A recent ruling from the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals addresses a long-running dispute between J.D.S. (“the father”) and S.G.S. (“the mother”) regarding child custody, visitation, and financial support. The case stems from their divorce in 2016 and subsequent modifications sought by the father. The court affirmed parts of the lower court’s decision but reversed others, sending the case back for further review.
Background of the Case
The father and mother divorced on November 28, 2016. Their divorce decree, which incorporated a settlement agreement, granted them joint legal custody, with the mother having primary physical custody. Four daughters were born of the marriage. The father had a set visitation schedule, including every other weekend, Tuesday nights, and two weeks of summer vacation. He was obligated to pay $2,000 per month in child support, $250 monthly for extracurricular activities, health insurance premiums, and 80% of uncovered medical expenses.
Over the years, the father filed several petitions seeking modifications, including contempt charges against the mother and changes to the visitation schedule. The mother also filed counterclaims, seeking adjustments to child support, tax exemptions, and the father’s visitation.
Passport Dispute and Summer Visitation
Early in the proceedings, the father sought the children’s passports for an overseas trip, which the trial court initially granted. However, the trip was later canceled, and the mother requested the return of the passports, citing the father’s “bizarre” behavior. The trial court then ordered the father to return the passports to the mother. The father also sought modification of the summer visitation schedule due to the mother’s interference. The trial court eventually granted the father additional summer visitation due to the mother’s actions.
Later Petitions and Trial
In February 2023, the father filed a third amended petition, seeking joint physical custody, modification of child support, and to hold the mother in contempt. A trial was held in November 2023. The father testified that the visitation schedule had been problematic since the divorce, citing the mother’s interference and unilateral decisions. He also testified about the mother’s behavior regarding the children’s counseling, medical appointments, and school activities. The mother, in her testimony, stated she was unsure how many times she had agreed to the father’s requested summer-vacation weeks.
The trial court found both parents in contempt for interfering with visitation and violating prior orders. The court modified the father’s visitation schedule, awarding him additional summer visitation and Christmas-vacation visitation. The court also addressed child support, increasing the father’s monthly obligation to $5,000 and ordering him to pay arrears. Furthermore, the court ordered the father to purchase dependable vehicles for his three youngest daughters upon them reaching sixteen, and to be responsible for the vehicles’ maintenance, insurance, and upkeep.
Court’s Ruling on Custody
The father appealed the trial court’s decision, arguing that he should have been awarded joint physical custody. However, the appellate court upheld the trial court’s ruling on this issue. The court noted that the father’s primary argument was that joint physical custody would be convenient for the children. While the children acknowledged the difficulties of the visitation schedule, they were split on whether it should be changed. The appellate court found no error in the trial court’s decision to deny the father’s request for joint physical custody.
Court’s Ruling on Child Support and Automobiles
The father also challenged the child support modification and the order to purchase vehicles for the children. The appellate court agreed with the father on these points. It found that the trial court did not provide sufficient evidence to support the increase in child support. The appellate court noted that the mother’s documentation of expenses included items that were not fully supported by the record, and that some of the claimed expenses appeared to duplicate the father’s existing obligations under the divorce decree. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision on child support and the purchase of automobiles, remanding the case for further proceedings to determine the children’s reasonable and necessary needs.
Court’s Ruling on Retroactive Child Support
The father also argued that the trial court erred in awarding retroactive child support. The appellate court agreed, stating that the mother had not requested retroactive child support and that there was no evidence presented during the trial to indicate that the children were not provided for during the period for which the retroactive support was awarded. The appellate court reversed this portion of the trial court’s judgment.
The Bottom Line
The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision on the issue of custody, finding that the lower court did not exceed its discretion. However, the appellate court reversed the lower court’s rulings on child support, the purchase of vehicles, and retroactive child support. The case has been sent back to the trial court for further proceedings, where the court will need to reconsider the child support award and whether the father should be required to purchase vehicles.