Smith v. Smith
| Decision Date | 05 December 1984 |
| Citation | 464 So.2d 97 |
| Parties | Elizabeth Claire Hutchinson SMITH v. Richard Paul SMITH. Civ. 4433. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
William N. Clark and Stephen W. Shaw of Redden, Mills & Clark, Birmingham, for appellant.
Robert C. Barnett of Barnett, Tingle, Noble & Sexton, Birmingham, for appellee.
This is a child custody modification proceeding. The parties were divorced on June 16, 1982. The court's decree awarded custody of the parties' minor child, Ryan, to the father. Shortly after the divorce the mother married Dr. Mangiere, whom she had known during her previous marriage. On July 3, 1983 the mother had a child, Sean, by her second husband. On July 10, 1983 the mother brought a petition to modify the trial court's prior decree, seeking custody of Ryan. After hearing the evidence ore tenus, the trial court denied the mother's petition, retaining custody of Ryan in the father. The mother filed a motion to alter or amend the decree or, in the alternative, motion for new trial. This motion was denied by the trial court, whereupon the mother appealed to this court.
Our law is well settled that where evidence is heard ore tenus by a trial court the court's findings will not be disturbed unless plainly and palpably wrong. Patterson v. Patterson, 399 So.2d 846 (Ala.Civ.App.1980). There is also a rule of repose applicable to a petition to modify a prior custody decree. Alford v. Alford, 368 So.2d 295 (Ala.Civ.App.1979). To overcome these presumptions the mother must have presented evidence that a change in custody would "materially promote" the child's best interests. Ex parte McClendon, 455 So.2d 863 (Ala.1984). We conclude that the mother failed to rebut these presumptions, and affirm the trial court.
The facts contained in the record are voluminous, and we will not delineate all of them here.
In the main, the mother based her petition for modification on several factors, including her remarriage, subsequent improved lifestyle, and the fact that she and her current husband own their home. She further based her petition on the father's alleged sexual misconduct and his failure to properly clothe and clean Ryan. She contends that the above evidence was sufficient to justify a change in custody.
The husband admitted at trial that he had engaged in sexual relations with women since his divorce and that some of this activity occurred at his home. Our courts have long held that, while evidence of indiscreet conduct is a factor to consider in a custody modification action, custody will not be modified where the party seeking modification fails to establish a substantial detrimental effect on the welfare of the child as a result of the indiscreet conduct. Roberson v. Roberson, 370 So.2d 1008 (Ala.Civ.App.1979). There was no proof that any of these activities ever occurred in Ryan's presence. Ryan slept in his own room.
Our opinion in McKim v. McKim, 440 So.2d 562 (Ala.Civ.App.1983), stands for the proposition that sexual misconduct need not occur in the physical presence of children for it to be material to their welfare. In any event, our case law requires that there be evidence presented showing that such conduct is detrimental to the children. See, e.g., Gould v. Gould, 55 Ala.App. 379, 316 So.2d 210 (Ala.Civ.App.1975). The mother failed to show that the father's activities were in any way detrimental to Ryan. Thus, we conclude that the father's sexual conduct was insufficient to warrant a custody change.
Evidence presented at trial concerning whether the father properly cared for the child was conflicting. The mother and her current husband testified that the father was a poor father and that Ryan was unkempt when with the father. On the other hand, witnesses testified that he was an excellent father and the father kept Ryan well clothed and clean. Ryan and his father spent time together playing and visiting family. Ryan was never left unsupervised, but was left with a babysitter three days a week while the father worked. Ryan was usually taken back home from the babysitter's around 3:30 p.m. by his father. The trial court resolved these conflicts in testimony in favor of the father...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cochran v. Cochran
...custody is not the proper remedy for a visitation dispute. Foster v. Carden, 515 So.2d 1258, 1260 (Ala.Civ.App.1987); Smith v. Smith, 464 So.2d 97, 100 (Ala.Civ.App. 1984). "Rather, the appropriate remedy in such a situation is to punish the custodial parent for contempt, not to uproot chil......
-
Jones v. Haraway
...conduct. Benton v. Benton, 520 So.2d 534 (Ala.Civ.App.1988); Armstrong v. Armstrong, 515 So.2d 27 (Ala.Civ.App.1987); Smith v. Smith, 464 So.2d 97 (Ala.Civ.App.1984); Roberson v. Roberson, 370 So.2d 1008 (Ala.Civ.App.1979). In cases of primary custody, indiscreet behavior, such as living wi......
-
Ex parte Pankey
...Murphree v. Murphree, 579 So.2d 634 (Ala.Civ.App. 1991); Jones v. Haraway, 537 So.2d 946 (Ala.Civ.App.1988); Smith v. Smith, 464 So.2d 97 (Ala.Civ.App.1985). The Court of Civil Appeals has not only disregarded historic precedent, but it now concludes that the trial court may not find an adv......
-
Ladden v. Ladden
...evidence of any sexual indiscretions by the mother, citing Batton v. Batton, 496 So.2d 68, 69 (Ala.Civ.App.1986), and Smith v. Smith, 464 So.2d 97, 99 (Ala.Civ.App.1984). In support of his argument, the father points out certain facts that were set forth at the final hearing, such as the mo......