K.M. v. B.W.C.

Rel: July 11, 2025

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) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections
may be made before the opinion is published in Southern Reporter.

ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
SPECIAL TERM, 2025
_________________________

CL-2025-0222
_________________________

K.M.

v.

B.W.C.

Appeal from Limestone Juvenile Court
(CS-12-900110.04)

MOORE, Presiding Judge.

K.M. ("the mother") appeals from a judgment entered by the

Limestone Juvenile Court ("the juvenile court") that, among other things,

modified the custody of K.R.M. ("the child") and declined to hold B.W.C.
CL-2025-0222

("the father") in contempt of court. We affirm the judgment in part and

reverse the judgment in part.

Background

The child was born on April 6, 2012, to the mother and the father,

who were not married. According to the father, the juvenile court entered

an order on April 25, 2013, that incorporated an agreement of the parties,

pursuant to which, he said, the parties were awarded joint legal custody

of the child, the mother was awarded sole physical custody of the child,

subject to the father's graduated visitation schedule, and the father was

directed to pay child support to the mother. Before the commencement

of this action, the parties had been before the juvenile court on at least

two additional occasions, and, according to the father, the most recent

judgment was entered in March 2022 ("the 2022 judgment"). The father

acknowledged that the 2022 judgment awarded the mother sole physical

custody of the child and awarded him standard visitation, which he

exercised on the first and third weekends of the month, on Thursday

evenings after school until the following morning, and on rotating

holidays and which was to be supervised by the child's paternal

grandmother, G.C. ("the paternal grandmother"). Additionally, the 2022

2
CL-2025-0222

judgment awarded the mother $17,682.06, representing the father's

unpaid child-support arrearages.

On March 8, 2024, the father filed a petition to modify the child's

custody; he asserted, among other things, that the child "is desirous of

living away from the [mother's] current husband," that there is a

"contentious relationship between the child and her stepfather," and that

he had "recently bec[o]me aware that the stepfather [had] slapped the …

child in the face" and that that "may not have been an isolated incident."

The father sought an award of sole physical custody of the child and an

accompanying modification of child support. On March 22, 2024, the

mother, appearing pro se, filed an answer to the father's petition. On

April 29, 2024, counsel filed a notice of appearance on behalf of the

mother, and the mother filed an amended answer and a counterclaim in

which she sought an award of sole legal custody of the child, an order

prohibiting the child from using social media at the father's house, an

order calculating and awarding interest on the father's outstanding child-

support arrearage, and an order increasing the father's monthly

payments toward that arrearage. The father filed a reply to the mother's

counterclaim. On November 1, 2024, the mother filed a motion seeking

3
CL-2025-0222

to hold the father in contempt, in which she asserted that the father had

frequently visited the child unsupervised in contravention of the 2022

judgment.

On February 18, 2025, a trial was conducted; the mother was not

present at the trial, but she was represented by counsel. On March 3,

2025, the juvenile court entered a judgment modifying custody of the

child by awarding the father sole physical custody, subject to an award

of standard visitation to the mother. The juvenile court declined to award

child support and denied all remaining requested relief by the parties.

On March 4, 2025, the mother filed a postjudgment motion. On March

27, 2025, the mother filed her notice of appeal to this court. The mother's

notice of appeal was held in abeyance until April 1, 2025, when her

postjudgment motion was denied by operation of law.1 See Rule 1(B),

Ala. R. Juv. P., and Rule 4(a)(5), Ala. R. App. P.

1On March 5, 2025, the juvenile court entered an order setting the

mother's postjudgment motion for a hearing to be held on April 1, 2025.
On that same day, in response to a motion filed by the mother, the
juvenile court entered an order that we interpret as an order extending
the 14-day period for ruling on the mother's postjudgment motion for an
additional 14 days. See Rule 1(B)(1), Ala. R. Juv. P. On April 2, 2025,
following the April 1, 2025, hearing, the juvenile court purported to enter
an order denying the mother's postjudgment motion. Because the
juvenile court's 14-day extension to rule on the mother's postjudgment
4
CL-2025-0222

Facts

The father admitted that the requirement in the 2022 judgment

that his visitation with the child be supervised by the paternal

grandmother, with whom he resides, had been based on his having

enrolled in a pretrial-diversion program. He testified that, over time, he

had observed that the child, who was 12 years old at the time of the trial,

was demonstrating negative emotions when she arrived at the father's

house for visitation after leaving the mother's house and again before

leaving the father's house to return to the mother's house. The father

stated that the child had expressed eagerness when the time came for

her to visit the father, "[l]ike she was being set free almost," and that she

had expressed sadness and had appeared "regretful" to return to the

mother and "didn't care to go back" to the mother's house.

The father testified that the mother had entered into a relationship

with another man ("the stepfather")2 shortly after the child was born,

motion expired on April 1, 2025, however, the motion was deemed denied
by operation of law on that date. See Rule 1(B).

2Although both the mother and the father made references to the

mother's current "husband" and referred to him as the child's stepfather
in their respective pleadings, the father testified that he was uncertain
whether the mother and the stepfather are legally married. We refer to
5
CL-2025-0222

that the stepfather has an older daughter ("the stepsister"), that the

mother and the stepfather have a four-year-old son together ("the half

brother"), and that the child resides with the mother, the stepfather, the

stepsister, and the half brother. According to the father, at some point,

the child had expressed that she did not want to be around the stepfather;

he said that he had attributed the child's negative emotions to her home

life with the mother. He stated that, on one occasion before he filed his

modification petition, the child had arrived at his house for a visit and

had appeared uncomfortable and that, on another occasion, she had

shown him some bruising on the back of her leg. The paternal

grandmother also testified that she had occasionally seen bruises on the

child. She stated that she did not know where the bruises had come from,

that she knew that the child would fight with the stepsister, and that she

knew that the stepfather "might be a little bit rough" but that she did

not know "if he's playing or what." The paternal grandmother stated that

she and the mother often communicated via text messages but that she

the man with whom the mother is in a relationship as "the stepfather"
based on repeated references to him as such throughout the record on
appeal.
6
CL-2025-0222

had not sent a text message to the mother regarding the bruising on the

child.

The paternal grandmother testified that she and the mother had

exchanged text messages regarding the child's use of social media when

she was visiting the father. She stated that, a few years before the trial,

the child had been permitted to use the paternal grandmother's cellular

telephone and the father's old cellular telephone to connect to the

Internet and that the mother had expressed her disapproval and

concerns because the child had posted inappropriate photographs and

other content on social media. The paternal grandmother testified that

she does not "have TikTok," a social-media application, and that she does

not "know really anything about it." She testified that the mother had

sent her a message indicating that the child had asked the paternal

grandmother to use her cellular telephone to delete the child's social-

media accounts; the paternal grandmother stated that she "did not know

how to do that." The paternal grandmother also testified that she had

shared the mother's concerns about the child's social-media presence in

past years, but, she said, the child had "learned her lesson and she's a

child and she will continue to learn a lesson." Despite her having

7
CL-2025-0222

reassured the mother that she and the father would try to keep the child

from accessing social media, the paternal grandmother testified that the

father had purchased for the child a "smartphone" that could access

social-media applications. She stated that the child had been told to keep

the telephone away from the mother's house because she and the father

knew that the mother would not approve of the child's having the phone.

The father admitted that he had allowed the child to access social-

media accounts because she has good school attendance, maintains good

grades, behaves well, and does her chores around the house. He testified

that he monitors the child's social-media use. The father admitted,

however, that the child has an account on TikTok, a social-media

application, but that he was not aware of her username on that account.

He acknowledged that the mother had expressed concerns regarding his

purchasing a cellular telephone for the child.

The father testified that he began working for the City of Huntsville

on May 16, 2022, that he continued to maintain that employment at the

time of the trial, and that he worked from 3:00 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on

weekdays. He stated that he has "had some day shift interviews" and

that, if he were to be awarded custody, the paternal grandmother would

8
CL-2025-0222

supervise the child when he is at work. According to the father, he drinks

alcohol on weekends, including, "[o]n occasion," those weekends that he

exercises visitation with the child and "occasionally" during the week. He

stated that he and the child wanted the child's custody to be modified to

allow the child to reside with him.

The paternal grandmother testified that, although she is identified

as the supervisor of the father's visits with the child, she had allowed the

father to travel in an automobile alone with the child; she stated that the

father had taken the child and the child's boyfriend to a movie without

her and that the father had taken the child to school without her "a couple

of times." The father also testified that he and his girlfriend had taken

the child and the child's boyfriend to a movie on a Sunday evening outside

the presence of the paternal grandmother and that they had returned

home at 11:00 p.m. or 12:00 a.m. that night.

Discussion

The mother first argues on appeal that the juvenile court erred in

awarding the father sole physical custody of the child because, she says,

the father failed to meet the burden for a modification of custody set forth

in Ex parte McLendon, 455 So. 2d 863 (Ala. 1984). We agree. This court

9
CL-2025-0222

outlined the applicable standard of review in Walker v. Lanier, 180 So.

3d 39, 42 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015):

" 'When evidence in a child custody case has
been presented ore tenus to the trial court, that
court's findings of fact based on that evidence are
presumed to be correct. The trial court is in the
best position to make a custody determination -- it
hears the evidence and observes the witnesses.
Appellate courts do not sit in judgment of disputed
evidence that was presented ore tenus before the
trial court in a custody hearing. See Ex parte
Perkins, 646 So. 2d 46, 47 (Ala. 1994), wherein this
Court, quoting Phillips v. Phillips, 622 So. 2d 410,
412 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993), set out the well-
established rule:

" ' " 'Our standard of review is very
limited in cases where the evidence is
presented ore tenus. A custody
determination of the trial court entered
upon oral testimony is accorded a
presumption of correctness on appeal,
Payne v. Payne, 550 So. 2d 440 (Ala.
Civ. App. 1989), and Vail v. Vail, 532
So. 2d 639 (Ala. Civ. App. 1988), and we
will not reverse unless the evidence so
fails to support the determination that
it is plainly and palpably wrong, or
unless an abuse of the trial court's
discretion is shown. To substitute our
judgment for that of the trial court
would be to reweigh the evidence. This
Alabama law does not allow. Gamble v.
Gamble, 562 So. 2d 1343 (Ala. Civ. App.
1990); Flowers v. Flowers, 479 So. 2d
1257 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985).' "

10
CL-2025-0222

" 'It is also well established that in the absence of
specific findings of fact, appellate courts will
assume that the trial court made those findings
necessary to support its judgment, unless such
findings would be clearly erroneous.'

"Ex parte Bryowsky, 676 So. 2d 1322, 1324 (Ala. 1996).

"The law is well settled that '[a] parent seeking to
modify a custody judgment awarding primary physical
custody to the other parent must meet the standard for
modification of custody set forth in Ex parte McLendon[, 455
So. 2d 863 (Ala. 1984)].' Adams v. Adams, 21 So. 3d 1247, 1252
(Ala. Civ. App. 2009). The custody-modification standard set
forth in Ex parte McLendon, 455 So. 2d 863 (Ala. 1984),
requires that

" 'the noncustodial parent seeking a change of
custody must demonstrate (1) "that he or she is a
fit custodian"; (2) "that material changes which
affect the child's welfare have occurred"; and (3)
"that the positive good brought about by the
change in custody will more than offset the
disruptive effect of uprooting the child." Kunkel v.
Kunkel, 547 So. 2d 555, 560 (Ala. Civ. App. 1989)
(citing, among other cases, Ex parte McLendon,
455 So. 2d 863, 865-66 (Ala. 1984) (setting forth
three factors a noncustodial parent must
demonstrate in order to modify custody)).'

"McCormick v. Ethridge, 15 So. 3d 524, 527 (Ala. Civ. App.
2008). It is not sufficient for a noncustodial parent seeking a
modification of custody to show that he or she is a fit
custodian. Id. The noncustodial parent must prove all three
McLendon factors in order to warrant a modification of
custody. Id."

11
CL-2025-0222

The mother argues that the father failed to present evidence

indicating that a material change of circumstances affecting the child's

welfare had occurred, that a modification of custody would materially

promote the child's welfare, or that the positive good resulting from that

modification would more than offset the disruptive effect of uprooting the

child. In S.L.L. v. L.S., 47 So. 3d 1271, 1279 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010), this

court stated, in pertinent part:

" 'In order to prove a material change of
circumstances, the noncustodial parent must
present sufficient evidence indicating (1) that
there has been a change in the circumstances
existing at the time of the original custody
judgment or that facts have been revealed that
were unknown at the time of that judgment, see
Stephens v. Stephens, 47 Ala. App. 396, 399, 255
So. 2d 338, 340-41 (Civ. App. 1971), and (2) that
the change in circumstances is such as to affect the
welfare and best interests of the child. Ford v.
Ford, 293 Ala. 743, 310 So. 2d 234 (1975). The
noncustodial parent does not have to prove that
the change in circumstances has adversely
affected the welfare of the child, but he or she may
satisfy the first element of the McLendon test by
proving that the change in circumstances
materially promotes the best interests of the child.
Id.'

"C.D.K.S. v. K.W.K., 40 So. 3d 736, 739-740 (Ala. Civ. App.
2009). Regarding the burden placed on the parent seeking to
modify custody, this court has stated: ' " '[T]his is a rule of
repose, allowing the child, whose welfare is paramount, the

12
CL-2025-0222

valuable benefit of stability and the right to put down into its
environment those roots necessary for the child's healthy
growth into adolescence and adulthood.' " ' Pitts v. Priest, 990
So. 2d 917, 922 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008) (quoting Ex parte
McLendon, 455 So. 2d at 865, quoting in turn Wood v. Wood,
333 So. 2d 826, 828 (Ala. Civ. App. 1976))."

In the present case, as asserted by the mother, the father failed to

present evidence indicating that the reason that his visitation was

required to be supervised -- his entry into a pretrial-diversion

program -- had been resolved by the time of the trial. Although the father

testified that the child had exhibited negative emotions related to her

time at the mother's house and that, at some point, she had expressed

that she did not want to be around the stepfather, the father failed to

present evidence regarding the child's reasons for not wanting to be

around the stepfather. Similarly, although evidence was presented

indicating that the child had exhibited bruising at times, the father failed

to present evidence regarding the source of the bruising. The father's

testimony establishes that the stepfather and the mother had been in a

relationship since shortly after the child was born and that the half

brother had been born to them before the 2022 judgment was entered;

thus, the stepfather's presence in the child's life and in the mother's

house does not represent a change of circumstances since the entry of the

13
CL-2025-0222

2022 judgment. The father testified that the child desired to reside with

him. We note, however, that, "although the preference of [a] child is a

factor a trial court may consider with regard to custody, it is not

controlling." J.K.M. v. T.L.M., 212 So. 3d 931, 939 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016).

Even assuming that the evidence presented by the father indicates

that a material change of circumstances had occurred, we cannot

conclude that the father has presented sufficient evidence indicating that

a change of custody will materially promote the child's welfare. "The

McLendon standard is designed 'to minimize disruptive changes of

custody because this Court presumes that stability is inherently more

beneficial to a child than disruption.' Ex parte Cleghorn, 993 So. 2d [462]

at 468 [(Ala. 2008)]." K.U. v. J.C., 196 So. 3d 265, 272 (Ala. Civ. App.

2015). The father testified that the child performs well in school,

maintains good grades, and exhibits good behavior. In fact, the only

evidence of the child misbehaving related to the child's use of social media

when at the father's house, despite the mother's disapproval. The father

works from 3:00 p.m. until 11:30 p.m. on weekdays; thus, the paternal

grandmother would be providing for the majority of the child's care and

supervision on the days that the child attends school. The paternal

14
CL-2025-0222

grandmother testified, however, that, although she had been ordered to

supervise the father's visitation with the child, she had allowed the father

to exercise visitation with the child outside of her presence. Additionally,

the paternal grandmother testified that she did not know how to delete

social-media applications from her cellular telephone and that she was

unfamiliar with certain social-media applications. Thus, there is no

indication that a modification of custody would promote the child's

welfare or that the positive good brought about by the change in custody

would offset the inherently disruptive effect of uprooting the child from

the home in which she has resided with the mother for her entire life.

Because the evidence presented fails to meet the burden outlined

in McLendon, we reverse the juvenile court's judgment insofar as it

modified custody of the child.

The mother also argues on appeal that the juvenile court erred in

declining to hold the father in contempt despite his admission that he

had attended a movie with the child outside the presence of the paternal

grandmother and the paternal grandmother's testimony indicating that

she had twice allowed the father to drive the child to school without her.

" 'The issue whether to hold a party in contempt is solely
within the discretion of the trial court, and a trial court's

15
CL-2025-0222

contempt determination will not be reversed on appeal absent
a showing that the trial court acted outside its discretion or
that its judgment is not supported by the evidence.' Poh v.
Poh, 64 So. 3d 49, 61 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010). 'To hold a party
in contempt under either Rule 70A(a)(2)(C)(ii) or (D), Ala. R.
Civ. P., the trial court must find that the party willfully failed
or refused to comply with a court order.' T.L.D. v. C.G., 849
So. 2d 200, 205 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002)."

J.S.S. v. D.P.S., 281 So. 3d 434, 437-38 (Ala. Civ. App. 2019).

Although the evidence presented indicates that the father had

exercised visitation with the child outside the supervision of the paternal

grandmother on three occasions, the mother failed to elicit evidence from

the father indicating the reasons for those unsupervised interactions or

that his actions in contravention of the terms of the 2022 judgment were

willful. Accordingly, we decline to reverse that part of the juvenile court's

judgment declining to hold the father in contempt of court.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, we reverse the juvenile court's judgment

insofar as it modified the custody of the child, and we remand the case

for the entry of a judgment consistent with this opinion. We affirm the

judgment insofar as the juvenile court declined to hold the father in

contempt.

16
CL-2025-0222

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED

WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

Edwards, Hanson, Fridy, and Bowden, JJ., concur.

17