Preview:

REL: 10/22/2010

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011
2090555
Deanna M. Harris v.
Paris L. Harris
Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court (DR-08-900143)
THOMPSON, Presiding Judge.
Deanna M. Harris ("the mother") appeals from a judgment entered by the Montgomery Circuit Court divorcing her from Paris L. Harris ("the father"). For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the judgment in part and reverse it in part.



REL: 10/22/2010

Southern Reporter
Southern Reporter.
ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011
2090555
Deanna M. Harris v.
Paris L. Harris
Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court (DR-08-900143)
THOMPSON, Presiding Judge.
Deanna M. Harris ("the mother") appeals from a judgment entered by the Montgomery Circuit Court divorcing her from Paris L. Harris ("the father"). For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the judgment in part and reverse it in part.



REL: 10/22/2010

Southern Reporter
Southern Reporter.
ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011
2090555
Deanna M. Harris v.
Paris L. Harris
Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court (DR-08-900143)
THOMPSON, Presiding Judge.
Deanna M. Harris ("the mother") appeals from a judgment entered by the Montgomery Circuit Court divorcing her from Paris L. Harris ("the father"). For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the judgment in part and reverse it in part.



REL: 10/22/2010

Southern Reporter
Southern Reporter.
ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011
2090555
Deanna M. Harris v.
Paris L. Harris
Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court (DR-08-900143)
THOMPSON, Presiding Judge.
Deanna M. Harris ("the mother") appeals from a judgment entered by the Montgomery Circuit Court divorcing her from Paris L. Harris ("the father"). For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the judgment in part and reverse it in part.



REL: 10/22/2010

Southern Reporter
Southern Reporter.
ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011
2090555
Deanna M. Harris v.
Paris L. Harris
Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court (DR-08-900143)
THOMPSON, Presiding Judge.
Deanna M. Harris ("the mother") appeals from a judgment entered by the Montgomery Circuit Court divorcing her from Paris L. Harris ("the father"). For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the judgment in part and reverse it in part.



REL: 10/22/2010

Southern Reporter
Southern Reporter.
ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011
2090555
Deanna M. Harris v.
Paris L. Harris
Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court (DR-08-900143)
THOMPSON, Presiding Judge.
Deanna M. Harris ("the mother") appeals from a judgment entered by the Montgomery Circuit Court divorcing her from Paris L. Harris ("the father"). For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the judgment in part and reverse it in part.



REL: 10/22/2010

Southern Reporter
Southern Reporter.
ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011
2090555
Deanna M. Harris v.
Paris L. Harris
Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court (DR-08-900143)
THOMPSON, Presiding Judge.
Deanna M. Harris ("the mother") appeals from a judgment entered by the Montgomery Circuit Court divorcing her from Paris L. Harris ("the father"). For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the judgment in part and reverse it in part.



REL: 10/22/2010

Southern Reporter
Southern Reporter.
ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011
2090555
Deanna M. Harris v.
Paris L. Harris
Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court (DR-08-900143)
THOMPSON, Presiding Judge.
Deanna M. Harris ("the mother") appeals from a judgment entered by the Montgomery Circuit Court divorcing her from Paris L. Harris ("the father"). For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the judgment in part and reverse it in part.



REL: 10/22/2010

Southern Reporter
Southern Reporter.
ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011
2090555
Deanna M. Harris v.
Paris L. Harris
Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court (DR-08-900143)
THOMPSON, Presiding Judge.
Deanna M. Harris ("the mother") appeals from a judgment entered by the Montgomery Circuit Court divorcing her from Paris L. Harris ("the father"). For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the judgment in part and reverse it in part.



REL: 10/22/2010

Southern Reporter
Southern Reporter.
ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011
2090555
Deanna M. Harris v.
Paris L. Harris
Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court (DR-08-900143)
THOMPSON, Presiding Judge.
Deanna M. Harris ("the mother") appeals from a judgment entered by the Montgomery Circuit Court divorcing her from Paris L. Harris ("the father"). For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the judgment in part and reverse it in part.



REL: 10/22/2010

Southern Reporter
Southern Reporter.
ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011
2090555
Deanna M. Harris v.
Paris L. Harris
Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court (DR-08-900143)
THOMPSON, Presiding Judge.
Deanna M. Harris ("the mother") appeals from a judgment entered by the Montgomery Circuit Court divorcing her from Paris L. Harris ("the father"). For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the judgment in part and reverse it in part.



2090555
The father and the mother were married on January 9, 1999. Two children ("the children") were born of the marriage. At the time of the trial of this action, one of the children was nine years old and the other child was three years old. The father also had a daughter from a relationship preceding the parties' marriage. At the time of the trial, the father's daughter was 13 years old.
The parties separated in May 2008. On December 10, 2008, the mother filed an action seeking a divorce from the father. The father, acting pro se, filed an answer to the mother's complaint and a counterclaim for a divorce. Each party sought primary physical custody of the children
The trial court held a trial of the action on October 27, 2009. At the trial, the mother testified that, during the marriage, the parties had resided in a house that was titled in her name and that she had owned before they married. She testified that she was asking that the trial court award her the house.
The mother testified that, during the marriage, she had a credit card on which the father had accumulated debt. She testified that, although the father was supposed to pay the

2



2090555
The father and the mother were married on January 9, 1999. Two children ("the children") were born of the marriage. At the time of the trial of this action, one of the children was nine years old and the other child was three years old. The father also had a daughter from a relationship preceding the parties' marriage. At the time of the trial, the father's daughter was 13 years old.
The parties separated in May 2008. On December 10, 2008, the mother filed an action seeking a divorce from the father. The father, acting pro se, filed an answer to the mother's complaint and a counterclaim for a divorce. Each party sought primary physical custody of the children
The trial court held a trial of the action on October 27, 2009. At the trial, the mother testified that, during the marriage, the parties had resided in a house that was titled in her name and that she had owned before they married. She testified that she was asking that the trial court award her the house.
The mother testified that, during the marriage, she had a credit card on which the father had accumulated debt. She testified that, although the father was supposed to pay the

2



2090555
The father and the mother were married on January 9, 1999. Two children ("the children") were born of the marriage. At the time of the trial of this action, one of the children was nine years old and the other child was three years old. The father also had a daughter from a relationship preceding the parties' marriage. At the time of the trial, the father's daughter was 13 years old.
The parties separated in May 2008. On December 10, 2008, the mother filed an action seeking a divorce from the father. The father, acting pro se, filed an answer to the mother's complaint and a counterclaim for a divorce. Each party sought primary physical custody of the children
The trial court held a trial of the action on October 27, 2009. At the trial, the mother testified that, during the marriage, the parties had resided in a house that was titled in her name and that she had owned before they married. She testified that she was asking that the trial court award her the house.
The mother testified that, during the marriage, she had a credit card on which the father had accumulated debt. She testified that, although the father was supposed to pay the

2



2090555
The father and the mother were married on January 9, 1999. Two children ("the children") were born of the marriage. At the time of the trial of this action, one of the children was nine years old and the other child was three years old. The father also had a daughter from a relationship preceding the parties' marriage. At the time of the trial, the father's daughter was 13 years old.
The parties separated in May 2008. On December 10, 2008, the mother filed an action seeking a divorce from the father. The father, acting pro se, filed an answer to the mother's complaint and a counterclaim for a divorce. Each party sought primary physical custody of the children
The trial court held a trial of the action on October 27, 2009. At the trial, the mother testified that, during the marriage, the parties had resided in a house that was titled in her name and that she had owned before they married. She testified that she was asking that the trial court award her the house.
The mother testified that, during the marriage, she had a credit card on which the father had accumulated debt. She testified that, although the father was supposed to pay the

2



2090555
The father and the mother were married on January 9, 1999. Two children ("the children") were born of the marriage. At the time of the trial of this action, one of the children was nine years old and the other child was three years old. The father also had a daughter from a relationship preceding the parties' marriage. At the time of the trial, the father's daughter was 13 years old.
The parties separated in May 2008. On December 10, 2008, the mother filed an action seeking a divorce from the father. The father, acting pro se, filed an answer to the mother's complaint and a counterclaim for a divorce. Each party sought primary physical custody of the children
The trial court held a trial of the action on October 27, 2009. At the trial, the mother testified that, during the marriage, the parties had resided in a house that was titled in her name and that she had owned before they married. She testified that she was asking that the trial court award her the house.
The mother testified that, during the marriage, she had a credit card on which the father had accumulated debt. She testified that, although the father was supposed to pay the

2



2090555
credit-card balance, he did not do so. She stated that, after the parties separated, she paid off the balance on the credit card in the amount of $1,600. The mother testified that, at most, she charged $200 to the credit card.
Documentary evidence was submitted indicating that the mother earned approximately $35,000 annually. She testified that she worked the second shift, which was from 3:00 p.m. to 11:30 p.m., but that she had applied to work the first shift, which was from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
The mother testified that, at the time of trial, the children spent the night at her house on Tuesdays, Thursdays, Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays and that they spent the night with the father on Mondays and Wednesdays. She stated that the marital residence, in which she continued to reside, had three bedrooms and that each of the children had his own bedroom in the home. She stated that the father was living in a two-bedroom house with his daughter and that, when the children stayed there, the younger son slept with the father in the father's bedroom and the older son slept on a couch.
The mother testified that she had been the primary caregiver of the parties' children during the marriage. She

3



2090555
credit-card balance, he did not do so. She stated that, after the parties separated, she paid off the balance on the credit card in the amount of $1,600. The mother testified that, at most, she charged $200 to the credit card.
Documentary evidence was submitted indicating that the mother earned approximately $35,000 annually. She testified that she worked the second shift, which was from 3:00 p.m. to 11:30 p.m., but that she had applied to work the first shift, which was from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
The mother testified that, at the time of trial, the children spent the night at her house on Tuesdays, Thursdays, Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays and that they spent the night with the father on Mondays and Wednesdays. She stated that the marital residence, in which she continued to reside, had three bedrooms and that each of the children had his own bedroom in the home. She stated that the father was living in a two-bedroom house with his daughter and that, when the children stayed there, the younger son slept with the father in the father's bedroom and the older son slept on a couch.
The mother testified that she had been the primary caregiver of the parties' children during the marriage. She

3



2090555
credit-card balance, he did not do so. She stated that, after the parties separated, she paid off the balance on the credit card in the amount of $1,600. The mother testified that, at most, she charged $200 to the credit card.
Documentary evidence was submitted indicating that the mother earned approximately $35,000 annually. She testified that she worked the second shift, which was from 3:00 p.m. to 11:30 p.m., but that she had applied to work the first shift, which was from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
The mother testified that, at the time of trial, the children spent the night at her house on Tuesdays, Thursdays, Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays and that they spent the night with the father on Mondays and Wednesdays. She stated that the marital residence, in which she continued to reside, had three bedrooms and that each of the children had his own bedroom in the home. She stated that the father was living in a two-bedroom house with his daughter and that, when the children stayed there, the younger son slept with the father in the father's bedroom and the older son slept on a couch.
The mother testified that she had been the primary caregiver of the parties' children during the marriage. She

3



2090555
credit-card balance, he did not do so. She stated that, after the parties separated, she paid off the balance on the credit card in the amount of $1,600. The mother testified that, at most, she charged $200 to the credit card.
Documentary evidence was submitted indicating that the mother earned approximately $35,000 annually. She testified that she worked the second shift, which was from 3:00 p.m. to 11:30 p.m., but that she had applied to work the first shift, which was from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
The mother testified that, at the time of trial, the children spent the night at her house on Tuesdays, Thursdays, Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays and that they spent the night with the father on Mondays and Wednesdays. She stated that the marital residence, in which she continued to reside, had three bedrooms and that each of the children had his own bedroom in the home. She stated that the father was living in a two-bedroom house with his daughter and that, when the children stayed there, the younger son slept with the father in the father's bedroom and the older son slept on a couch.
The mother testified that she had been the primary caregiver of the parties' children during the marriage. She

3



2090555
credit-card balance, he did not do so. She stated that, after the parties separated, she paid off the balance on the credit card in the amount of $1,600. The mother testified that, at most, she charged $200 to the credit card.
Documentary evidence was submitted indicating that the mother earned approximately $35,000 annually. She testified that she worked the second shift, which was from 3:00 p.m. to 11:30 p.m., but that she had applied to work the first shift, which was from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
The mother testified that, at the time of trial, the children spent the night at her house on Tuesdays, Thursdays, Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays and that they spent the night with the father on Mondays and Wednesdays. She stated that the marital residence, in which she continued to reside, had three bedrooms and that each of the children had his own bedroom in the home. She stated that the father was living in a two-bedroom house with his daughter and that, when the children stayed there, the younger son slept with the father in the father's bedroom and the older son slept on a couch.
The mother testified that she had been the primary caregiver of the parties' children during the marriage. She

3



2090555

testified that, since the parties separated, the only support the father had provided for the children was $350 worth of groceries, and she testified that he also had paid for the children's haircuts. She stated that, when the parties separated, she had asked the father to give her $250 per month for support of the children but that he had refused to do so.
The mother testified that she paid $65 weekly for childcare for the three-year-old child. It was undisputed that the mother paid $45 monthly for family medical insurance. She testified that the father did not contribute toward payment for those items.
The mother testified that the father was presently employed by a security company and that she had helped him with his job by printing flyers for him.
The mother testified that the parties owned two vehicles, one that she primarily had driven and one that the father primarily had driven. She testified that she wanted the court to award one of the vehicles to each of the parties. She testified that she was not seeking alimony from the father.
The father testified that he had accumulated debt of only $700 on the credit card about which the mother had testified

4



2090555

testified that, since the parties separated, the only support the father had provided for the children was $350 worth of groceries, and she testified that he also had paid for the children's haircuts. She stated that, when the parties separated, she had asked the father to give her $250 per month for support of the children but that he had refused to do so.
The mother testified that she paid $65 weekly for childcare for the three-year-old child. It was undisputed that the mother paid $45 monthly for family medical insurance. She testified that the father did not contribute toward payment for those items.
The mother testified that the father was presently employed by a security company and that she had helped him with his job by printing flyers for him.
The mother testified that the parties owned two vehicles, one that she primarily had driven and one that the father primarily had driven. She testified that she wanted the court to award one of the vehicles to each of the parties. She testified that she was not seeking alimony from the father.
The father testified that he had accumulated debt of only $700 on the credit card about which the mother had testified

4



2090555

testified that, since the parties separated, the only support the father had provided for the children was $350 worth of groceries, and she testified that he also had paid for the children's haircuts. She stated that, when the parties separated, she had asked the father to give her $250 per month for support of the children but that he had refused to do so.
The mother testified that she paid $65 weekly for childcare for the three-year-old child. It was undisputed that the mother paid $45 monthly for family medical insurance. She testified that the father did not contribute toward payment for those items.
The mother testified that the father was presently employed by a security company and that she had helped him with his job by printing flyers for him.
The mother testified that the parties owned two vehicles, one that she primarily had driven and one that the father primarily had driven. She testified that she wanted the court to award one of the vehicles to each of the parties. She testified that she was not seeking alimony from the father.
The father testified that he had accumulated debt of only $700 on the credit card about which the mother had testified

4



2090555

testified that, since the parties separated, the only support the father had provided for the children was $350 worth of groceries, and she testified that he also had paid for the children's haircuts. She stated that, when the parties separated, she had asked the father to give her $250 per month for support of the children but that he had refused to do so.
The mother testified that she paid $65 weekly for childcare for the three-year-old child. It was undisputed that the mother paid $45 monthly for family medical insurance. She testified that the father did not contribute toward payment for those items.
The mother testified that the father was presently employed by a security company and that she had helped him with his job by printing flyers for him.
The mother testified that the parties owned two vehicles, one that she primarily had driven and one that the father primarily had driven. She testified that she wanted the court to award one of the vehicles to each of the parties. She testified that she was not seeking alimony from the father.
The father testified that he had accumulated debt of only $700 on the credit card about which the mother had testified

4



2090555

testified that, since the parties separated, the only support the father had provided for the children was $350 worth of groceries, and she testified that he also had paid for the children's haircuts. She stated that, when the parties separated, she had asked the father to give her $250 per month for support of the children but that he had refused to do so.
The mother testified that she paid $65 weekly for childcare for the three-year-old child. It was undisputed that the mother paid $45 monthly for family medical insurance. She testified that the father did not contribute toward payment for those items.
The mother testified that the father was presently employed by a security company and that she had helped him with his job by printing flyers for him.
The mother testified that the parties owned two vehicles, one that she primarily had driven and one that the father primarily had driven. She testified that she wanted the court to award one of the vehicles to each of the parties. She testified that she was not seeking alimony from the father.
The father testified that he had accumulated debt of only $700 on the credit card about which the mother had testified

4



2090555
and that the mother had accumulated the remainder of the debt on the credit card. He testified that he had paid off the debt he had accumulated on the credit card.
The father testified that, from the time the parties separated in May 2008 until the mother obtained counsel in December 2008, the children spent almost every weeknight with him and the weekends with the mother. He stated that the mother began taking the children during some weeknights after her lawyer had told her that she should do so. The father stated that he had told the mother that there was no basis for giving her child support because he had physical custody of the children 20 days out of each month.
The father testified that, throughout the parties' marriage, he had provided most of the help with the children's schooling, such as school projects and homework, and that he had taught the children to read and to write. He also testified that he had performed the yard work, the cooking, and the laundry for the family during the parties' marriage.
The father testified that he had been laid off from a job with a delivery company in December 2008 and that he had acquired a new job with the security company in July 2009.

5



2090555
and that the mother had accumulated the remainder of the debt on the credit card. He testified that he had paid off the debt he had accumulated on the credit card.
The father testified that, from the time the parties separated in May 2008 until the mother obtained counsel in December 2008, the children spent almost every weeknight with him and the weekends with the mother. He stated that the mother began taking the children during some weeknights after her lawyer had told her that she should do so. The father stated that he had told the mother that there was no basis for giving her child support because he had physical custody of the children 20 days out of each month.
The father testified that, throughout the parties' marriage, he had provided most of the help with the children's schooling, such as school projects and homework, and that he had taught the children to read and to write. He also testified that he had performed the yard work, the cooking, and the laundry for the family during the parties' marriage.
The father testified that he had been laid off from a job with a delivery company in December 2008 and that he had acquired a new job with the security company in July 2009.

5



2090555
and that the mother had accumulated the remainder of the debt on the credit card. He testified that he had paid off the debt he had accumulated on the credit card.
The father testified that, from the time the parties separated in May 2008 until the mother obtained counsel in December 2008, the children spent almost every weeknight with him and the weekends with the mother. He stated that the mother began taking the children during some weeknights after her lawyer had told her that she should do so. The father stated that he had told the mother that there was no basis for giving her child support because he had physical custody of the children 20 days out of each month.
The father testified that, throughout the parties' marriage, he had provided most of the help with the children's schooling, such as school projects and homework, and that he had taught the children to read and to write. He also testified that he had performed the yard work, the cooking, and the laundry for the family during the parties' marriage.
The father testified that he had been laid off from a job with a delivery company in December 2008 and that he had acquired a new job with the security company in July 2009.

5



2090555
and that the mother had accumulated the remainder of the debt on the credit card. He testified that he had paid off the debt he had accumulated on the credit card.
The father testified that, from the time the parties separated in May 2008 until the mother obtained counsel in December 2008, the children spent almost every weeknight with him and the weekends with the mother. He stated that the mother began taking the children during some weeknights after her lawyer had told her that she should do so. The father stated that he had told the mother that there was no basis for giving her child support because he had physical custody of the children 20 days out of each month.
The father testified that, throughout the parties' marriage, he had provided most of the help with the children's schooling, such as school projects and homework, and that he had taught the children to read and to write. He also testified that he had performed the yard work, the cooking, and the laundry for the family during the parties' marriage.
The father testified that he had been laid off from a job with a delivery company in December 2008 and that he had acquired a new job with the security company in July 2009.

5



2090555
and that the mother had accumulated the remainder of the debt on the credit card. He testified that he had paid off the debt he had accumulated on the credit card.
The father testified that, from the time the parties separated in May 2008 until the mother obtained counsel in December 2008, the children spent almost every weeknight with him and the weekends with the mother. He stated that the mother began taking the children during some weeknights after her lawyer had told her that she should do so. The father stated that he had told the mother that there was no basis for giving her child support because he had physical custody of the children 20 days out of each month.
The father testified that, throughout the parties' marriage, he had provided most of the help with the children's schooling, such as school projects and homework, and that he had taught the children to read and to write. He also testified that he had performed the yard work, the cooking, and the laundry for the family during the parties' marriage.
The father testified that he had been laid off from a job with a delivery company in December 2008 and that he had acquired a new job with the security company in July 2009.

5



2090555

The father stated that he was receiving $225 in unemployment compensation in addition to whatever compensation he received from his job with the security company, which was entirely commission-based. He stated that he had an offer to work with a pharmaceutical company but that he could not start that job until he obtained a larger vehicle, which he planned to do.
At the end of the trial, the court stated that "Child-Support-Obligation Income Statement/Affidavit" forms (Forms CS-41) and a "Child-Support Guidelines" form (Form CS-42) would be completed before everyone left that day. However, copies of those forms do not appear in the record.
On January 19, 2010, the trial court entered a final judgment divorcing the parties. Among other things, the trial court awarded the parties joint legal and physical custody of the children. The court concluded that joint custody was "best after careful consideration of the fact that the mother works from 3:00-11:30 p.m. and as the father has actively been engaged and involved in raising" the children. The judgment provided that the father would have physical custody of the children during the week and that the mother would have

6



2090555

The father stated that he was receiving $225 in unemployment compensation in addition to whatever compensation he received from his job with the security company, which was entirely commission-based. He stated that he had an offer to work with a pharmaceutical company but that he could not start that job until he obtained a larger vehicle, which he planned to do.
At the end of the trial, the court stated that "Child-Support-Obligation Income Statement/Affidavit" forms (Forms CS-41) and a "Child-Support Guidelines" form (Form CS-42) would be completed before everyone left that day. However, copies of those forms do not appear in the record.
On January 19, 2010, the trial court entered a final judgment divorcing the parties. Among other things, the trial court awarded the parties joint legal and physical custody of the children. The court concluded that joint custody was "best after careful consideration of the fact that the mother works from 3:00-11:30 p.m. and as the father has actively been engaged and involved in raising" the children. The judgment provided that the father would have physical custody of the children during the week and that the mother would have

6



2090555

The father stated that he was receiving $225 in unemployment compensation in addition to whatever compensation he received from his job with the security company, which was entirely commission-based. He stated that he had an offer to work with a pharmaceutical company but that he could not start that job until he obtained a larger vehicle, which he planned to do.
At the end of the trial, the court stated that "Child-Support-Obligation Income Statement/Affidavit" forms (Forms CS-41) and a "Child-Support Guidelines" form (Form CS-42) would be completed before everyone left that day. However, copies of those forms do not appear in the record.
On January 19, 2010, the trial court entered a final judgment divorcing the parties. Among other things, the trial court awarded the parties joint legal and physical custody of the children. The court concluded that joint custody was "best after careful consideration of the fact that the mother works from 3:00-11:30 p.m. and as the father has actively been engaged and involved in raising" the children. The judgment provided that the father would have physical custody of the children during the week and that the mother would have

6



2090555

physical custody of the children from Saturday morning until Monday morning. The father was to have custody of the children during at least every fifth weekend. The judgment required the mother to pay the father monthly child support in the amount of $476 and to maintain health insurance on the children. The court ordered the parties to divide evenly the $1,600 debt on the credit card, with the father to make eight monthly payments of $100 to the mother. The trial court awarded the father 25% of the equity in the marital residence that had accrued from the date of the parties marriage until their separation, with the mother to pay the father an amount equivalent to that equity. The trial court ordered that the mother would remain the fee-simple owner of the marital residence. The mother appeals.
On appeal, the mother asserts error with regard to the property division and the child-custody provisions of the divorce judgement. The standard by which this court reviews a property division in a divorce action after a hearing at which the trial court received ore tenus evidence is well settled:
"When a trial court receives ore tenus evidence, its judgment based on that evidence is entitled to

7



2090555

physical custody of the children from Saturday morning until Monday morning. The father was to have custody of the children during at least every fifth weekend. The judgment required the mother to pay the father monthly child support in the amount of $476 and to maintain health insurance on the children. The court ordered the parties to divide evenly the $1,600 debt on the credit card, with the father to make eight monthly payments of $100 to the mother. The trial court awarded the father 25% of the equity in the marital residence that had accrued from the date of the parties marriage until their separation, with the mother to pay the father an amount equivalent to that equity. The trial court ordered that the mother would remain the fee-simple owner of the marital residence. The mother appeals.
On appeal, the mother asserts error with regard to the property division and the child-custody provisions of the divorce judgement. The standard by which this court reviews a property division in a divorce action after a hearing at which the trial court received ore tenus evidence is well settled:
"When a trial court receives ore tenus evidence, its judgment based on that evidence is entitled to

7



2090555

physical custody of the children from Saturday morning until Monday morning. The father was to have custody of the children during at least every fifth weekend. The judgment required the mother to pay the father monthly child support in the amount of $476 and to maintain health insurance on the children. The court ordered the parties to divide evenly the $1,600 debt on the credit card, with the father to make eight monthly payments of $100 to the mother. The trial court awarded the father 25% of the equity in the marital residence that had accrued from the date of the parties marriage until their separation, with the mother to pay the father an amount equivalent to that equity. The trial court ordered that the mother would remain the fee-simple owner of the marital residence. The mother appeals.
On appeal, the mother asserts error with regard to the property division and the child-custody provisions of the divorce judgement. The standard by which this court reviews a property division in a divorce action after a hearing at which the trial court received ore tenus evidence is well settled:
"When a trial court receives ore tenus evidence, its judgment based on that evidence is entitled to

7



2090555

a presumption of correctness on appeal and will not be reversed absent a showing that the trial court exceeded its discretion or that the judgment is so unsupported by the evidence as to be plainly and palpably wrong. Scholl v. Parsons, 655 So. 2d 1060, 1062 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995). This 'presumption of correctness is based in part on the trial court's unique ability to observe the parties and the witnesses and to evaluate their credibility and demeanor.' Littleton v. Littleton, 741 So. 2d 1083, 1085 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999). This court is not permitted to reweigh the evidence on appeal and substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. Somers v. McCoy, 777 So. 2d 141, 142 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000).
" When the trial court fashions a property
division following the presentation of ore tenus evidence, its judgment as to that evidence is presumed correct on appeal and will not be reversed absent a showing that the trial court exceeded its discretion or that its decision is plainly and palpably wrong. Roberts v. Roberts, 802 So. 2d 230, 235 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001); Parrish v. Parrish, 617 So. 2d 1036, 1038 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993); and Hall v. Mazzone, 486 So. 2d 408, 410 (Ala. 1986)."
Stone v. Stone, 26 So. 3d 1232, 1235-36 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009) .
Also well settled is the standard by which this court reviews
a custody determination in a divorce judgment entered after an
ore tenus hearing: "[O]ur review of custody determinations
based on ore tenus evidence is quite limited; the trial
court's custody judgment is presumed correct and should be
reversed only if the judgment is plainly and palpably wrong."
Smith v. Smith, 887 So. 2d 257, 262 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003) .

8



2090555

a presumption of correctness on appeal and will not be reversed absent a showing that the trial court exceeded its discretion or that the judgment is so unsupported by the evidence as to be plainly and palpably wrong. Scholl v. Parsons, 655 So. 2d 1060, 1062 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995). This 'presumption of correctness is based in part on the trial court's unique ability to observe the parties and the witnesses and to evaluate their credibility and demeanor.' Littleton v. Littleton, 741 So. 2d 1083, 1085 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999). This court is not permitted to reweigh the evidence on appeal and substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. Somers v. McCoy, 777 So. 2d 141, 142 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000).
" When the trial court fashions a property
division following the presentation of ore tenus evidence, its judgment as to that evidence is presumed correct on appeal and will not be reversed absent a showing that the trial court exceeded its discretion or that its decision is plainly and palpably wrong. Roberts v. Roberts, 802 So. 2d 230, 235 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001); Parrish v. Parrish, 617 So. 2d 1036, 1038 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993); and Hall v. Mazzone, 486 So. 2d 408, 410 (Ala. 1986)."
Stone v. Stone, 26 So. 3d 1232, 1235-36 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009) .
Also well settled is the standard by which this court reviews
a custody determination in a divorce judgment entered after an
ore tenus hearing: "[O]ur review of custody determinations
based on ore tenus evidence is quite limited; the trial
court's custody judgment is presumed correct and should be
reversed only if the judgment is plainly and palpably wrong."
Smith v. Smith, 887 So. 2d 257, 262 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003) .

8



2090555

a presumption of correctness on appeal and will not be reversed absent a showing that the trial court exceeded its discretion or that the judgment is so unsupported by the evidence as to be plainly and palpably wrong. Scholl v. Parsons, 655 So. 2d 1060, 1062 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995). This 'presumption of correctness is based in part on the trial court's unique ability to observe the parties and the witnesses and to evaluate their credibility and demeanor.' Littleton v. Littleton, 741 So. 2d 1083, 1085 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999). This court is not permitted to reweigh the evidence on appeal and substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. Somers v. McCoy, 777 So. 2d 141, 142 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000).
" When the trial court fashions a property
division following the presentation of ore tenus evidence, its judgment as to that evidence is presumed correct on appeal and will not be reversed absent a showing that the trial court exceeded its discretion or that its decision is plainly and palpably wrong. Roberts v. Roberts, 802 So. 2d 230, 235 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001); Parrish v. Parrish, 617 So. 2d 1036, 1038 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993); and Hall v. Mazzone, 486 So. 2d 408, 410 (Ala. 1986)."
Stone v. Stone, 26 So. 3d 1232, 1235-36 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009) .
Also well settled is the standard by which this court reviews
a custody determination in a divorce judgment entered after an
ore tenus hearing: "[O]ur review of custody determinations
based on ore tenus evidence is quite limited; the trial
court's custody judgment is presumed correct and should be
reversed only if the judgment is plainly and palpably wrong."
Smith v. Smith, 887 So. 2d 257, 262 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003) .

8



2090555

a presumption of correctness on appeal and will not be reversed absent a showing that the trial court exceeded its discretion or that the judgment is so unsupported by the evidence as to be plainly and palpably wrong. Scholl v. Parsons, 655 So. 2d 1060, 1062 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995). This 'presumption of correctness is based in part on the trial court's unique ability to observe the parties and the witnesses and to evaluate their credibility and demeanor.' Littleton v. Littleton, 741 So. 2d 1083, 1085 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999). This court is not permitted to reweigh the evidence on appeal and substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. Somers v. McCoy, 777 So. 2d 141, 142 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000).
" When the trial court fashions a property
division following the presentation of ore tenus evidence, its judgment as to that evidence is presumed correct on appeal and will not be reversed absent a showing that the trial court exceeded its discretion or that its decision is plainly and palpably wrong. Roberts v. Roberts, 802 So. 2d 230, 235 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001); Parrish v. Parrish, 617 So. 2d 1036, 1038 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993); and Hall v. Mazzone, 486 So. 2d 408, 410 (Ala. 1986)."
Stone v. Stone, 26 So. 3d 1232, 1235-36 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009) .
Also well settled is the standard by which this court reviews
a custody determination in a divorce judgment entered after an
ore tenus hearing: "[O]ur review of custody determinations
based on ore tenus evidence is quite limited; the trial
court's custody judgment is presumed correct and should be
reversed only if the judgment is plainly and palpably wrong."
Smith v. Smith, 887 So. 2d 257, 262 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003) .

8



2090555

a presumption of correctness on appeal and will not be reversed absent a showing that the trial court exceeded its discretion or that the judgment is so unsupported by the evidence as to be plainly and palpably wrong. Scholl v. Parsons, 655 So. 2d 1060, 1062 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995). This 'presumption of correctness is based in part on the trial court's unique ability to observe the parties and the witnesses and to evaluate their credibility and demeanor.' Littleton v. Littleton, 741 So. 2d 1083, 1085 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999). This court is not permitted to reweigh the evidence on appeal and substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. Somers v. McCoy, 777 So. 2d 141, 142 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000).
" When the trial court fashions a property
division following the presentation of ore tenus evidence, its judgment as to that evidence is presumed correct on appeal and will not be reversed absent a showing that the trial court exceeded its discretion or that its decision is plainly and palpably wrong. Roberts v. Roberts, 802 So. 2d 230, 235 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001); Parrish v. Parrish, 617 So. 2d 1036, 1038 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993); and Hall v. Mazzone, 486 So. 2d 408, 410 (Ala. 1986)."
Stone v. Stone, 26 So. 3d 1232, 1235-36 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009) .
Also well settled is the standard by which this court reviews
a custody determination in a divorce judgment entered after an
ore tenus hearing: "[O]ur review of custody determinations
based on ore tenus evidence is quite limited; the trial
court's custody judgment is presumed correct and should be
reversed only if the judgment is plainly and palpably wrong."
Smith v. Smith, 887 So. 2d 257, 262 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003) .

8



2090555

a presumption of correctness on appeal and will not be reversed absent a showing that the trial court exceeded its discretion or that the judgment is so unsupported by the evidence as to be plainly and palpably wrong. Scholl v. Parsons, 655 So. 2d 1060, 1062 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995). This 'presumption of correctness is based in part on the trial court's unique ability to observe the parties and the witnesses and to evaluate their credibility and demeanor.' Littleton v. Littleton, 741 So. 2d 1083, 1085 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999). This court is not permitted to reweigh the evidence on appeal and substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. Somers v. McCoy, 777 So. 2d 141, 142 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000).
" When the trial court fashions a property
division following the presentation of ore tenus evidence, its judgment as to that evidence is presumed correct on appeal and will not be reversed absent a showing that the trial court exceeded its discretion or that its decision is plainly and palpably wrong. Roberts v. Roberts, 802 So. 2d 230, 235 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001); Parrish v. Parrish, 617 So. 2d 1036, 1038 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993); and Hall v. Mazzone, 486 So. 2d 408, 410 (Ala. 1986)."
Stone v. Stone, 26 So. 3d 1232, 1235-36 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009) .
Also well settled is the standard by which this court reviews
a custody determination in a divorce judgment entered after an
ore tenus hearing: "[O]ur review of custody determinations
based on ore tenus evidence is quite limited; the trial
court's custody judgment is presumed correct and should be
reversed only if the judgment is plainly and palpably wrong."
Smith v. Smith, 887 So. 2d 257, 262 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003) .

8



2090555

a presumption of correctness on appeal and will not be reversed absent a showing that the trial court exceeded its discretion or that the judgment is so unsupported by the evidence as to be plainly and palpably wrong. Scholl v. Parsons, 655 So. 2d 1060, 1062 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995). This 'presumption of correctness is based in part on the trial court's unique ability to observe the parties and the witnesses and to evaluate their credibility and demeanor.' Littleton v. Littleton, 741 So. 2d 1083, 1085 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999). This court is not permitted to reweigh the evidence on appeal and substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. Somers v. McCoy, 777 So. 2d 141, 142 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000).
" When the trial court fashions a property
division following the presentation of ore tenus evidence, its judgment as to that evidence is presumed correct on appeal and will not be reversed absent a showing that the trial court exceeded its discretion or that its decision is plainly and palpably wrong. Roberts v. Roberts, 802 So. 2d 230, 235 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001); Parrish v. Parrish, 617 So. 2d 1036, 1038 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993); and Hall v. Mazzone, 486 So. 2d 408, 410 (Ala. 1986)."
Stone v. Stone, 26 So. 3d 1232, 1235-36 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009) .
Also well settled is the standard by which this court reviews
a custody determination in a divorce judgment entered after an
ore tenus hearing: "[O]ur review of custody determinations
based on ore tenus evidence is quite limited; the trial
court's custody judgment is presumed correct and should be
reversed only if the judgment is plainly and palpably wrong."
Smith v. Smith, 887 So. 2d 257, 262 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003) .

8



2090555

a presumption of correctness on appeal and will not be reversed absent a showing that the trial court exceeded its discretion or that the judgment is so unsupported by the evidence as to be plainly and palpably wrong. Scholl v. Parsons, 655 So. 2d 1060, 1062 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995). This 'presumption of correctness is based in part on the trial court's unique ability to observe the parties and the witnesses and to evaluate their credibility and demeanor.' Littleton v. Littleton, 741 So. 2d 1083, 1085 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999). This court is not permitted to reweigh the evidence on appeal and substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. Somers v. McCoy, 777 So. 2d 141, 142 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000).
" When the trial court fashions a property
division following the presentation of ore tenus evidence, its judgment as to that evidence is presumed correct on appeal and will not be reversed absent a showing that the trial court exceeded its discretion or that its decision is plainly and palpably wrong. Roberts v. Roberts, 802 So. 2d 230, 235 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001); Parrish v. Parrish, 617 So. 2d 1036, 1038 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993); and Hall v. Mazzone, 486 So. 2d 408, 410 (Ala. 1986)."
Stone v. Stone, 26 So. 3d 1232, 1235-36 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009) .
Also well settled is the standard by which this court reviews
a custody determination in a divorce judgment entered after an
ore tenus hearing: "[O]ur review of custody determinations
based on ore tenus evidence is quite limited; the trial
court's custody judgment is presumed correct and should be
reversed only if the judgment is plainly and palpably wrong."
Smith v. Smith, 887 So. 2d 257, 262 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003) .

8



2090555

a presumption of correctness on appeal and will not be reversed absent a showing that the trial court exceeded its discretion or that the judgment is so unsupported by the evidence as to be plainly and palpably wrong. Scholl v. Parsons, 655 So. 2d 1060, 1062 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995). This 'presumption of correctness is based in part on the trial court's unique ability to observe the parties and the witnesses and to evaluate their credibility and demeanor.' Littleton v. Littleton, 741 So. 2d 1083, 1085 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999). This court is not permitted to reweigh the evidence on appeal and substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. Somers v. McCoy, 777 So. 2d 141, 142 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000).
" When the trial court fashions a property
division following the presentation of ore tenus evidence, its judgment as to that evidence is presumed correct on appeal and will not be reversed absent a showing that the trial court exceeded its discretion or that its decision is plainly and palpably wrong. Roberts v. Roberts, 802 So. 2d 230, 235 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001); Parrish v. Parrish, 617 So. 2d 1036, 1038 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993); and Hall v. Mazzone, 486 So. 2d 408, 410 (Ala. 1986)."
Stone v. Stone, 26 So. 3d 1232, 1235-36 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009) .
Also well settled is the standard by which this court reviews
a custody determination in a divorce judgment entered after an
ore tenus hearing: "[O]ur review of custody determinations
based on ore tenus evidence is quite limited; the trial
court's custody judgment is presumed correct and should be
reversed only if the judgment is plainly and palpably wrong."
Smith v. Smith, 887 So. 2d 257, 262 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003) .

8



2090555

a presumption of correctness on appeal and will not be reversed absent a showing that the trial court exceeded its discretion or that the judgment is so unsupported by the evidence as to be plainly and palpably wrong. Scholl v. Parsons, 655 So. 2d 1060, 1062 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995). This 'presumption of correctness is based in part on the trial court's unique ability to observe the parties and the witnesses and to evaluate their credibility and demeanor.' Littleton v. Littleton, 741 So. 2d 1083, 1085 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999). This court is not permitted to reweigh the evidence on appeal and substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. Somers v. McCoy, 777 So. 2d 141, 142 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000).
" When the trial court fashions a property
division following the presentation of ore tenus evidence, its judgment as to that evidence is presumed correct on appeal and will not be reversed absent a showing that the trial court exceeded its discretion or that its decision is plainly and palpably wrong. Roberts v. Roberts, 802 So. 2d 230, 235 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001); Parrish v. Parrish, 617 So. 2d 1036, 1038 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993); and Hall v. Mazzone, 486 So. 2d 408, 410 (Ala. 1986)."
Stone v. Stone, 26 So. 3d 1232, 1235-36 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009) .
Also well settled is the standard by which this court reviews
a custody determination in a divorce judgment entered after an
ore tenus hearing: "[O]ur review of custody determinations
based on ore tenus evidence is quite limited; the trial
court's custody judgment is presumed correct and should be
reversed only if the judgment is plainly and palpably wrong."
Smith v. Smith, 887 So. 2d 257, 262 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003) .

8



2090555

a presumption of correctness on appeal and will not be reversed absent a showing that the trial court exceeded its discretion or that the judgment is so unsupported by the evidence as to be plainly and palpably wrong. Scholl v. Parsons, 655 So. 2d 1060, 1062 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995). This 'presumption of correctness is based in part on the trial court's unique ability to observe the parties and the witnesses and to evaluate their credibility and demeanor.' Littleton v. Littleton, 741 So. 2d 1083, 1085 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999). This court is not permitted to reweigh the evidence on appeal and substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. Somers v. McCoy, 777 So. 2d 141, 142 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000).
" When the trial court fashions a property
division following the presentation of ore tenus evidence, its judgment as to that evidence is presumed correct on appeal and will not be reversed absent a showing that the trial court exceeded its discretion or that its decision is plainly and palpably wrong. Roberts v. Roberts, 802 So. 2d 230, 235 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001); Parrish v. Parrish, 617 So. 2d 1036, 1038 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993); and Hall v. Mazzone, 486 So. 2d 408, 410 (Ala. 1986)."
Stone v. Stone, 26 So. 3d 1232, 1235-36 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009) .
Also well settled is the standard by which this court reviews
a custody determination in a divorce judgment entered after an
ore tenus hearing: "[O]ur review of custody determinations
based on ore tenus evidence is quite limited; the trial
court's custody judgment is presumed correct and should be
reversed only if the judgment is plainly and palpably wrong."
Smith v. Smith, 887 So. 2d 257, 262 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003) .

8



2090555

The mother contends that the trial court erred in awarding the parties joint custody of the children. She argues that, in her house, each child has his own bedroom, while, in the father's house, neither child has a bedroom. Instead, when staying with the father, one of the children sleeps with the father while the other child sleeps on a sofa. She also argues that the father does not have a sufficient income to provide for the needs of the children. She points out that the father testified that she is a good mother.
In Graham v. Graham, 640 So. 2d 963, 964 (Ala. Civ. App.
1994), this court wrote:
"In an action between parents seeking an initial award of custody, the parties stand on equal footing and no presumption inures to either parent. Hall v. Hall, 571 So. 2d 1176 (Ala. Civ. App. 1990). The trial court's overriding consideration is the children's best interests and welfare. Santmier v.  Santmier, 494 So. 2d 95 (Ala. Civ. App. 1986) . The factors that enter into the court's custody determination include the child's age and sex and each parent's ability to provide for the child's educational, material, moral, and social needs. Tims v. Tims, 519 So. 2d 558 (Ala. Civ. App. 1987). Likewise, it is proper for the court to consider the 'characteristics of those seeking custody, including age, character, stability, mental and physical health ... [and] the interpersonal relationship between each child and each parent.' Ex parte  Devine, 398 So. 2d 686, 696-97 (Ala. 1981)."

9



2090555

The mother contends that the trial court erred in awarding the parties joint custody of the children. She argues that, in her house, each child has his own bedroom, while, in the father's house, neither child has a bedroom. Instead, when staying with the father, one of the children sleeps with the father while the other child sleeps on a sofa. She also argues that the father does not have a sufficient income to provide for the needs of the children. She points out that the father testified that she is a good mother.
In Graham v. Graham, 640 So. 2d 963, 964 (Ala. Civ. App.
1994), this court wrote:
"In an action between parents seeking an initial award of custody, the parties stand on equal footing and no presumption inures to either parent. Hall v. Hall, 571 So. 2d 1176 (Ala. Civ. App. 1990). The trial court's overriding consideration is the children's best interests and welfare. Santmier v.  Santmier, 494 So. 2d 95 (Ala. Civ. App. 1986) . The factors that enter into the court's custody determination include the child's age and sex and each parent's ability to provide for the child's educational, material, moral, and social needs. Tims v. Tims, 519 So. 2d 558 (Ala. Civ. App. 1987). Likewise, it is proper for the court to consider the 'characteristics of those seeking custody, including age, character, stability, mental and physical health ... [and] the interpersonal relationship between each child and each parent.' Ex parte  Devine, 398 So. 2d 686, 696-97 (Ala. 1981)."

9



2090555

The mother contends that the trial court erred in awarding the parties joint custody of the children. She argues that, in her house, each child has his own bedroom, while, in the father's house, neither child has a bedroom. Instead, when staying with the father, one of the children sleeps with the father while the other child sleeps on a sofa. She also argues that the father does not have a sufficient income to provide for the needs of the children. She points out that the father testified that she is a good mother.
In Graham v. Graham, 640 So. 2d 963, 964 (Ala. Civ. App.
1994), this court wrote:
"In an action between parents seeking an initial award of custody, the parties stand on equal footing and no presumption inures to either parent. Hall v. Hall, 571 So. 2d 1176 (Ala. Civ. App. 1990). The trial court's overriding consideration is the children's best interests and welfare. Santmier v.  Santmier, 494 So. 2d 95 (Ala. Civ. App. 1986) . The factors that enter into the court's custody determination include the child's age and sex and each parent's ability to provide for the child's educational, material, moral, and social needs. Tims v. Tims, 519 So. 2d 558 (Ala. Civ. App. 1987). Likewise, it is proper for the court to consider the 'characteristics of those seeking custody, including age, character, stability, mental and physical health ... [and] the interpersonal relationship between each child and each parent.' Ex parte  Devine, 398 So. 2d 686, 696-97 (Ala. 1981)."

9



2090555

The mother contends that the trial court erred in awarding the parties joint custody of the children. She argues that, in her house, each child has his own bedroom, while, in the father's house, neither child has a bedroom. Instead, when staying with the father, one of the children sleeps with the father while the other child sleeps on a sofa. She also argues that the father does not have a sufficient income to provide for the needs of the children. She points out that the father testified that she is a good mother.
In Graham v. Graham, 640 So. 2d 963, 964 (Ala. Civ. App.
1994), this court wrote:
"In an action between parents seeking an initial award of custody, the parties stand on equal footing and no presumption inures to either parent. Hall v. Hall, 571 So. 2d 1176 (Ala. Civ. App. 1990). The trial court's overriding consideration is the children's best interests and welfare. Santmier v.  Santmier, 494 So. 2d 95 (Ala. Civ. App. 1986) . The factors that enter into the court's custody determination include the child's age and sex and each parent's ability to provide for the child's educational, material, moral, and social needs. Tims v. Tims, 519 So. 2d 558 (Ala. Civ. App. 1987). Likewise, it is proper for the court to consider the 'characteristics of those seeking custody, including age, character, stability, mental and physical health ... [and] the interpersonal relationship between each child and each parent.' Ex parte  Devine, 398 So. 2d 686, 696-97 (Ala. 1981)."

9



2090555

Section 30-3-152(a), Ala. Code 1975, provides, in pertinent part: "The court shall in every case consider joint custody but may award any form of custody which is determined to be in the best interest of the child."
In the present case, the trial court had before it evidence indicating that the mother had a job that kept her away from her house from 3:00 p.m. until 11:30 p.m. every weekday. There was also evidence indicating that, during the parties' marriage, the father had provided most of the educational support for the children and that he had performed the bulk of the domestic duties in the home. Also, there was evidence indicating that the custody arrangement the trial court ordered was modeled on the arrangement the parties had in place between the time of the separation and when the mother's attorney suggested to her that she exercise more custody of the children. As to the mother's argument that the father was unable to financially support the children, we note that the father testified that he is now employed, and we also note that the trial court ordered the mother to pay child support to the father.

10



2090555

Section 30-3-152(a), Ala. Code 1975, provides, in pertinent part: "The court shall in every case consider joint custody but may award any form of custody which is determined to be in the best interest of the child."
In the present case, the trial court had before it evidence indicating that the mother had a job that kept her away from her house from 3:00 p.m. until 11:30 p.m. every weekday. There was also evidence indicating that, during the parties' marriage, the father had provided most of the educational support for the children and that he had performed the bulk of the domestic duties in the home. Also, there was evidence indicating that the custody arrangement the trial court ordered was modeled on the arrangement the parties had in place between the time of the separation and when the mother's attorney suggested to her that she exercise more custody of the children. As to the mother's argument that the father was unable to financially support the children, we note that the father testified that he is now employed, and we also note that the trial court ordered the mother to pay child support to the father.

10



2090555

Based on the foregoing evidence, we conclude that the trial court's judgment awarding the parties joint custody and dividing the time the children would spend with each parent is not plainly and palpably wrong. As a result, that portion of the judgment is due to be affirmed.
The mother next contends that the trial court erred when it awarded the father 25% of the equity in the marital residence that had accrued between the time the parties married and when they separated. She argues that the father did not present any evidence indicating that he was entitled to "any property of the mother."
Of property divisions in divorce judgments, this court has written:
"A property division is required to be equitable, not equal, and a determination of what is equitable rests within the broad discretion of the trial court. Parrish [v. Parrish], 617 So. 2d [1036] at 1038 [(Ala. Civ. App. 1993)]. In fashioning a property division and an award of alimony, the trial court must consider factors such as the earning capacities of the parties; their future prospects; their ages, health, and station in life; the length of the parties' marriage; and the source, value, and type of marital property. Robinson v. Robinson, 795 So. 2d 729, 734 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001). '[W]e note that there is no rigid standard or mathematical formula on which a trial court must base its determination of ali

Download 2090555.pdf

Alabama Law