of Albertville, Alabama; however, prior to this move, the father and mother reached an "informal agreement" whereby the mother would have physical custody of the children during the school year and the father would have physical custody of the children during the summer months. The parties operated amicably under this informal agreement for approximately three years.
In March 1989 the mother filed a petition for modification of the joint custody decree in Alabama. She asserted that the best interests of the children would be served by awarding her physical custody and she asked for an award of child support. A motion was filed in the District Court of McLeod County, Minnesota, requesting that it relinquish and decline to exercise further jurisdiction over the determination of the custody and support of the children. The Minnesota District Court granted this motion and declined to exercise jurisdiction. The father then filed a "counterpetition" for modification in Alabama, requesting custody of the children and stating that a material change in circumstances had occurred, i.e. that the mother had joined the armed forces and would be moving to North Carolina from Alabama.
After ore tenus proceedings the trial court determined that the "best interests" of the children would be served by placing their physical custody with the mother subject to the father's reasonable visitation rights. The father was also ordered to pay $526.20 per month as child support and one-half of certain non-insured medical, dental, optical, and drug expenses incurred on behalf of the children. The father appeals.
He asserts that the trial court erred when it failed to apply the McLendon standard in reaching its decision to award the mother sole physical custody of the children.
As a general rule, the parent seeking to modify a prior custody decree bears the heightened burden of proving that the proposed change in custody will materially promote the children's best interests and welfare sufficient to more than offset the traumatic effects caused by the uprooting of the children from their present custodian. Ex parte Couch, 521 So.2d 987 (Ala.1988); Ex parte McLendon, 455 So.2d 863 (Ala.1984). However, where there is no prior order granting exclusive custody to one parent, the McLendon standard does not apply. Couch. Instead of the heightened "materially promote" standard, the "best interests and welfare" of the children standard applies when custody has not been awarded to one parent. Couch.
In the case before us the parties were awarded joint legal and physical custody of their children under the Minnesota divorce decree. Therefore, since neither party was awarded exclusive custody, the "best interests and welfare" of the children standard was appropriate. Further, the "informal agreement" reached by the parties concerning physical custody has no legal effect; the parties merely "acted inconsistently" with their joint custody rights. See Couch.
A judgment entered after ore tenus proceedings is entitled to a presumption of correctness, and it will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of the trial court's discretion. Jenkins v. Jenkins, 541 So.2d 19 (Ala.Civ.App.1989).
After a careful review of the record we find no error in the award of primary physical custody to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pickett v. Pickett
...of the children standard applies." Hovater v. Hovater, 577 So.2d 461, 464 (Ala.Civ.App.1990) (emphasis added; citing Scott v. Scott, 563 So.2d 1044 (Ala.Civ.App.1990)). A second line of cases holds that where a prior judgment vests the right of primary physical custody in one parent, the Mc......
-
Gann v. Bryowsky
...interests and welfare of the [child]" standard applies); Fitzhugh v. Fitzhugh, 634 So.2d 565, 566 (Ala.Civ.App.1994); Scott v. Scott, 563 So.2d 1044 (Ala.Civ.App.1990). In this case, the trial court adopted the parties' agreement which provided that "the parties shall have joint custody of ......
-
Stanton v. Stanton
...espoused by our Supreme Court in McLendon, supra, would be applicable. Poe v. Capps, 599 So.2d 623 (Ala.Civ.App.1992); Scott v. Scott, 563 So.2d 1044 (Ala.Civ.App.1990). The law is clear that in an initial custody determination between parents, the parents stand on equal footing and the "be......
-
Hovater v. Hovater
...custody has not been awarded to one parent, the "best interests and welfare" of the children standard applies. Couch; Scott v. Scott, 563 So.2d 1044 (Ala.Civ.App.1990). Here, the parties initially agreed that they would "jointly share the custody of the minor children ... with the [mother] ......