Alabama Law - Child Custody, Visitation and Child Support and Contempt Issues

Under the ore tenus rule, the trial courts findings of fact are presumed correct and will not be disturbed on appeal unless plainly and palpably wrong against the preponderance of the evidence.  Ex parte, Carter, 772 So.2d 1117, 1119 (Ala.Civ.App.2000).

     The courts legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, and thereby affords the trial court's factual determination a presumption of correctness, and will not reverse its judgment based on that determination unless the trial court's decision was “clearly erroneous, without supporting evidence, manifestly unjust, or against the great weight of the evidence.” Shealy v. Golden, 897 So.2d 268, 271 (Ala.Civ.App.2004) & Morrow, 827 So.2d at 762.  Alabama law states, in cases where there is a question presented on appeal whether the trial court correctly applied the law, the ore tenus rule has NO value, thereby a trial court’s denial of a Rule 59 Motion to Modify, Amend or Vacate a post-judgment may be reversed upon showing of abuse of the discretion of a trial court. Bass v. Bass, 475 So.2d 1196 (Ala.Civ.App.1985).

Furthermore, in Rotar v. Weiland, 591 So.2d 893 (Ala.Civ.App.1991), the Court of Appeals reversed a trial court’s decision whereby the trial court failed to modify the father’s child support obligation based on the contining and substantial decrease of the father.  The Court of Appeals determined that there was no evidence to indicate that the father had any means with which to pay the ordered amount of child support, stating, “While the trial court is afforded the discretion to determine whether there has been a material change in a parent’s circumstances, it is not at liberty to ignore undisputed evidence concerning a parent’s ability to pay.”

on Bell v. Bell, 443, So.2d 1258 (Ala.Civ.App.1983) and Anthony v. Anthony, 582 So.2d 1121 (Ala. Civ.App.1991), before attorney fees can be awarded, there must be a request for such fees.  

According to Talbert, 419 So.2d 240 (Ala.Civ.App 1985) imprisonment as a means of coercing payment may not be imposed if there is a present inability to pay.

  

In King v. Barnes, 54 So.3^rd 900, 902 (Ala.Civ.App.2010) and based on Rule 32 of the ARJA Rule 32(a)(3)which was amended by adding subsection (b) which emphasizes from current Alabama case law that a party seeking a modification of child support must plead and prove that there has occurred a material change in circumstances that is substantial and continuing since the last order of child support. The Plaintiff-father met the required burden of proof to modify and/or reduce his child support and based on Murphy, 447 So.2d 798 (Ala.Civ.App.1984) when the accused puts forth evidence of his inability to pay, the burden of proof is on the complainant to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the obligor can pay.   

The trial court ordering a sum for child support is limited by the present ability of parent to pay.  Forlini v. Forlini, 455 So.2d 855 (Ala.Civ.App.1983) The paramount consideration in determining the amount of child support is the needs of the children, taking into account the parents ability to pay. Brannon v. Brannon 477 So.2d 455 (Ala.Civ.App.1985).  

Based on Rule 32 of the ARJA, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that child support should be modified when the difference between the existing child support award and the amount determined by application of these guidelines varies more than ten percent (10%), unless the variation is due to the fact that the existing child support award resulted from a rebuttal of the guidelines and there has been no change in the circumstances that resulted in the rebuttal of the guidelines.  Rule 32, subsection (e) was added to restate that a trial court may modify a child support obligation even when there is not a 10 percent variation between the current obligation and the guidelines when a petitioner has proven a material change in circumstances that is substantial and continuing based on a finding that the application of the guidelines in that case would be manifestly unjust or inequitable. The Plaintiff-father contends that he met the requirements of Rule 32 of the ARJA. 

that Plaintiff-father’s had a material change in circumstances that was substantial and continuing.  Browining v. Browning, 626 So.2d 649 (Ala.Civ.App.1993).

the ordered amount causes a total inability to support self and pay guidelined amount. Hutchins v. Hutchins, 637 So.2d 1371(Ala.Civ.App.1994). The comments to Rule 32, Ala.R.Jud.Admin, states that “the guidelines will provide an adequate standard of support for children, subject to the ability of their parents to pay”.  Based on Stewart v. Kelly, 587 So.2d 384 (Ala.Civ.App.1991), A parent’s inability to pay child support is a proper basis for deviating from the guidelines.  

based on Rule 32 and Alabama case law, the Defendant-mother did not provide that the needs of the children had increased to justify the trial court’s increase in Plaintiff-father’s required child support payments.  Dimoff v. Dimoff, 606 So.2d 159 (Ala.Civ.App.1992).

based on Rule 32(B)(8) of the Alabama Rules of Judicial Administration, which state that child care costs shall not exceed the amount required to provide care from a licensed source for the children, based on a schedule of guidelines developed by the Department of Human Resources and states that children enrolled part-time must be calculated at 50% of the total cost.

 

Rosemary Chambers

Rosemary chambers and molly sullivan are best friends.  if you doubt anything that i have said, then go sit in her courtroom for a few days.  if you need help, let me know.  i have been working in the legal field for 10 years, have a degree and have found some of the best ways to combat these men haters (yes, i am women and they are men haters)

Molly Sullivan, Claude Boone, Rosemary Chambers, Donald Banks

if you must appear before judge rosemary chambers in mobile county circuit court, do not waste your time on an attorney if you are a male, you will loose, unless molly sullivan or v. haas is your attorney.  there are a few other attorneys such as jerry pilgram that rosemary chambers favors.

judge banks and attorney claude boone are pretty tight.

if you are a male in rosemary chambers court room and molly sullivan is not your attorney, you will not only loose but get royally screwed!!!!!!

if you feel that you have been wronged, you legally have the right to an appeal which is what i have done.  they only look at things that were discussed in the lower court so make sure you make your issues known in the circuit court!!!!  the court of appeals, follows the law and case law.

CORRUPT JUDGES IN MOBILE ALABAMA

Back  in 2009 my husband and I filed for a divorce and agreed to joint physical and legal custody of our then 5 year old daughter.  My ex-husband was a stable man with a job, a home and no history of drug abuse or any issues whatsoever.  We filed our case in The Circuit Court of Mobile County and the Judge assigned to our case, Judge Rosemary Chambers denied our request for joint custody six times stating that I, the mother should have full custody with my ex-husband receiving every other weekend visitation only.  She NEVER gave any more of a logical reasoning with only that same statement each time we were rejected.  We could not understand her logic or how she could possibly believe that our child seeing her father every other weekend was in her best interest, so with our best efforts, agreeing to a change in venue, we removed our case to Baldwin County which did agree and awarded Joint Custody for her best interest.  This can only be done if both parties agree.  My daughter is now almost eight years old.  She is a straight A student and spends two days with me and two days with her father.  She is very healthy and very happy and has adjusted quite resiliently to the changes for what is truly in her best interest.   

Now on the other foot, again in the Circuit Court of Mobile County, Alabama and again in front of Judge Rosemary Chambers, my current husband fights to have rights to his children.   He and his wife filed for divorce and he was awarded every other weekend.  She was 8 months pregnant by another man when they went to court and the Judge didn’t even care.  Judge Chambers awarded the mother full custody.  The mother does not allow him to see his children at any other times other than what is stated in the paper.  She uses them as a bargaining tool to get what she wants.  Her attorney and the Judge are best friends and do whatever they choose to do without regards to the fact that the children are ultimately suffering long term by not being allowed to have their father’s influence (two boys).   The mother has on numerous occasions denied him visitation rights and never found in contempt.  She was found guilty of domestic violence charges on us recently and when we asked the courts to modify their visitation schedule to keep contact with her minimal by picking them up from daycare as opposed to the mothers house, the judge reduced his visitation.  I cannot understand how anyone would think it is in the best interest of any child to not have both their parents in their lives (if suitable) full-time and jointly.  We have been fighting this losing battle while every time that we go to court and lose, his ex-wife tells everyone that she “won” everything, yet what she doesn’t understand is her children are ultimately losing and she doesn’t even care, so long as she is winning.   Judges have too much discretion and show direct favortism to certain attorneys.  As you can see I have been on both sides of the fence and I believe in what is in “the best interest” of any child is to have both parents actively and jointly.

My ex-husband and I do not always agree, but the one thing that we are able to do is to agree to disagree and to agree that it doesn’t matter what we want, but what is best for our little girl and having BOTH of her parents JOINTLY in her life, to influence her and to love her, is what is in her best interest.  Many people are incapable of doing this and most judges presume the mother is the better caretaker and disregard that both parents are needed to raise a child, yet they require the non-custodial (usually the father) parent to contribute equally financially.

There are so many men who want to be fathers and who are not allowed to be, due to the vindictiveness of mothers who  do not put the need of the children ahead of their own and the courts who won’t enforce equal time.  So many women state that men have an obligation to support their children equally, yet they do not want to allow them to be apart of their lives equally which is truly in the childs best interest and how our justice system is allowing this is beyond me.  A judge choosing women over men is unconstitutional and it’s part of the reason that so many children grow up without their fathers.  There are so many men who don’t care about their children and for the ones that do care, they are punished and the children are being punished and not being afforded equal time and love from both parents.   I grew up without my father, because he didn’t want to be a part of my life.  It affected me so very much, but it taught me to put my daughter’s needs above my own.  We can’t make men want their children, but why are we punishing the ones that do want to be a part of their childrens’ lives?  Why are judges over-looking what is in the child’s best interest?  Allowing one parent complete control is “NOT” in the “best interest” of any child and is actually selfish.

I am so thankful that Baldwin County has taken this approach and I can only hope this bill will push counties such as Mobile in the right direction.  To take out the so called “discretion” of judges, which is just a “good ole boy” system at work.  For anyone who disagrees with children having both parents, I would say that they are not looking out for the best interest of their children, but obviously their own.  I would tell them it took two to make them and it takes to two raise them and that cannot be done without equal rights what kind of parent are you to not want your child to have both parents equally, to love and encourage them?

From what I have read of this bill, it would allow us to seek another modification for equal time with his children, if I am incorrect, this should be an issue that needs addressing.