The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals has issued a ruling in a divorce case, addressing issues of custody, child support, and other financial obligations. The court affirmed a lower court’s decision regarding a modification of the father’s visitation schedule but reversed parts of the judgment related to child support, the purchase of automobiles, and retroactive child support.
CL-2024-0992
Background of the Case
The parents, J.D.S. (the father) and S.G.S. (the mother), divorced on November 28, 2016. Their divorce agreement, incorporated into the court’s judgment, outlined joint legal custody with the mother having primary physical custody and the father having visitation rights. They have four daughters, born between 2007 and 2011.
The original divorce judgment included a detailed visitation schedule, child support payments of $2,000 per month from the father, and contributions for extracurricular activities and health insurance. The father was also ordered to pay alimony for five years.
Over time, both parents filed petitions and counterclaims seeking modifications to the original agreement. The father sought to hold the mother in contempt and adjust the visitation schedule. The mother, in turn, sought modifications to child support, tax exemptions, and the father’s visitation schedule.
The case went through multiple stages, including motions regarding the children’s passports, summer visitation, and an emergency motion regarding a child’s return. The father filed a third amended petition, seeking joint physical custody, modification of child support, and to hold the mother in contempt.
The trial began on November 2, 2023, and concluded on November 3, 2023. The father testified about the difficulties he faced with the visitation schedule, including interference from the mother. He also brought up issues such as the mother’s decisions regarding the children’s counseling and medical appointments. The father also testified about the mother’s refusal to allow him to participate in the children’s activities and school events.
The mother also testified, providing her perspective on the issues. She explained the children’s schedules, summer camps, and her work situation. She also presented a summary of her monthly expenses, which included various costs associated with the children’s care.
The four daughters also testified. One daughter, A.B.S., expressed a desire to modify the visitation schedule to spend more time with her father. The other daughters expressed their preference for the current schedule.
The trial court entered a final judgment on August 2, 2024, modifying the father’s visitation schedule and addressing other issues. The court modified the father’s visitation schedule to reflect the children’s current ages, activities, and maturity levels. The court also increased the father’s child-support obligation to $5,000 per month, retroactive to October 2021, and ordered him to purchase vehicles for his three youngest daughters upon them reaching sixteen years of age. The court found both parties in contempt for interfering with visitation time.
The father filed a motion to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment, which was denied. The mother also filed a motion to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment, which was also denied. The father then filed a timely notice of appeal.
The Court’s Decision
The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals addressed several issues raised by the father in his appeal.
Custody
The father argued that the trial court should have granted joint physical custody. However, the appellate court upheld the trial court’s decision to deny this request. The court found that the father’s primary argument for the modification was based on the convenience for the children, and while the children acknowledged difficulties with the previous visitation schedule, they were divided on whether it should be changed. The trial court had granted the father’s alternative request for increased visitation, which appeared to alleviate the inconvenience caused by shorter visitation periods.
The court also considered the father’s argument that custody should be modified due to the mother’s non-compliance with the divorce judgment. The appellate court found that the trial court had found both parties in contempt for interfering with visitation time.
Child Support and Purchase of Automobiles
The father challenged the trial court’s modification of child support, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support the increase and that the order to purchase vehicles was an abuse of discretion. The appellate court agreed with the father.
The court noted that the combined income of the parents exceeded the child-support guidelines, but the trial court increased the father’s child-support obligation to $5,000 per month because the father’s income had increased significantly and because the children’s needs had increased. The appellate court held that the trial court did not provide sufficient evidence to support the increase or justify the order for the father to purchase cars and pay car-related expenses, given the lack of evidence presented by the mother to support the increase in expenses. The court reversed this portion of the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the reasonable and necessary needs of the children.
Retroactive Child Support
The father also argued that the trial court erred in awarding retroactive child support, as the mother had not requested it in her pleadings. The appellate court agreed, stating that the issue of retroactive child support was not properly before the court because the mother did not request it in her counterclaim or amended counterclaim. The court reversed this portion of the judgment as well.
Conclusion
The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision regarding the custody modification. However, it reversed the trial court’s decisions regarding child support, the purchase of automobiles, and retroactive child support. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court’s opinion.