EDWARDS, Judge.
In July 2009, Christopher Allen Wallace ("the father") and Kimberly Michelle Wallace ("the mother") were divorced by a judgment of the Baldwin Circuit Court ("the trial court"). Pursuant to that judgment, the parties were awarded joint legal custody and the mother was awarded "primary physical custody" of the parties’ three children, C.A.W., K.M.W., and C.D.W. ("the children"). In September 2011, the trial court modified the divorce judgment to award the father sole physical custody of the children.
In March 2019, the father, in substantial compliance with Ala. Code 1975, § 30-3-165, a part of the Parent-Child Relationship Protection Act ("the PCRPA"), codified at Ala. Code 1975, § 30-3-160 et seq., notified the mother of his intent to move from Baldwin County to North Carolina to undertake new employment. The mother then filed in the trial court a verified petition seeking a modification of the 2011 custody judgment and, pursuant to Ala. Code 1975, § 30-3-169, an objection to the proposed change of the principal place of residence of the children. On the same date the mother filed her objection to the children's relocation, the trial court entered an ex parte order prohibiting the children from leaving the State of Alabama. The father filed a motion seeking approval of the children's relocation pending a trial in the matter, and the trial court set a hearing on that motion. On May 13, 2019, after an evidentiary hearing, the trial court entered a temporary order granting the mother's objection pending a trial and prohibiting the children from being removed from the State of Alabama.
After a trial on the mother's objection and petition to modify custody, which was held over two separate days in December 2019 and in June 2020, the trial court entered on July 15, 2020, a judgment awarding the mother sole physical custody of the children. The father filed a timely postjudgment motion, in which he argued, among other things, that the trial court had erred in failing to allow the parties’ 14-year-old daughter, K.M.W. ("the daughter"), to testify to her "strong desire to relocate to North Carolina," to establish the "stark difference in lifestyles between the two homes," and to prove that the mother had failed to properly supervise the oldest child on a cruise vacation, resulting in his "having unprotected sex." The trial court granted the father's motion in part, awarding the father visitation with the children for the entirety of the week of Thanksgiving and addressing a matter relating to child support, but otherwise denied the motion. The father then timely appealed.
On appeal, the father raises two arguments. He first argues that he met his burden of rebutting the presumption against relocation set out in Ala. Code 1975, § 30-3-169.4, a part of the PCRPA. Specifically, he contends that he presented sufficient evidence indicating that the relocation would be in the children's best interest by presenting, among other evidence, evidence regarding his involvement in the children's lives, the mother's lack of significant involvement with the children's schooling and extracurricular activities, and the opportunities that the move to North Carolina would provide the children. The father also challenges the trial court's refusal to allow him to call the daughter as a witness. We find the father's second argument dispositive of this appeal.
At the close of the testimony on the second day of the two-day trial, the following occurred:
"THE COURT: All right. So let's talk about whether or not I'm going to talk to a teenager.
"COUNSEL FOR THE FATHER: Yes.
"THE COURT: Because I might and I might not. We all know that, that I might and I might not because teenagers don't run my world not even at my house.
"COUNSEL FOR THE FATHER: No, Your Honor, they do not. However in the list of the reasons for relocation falling squarely within that one of many -- and there's about 18 to 20 reasons of which this court can consider [set out in Ala. Code 1975, § 30-3-169.3 ], is a child's desire and their input to that. And I would offer the [daughter] because it does fall in the criteria and I'm offering her testimony. I'm not sure -- she may go against me. I don't know but my understanding is that this testimony of the [daughter] would be relevant to reaching a conclusion by this court. It's done for that purpose.
"THE COURT: Okay.
"COUNSEL FOR THE FATHER: I don't talk to children in advance.
"THE COURT: What do you say, [counsel for the mother], because I feel like that can be done by proffer.
"COUNSEL FOR THE MOTHER: How old is [the daughter]?
"COUNSEL FOR THE FATHER: 14?
"THE FATHER: She'll be 15 in July.
"COUNSEL FOR THE FATHER: She'll be 25 [sic] in July.
"COUNSEL FOR THE MOTHER: Judge, I hate to see any child take a witness stand in a domestic matter regardless of the nature. And I understand what [counsel for the father's] saying about this statute and he's correct.
"THE COURT: But I mean if there is some 18 that is like 1 out of 18.
"COUNSEL FOR THE MOTHER: Right. Right. This is a young lady who is in a difficult stage in life. I don't see anything good coming out of her testifying in a case involving her mom and dad. And as we all know many times children of that age are not in a position to make the best decision.
"THE COURT: Well, and I will also tell you that I have concerns about it being electronic right now as well. But that's not my primary concern. Because I don't know who's with the child, okay? And I try to make an effort for children to be not with any of these grown ups that have control of their everyday life. But --
"COUNSEL FOR THE FATHER: Judge, if we want to suspend this for 30 minutes I can make the [daughter] available at my office.
"THE COURT: No. No, no, no. Y'all can proffer it. I am willing to accept proffers.
"COUNSEL FOR THE FATHER: Do you want to exclude the parents from the courtroom while I make that proffer?
"THE COURT: Yes. I'm fine with that, yes. All right. Y'all step on out. It won't be very long. It's okay.
"(PROFFER OF IN CAMERA TESTIMONY.)
"THE COURT: So are we ready to proffer? And this would be the daughter --
"COUNSEL FOR THE FATHER: I will qualify because --
"THE COURT: -- the middle child who is a daughter.
"COUNSEL FOR THE FATHER: She is. She is the daughter. She's the middle child.
"THE COURT: And a flute player.
"COUNSEL FOR THE FATHER: And in submitting a proffer I'm a little off from doing what I can be at full proffer in that I intentionally don't speak to children in advance about their testimony. I never want it to appear coached. I don't like to meet them is all, okay?
"THE COURT: Because you already have enough children.
"COUNSEL FOR THE FATHER: I have enough children and so -- and sometimes I'll not talk about my children on the record. Okay. So what I'm going to say is that my understanding as it pertains to this child, [the daughter], the one who has -- who is 14, she requested to testify. She wanted to be able to express to the court her desire to move to North Carolina. She's very close with her father. She's very close with her stepmother. She loves her mother very much. She does not enjoy her household when she's at her mother's, especially when [her mother's husband] is there. He belittles her faith. He doesn't [want] her involved in her various --he mocks her activities she's involved in, the flute, the church which are very much -- which are very important to her. She's allowed to, not only, do well in the activities when she's at her father's home, she's excelled over the years. She's honors band, first chair, all by the time she's 14 years of age, in flute to the point that my client has made sure that she has had extra lessons, so that she can maintain her chair as well as being able to potentially get scholarships in the future. [The daughter] believe[s] that, you know, she has seen -- she has been to North Carolina as the visits were allowed by this court. She likes the idea of school system. She's going to be there. She likes the home that the children are going to have. She wants -- she does not want to be apart from any of her siblings. She wants all 5 of her siblings that she considers it all of her family, of 7 to be together with their father. She enjoys the fact that her father he used to have to work long hours and mandatory overtime is now more in- -- now available to be part of her life as she's only got about four of five more years that she's going to be at home. She wants to continue that relationship and that is what I believe her testimony would be. If -- she would give it probably in a more impassioned 14 or 15 year old version than I can give. She might --
"THE COURT: Very few people can do that other than 14 or 15 year old girls. You are correct.
"COUNSEL FOR THE FATHER: She might even say things I would not have her say as a 14 or 15-year-old. But as a general rule I believe that to be what her testimony would be if I was allowed to give that. And I would -- I have to say for the record I would in fact -- I do want to state my objection to only being able to proffer it. I think the live testimony of [the daughter], this issue for this case is relevant.
"THE COURT: Thank you. [Counsel for the mother], do you [have] any proffer as to what you would go into?
"COUNSEL FOR THE MOTHER: Not necessarily a proffer, but a response. And I respect [counsel for the father's] position because he's kind of like me we generally don't meet with children when it comes to litigation. There is no sense in putting them in the middle of this. Which means the only information [counsel for the father] would have would probably come from his client, most probably. And this is, you know, this is obviously emotionally driven.
"THE COURT: Well, I mean, all [domes
...