Stephanie Lawder v. Steven Wade Alexander (Appeal from Etowah Circuit Court: DR-18-900122.02).

Rel: May 23, 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
OCTOBER TERM, 2024-2025
_________________________

CL-2024-0570
_________________________

Stephanie Lawder

v.

Steven Wade Alexander

Appeal from Etowah Circuit Court
(DR-18-900122.02)

PER CURIAM.

Stephanie Lawder ("the mother") appeals from a judgment of the

Etowah Circuit Court ("the trial court") insofar as it denied her visitation

with B.M.A. ("the child") and found that she owed Steven Wade

Alexander ("the father") past-due child support and interest thereon
CL-2024-0570

totaling $2,739.32. For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm the

judgment in part and reverse it in part, and we remand the case with

instructions.

Background

The mother gave birth to the child in March 2016, while she was

married to the father. The trial court divorced the parties in February

2020. Subsequently, the trial court entered a postdivorce judgment in

May 2022 that provided that the parties would exercise custody of the

child pursuant to a "week-on/week-off" schedule and that the mother

would pay the father child support in the amount of $250.92 per month.

It appears that, in June 2022, the trial court modified the May 2022

judgment to reduce the mother's child-support obligation to $224.10 per

month.

On November 21, 2022, the mother filed a petition asking the trial

court to hold the father in contempt for his allegedly refusing to allow her

to exercise custody of the child during the periods when she was entitled

to do so pursuant to the May 2022 postdivorce judgment. She alleged that

the father had not allowed her to speak to the child since September 14,

2022. The father filed an answer to the mother's petition and a verified

2
CL-2024-0570

motion asking the trial court either to suspend the mother's visitation or

to require that her visitation be supervised because, he said, the mother

was mentally unstable and posed a danger to the child. The father's

verified motion also requested that the trial court find the mother in

contempt for her alleged failure to pay child support for the child in a

timely manner and to require the mother to undergo a mental evaluation

before she was allowed to visit the child.

In response to the father's verified motion, the trial court, on

December 8, 2022, entered an order suspending the mother's

unsupervised visitation with the child and granting her supervised

visitation with the child for three hours every Sunday and "reasonable

FaceTime [videoconferencing] visits with the … child, supervised by the

father, pending the hearing set in this case." On March 8, 2023, the trial

court held a hearing regarding the parties' contempt motions. On March

17, 2023, the trial court entered an order appointing a guardian ad litem

to protect the interests of the child; granting the mother visitation by

cellular telephone or social media on Mondays, Wednesdays, and

Fridays; ordering the mother to undergo a mental-health evaluation at

CED Mental Health Center ("CED"); ordering the mother to provide the

3
CL-2024-0570

trial court with the mental-health evaluation; ordering the parties to set

up a one-hour visitation each week at the Family Success Center; and

restraining the mother from entering the apartment complex where the

father lived.

On March 17, 2023, the father filed a motion asking the trial court

to temporarily suspend the mother's visitation and to amend the

restraining order to prohibit the mother from coming within 500 feet of

the child and the father because, he said, the mother had allegedly

behaved in a manner that indicated to the father that she might be

dangerous to herself, the child, and the father. He attached to the motion

a copy of a social-media post in which the mother said: "I hope people

take me seriously when I say I will kill anyone and everyone over my 2

children.[1] I 1000% percent mean that. Be smart. It's not hard. I don't

threaten or harm other people's children."

On March 3, 2023, the trial court entered an order noting that the

mother had made threats in her social-media posts, again ordering the

mother to undergo a mental-health evaluation, temporarily suspending

1The mother has another child who was fathered by a man who is

not the father of the child in this case.
4
CL-2024-0570

the mother's visitation at the Family Success Center, allowing the

mother's supervised visitation by cellular telephone to continue,

amending the restraining order to prohibit the mother from coming

within 500 feet of the child or the father, and ordering the mother to file

a notice informing the trial court when she had scheduled a mental-

health evaluation.

Thereafter, the mother, acting pro se, filed a handwritten letter to

the trial court in which she disputed the finding that she had made

threats in her social-media posts, alleged that the father was harassing

and bullying her, alleged that the father had not allowed her to visit with

the child by telephone or social media, stated that she wanted a change

of venue, and requested that the trial court order that the child be

afforded counseling. In response to the mother's letter, the trial court

entered an order on May 8, 2023, ordering the guardian ad litem to meet

with the child concerning the mother's allegations, setting a hearing for

May 31, 2023, and setting a final hearing for July 28, 2023. Apparently,

the trial court changed the date of the May 31, 2023, hearing to June 28,

2023. On that date, the trial court entered an order stating that the

5
CL-2024-0570

mother had failed to appear for the hearing and, consequently, denying

the relief that the mother had requested in her letter.

On July 28, 2023, the trial court held a hearing and, that same day,

entered an order in which the trial court made the following pertinent

findings:

"6. The mother has not retained counsel to date and in
all proceedings since January 25, 2023, has proceeded as a pro
se litigant. On March 17, 2023, the [c]ourt entered a Second
Interim Order after receiving testimony and evidence and
observing the mother's demeanor at the hearing. The March
17th Order appointed Stephanie Gillilan as [guardian ad
litem] to represent the best interests of the ... child, provided
specific FaceTime phone visits, modified the supervised
visitation to be supervised by the Family Success Center's
supervisory service, with the visits to take place 1 day each
week after the parties coordinated same with the Family
Success Center, and the mother was further restrained from
entering the apartment complex where the fathe[r] lives with
the ... child. Finally, the [c]ourt ordered the [mother] to
undergo a mental[-]health assessment through CED Mental
Health Center and for the mental[-]health assessment to be
provided to this [c]ourt pursuant to a separate Protective
Order entered on March 17th. This Second Interim Order was
entered by the [c]ourt after receiving testimony and evidence
in the case, ore tenus, and observing and considering the
mother's testimony, her actions and her demeanor at the
March 8, 2023, hearing.

"7. On March 17, 2023, at 4:17 [p.m.], after this [c]ourt's
March 17, 2023, Order was entered at 10:45 [a.m.], the father
filed a Motion to Temporarily Suspend the Mother's Visitation
and to Amend the Restraining Order. The [c]ourt on March
20, 2023, suspended the mother's supervised visits at the

6
CL-2024-0570

Family Success Center, but allowed the FaceTime visits with
the ... child to continue. The [c]ourt also modified the March
17, 2023, Restraining Order adding that the mother shall at
no time come within 500' of the ... child, the father, or his
apartment complex.

"After viewing the Facebook posts submitted with the
father's March 17th motion, the [c]ourt found that the
mother's posts included threats of violence and further
confirmed the [c]ourt's previous findings that the mother may
be suffering from severe mental[-]health issues. The [c]ourt
reiterated in its March 20, 2023, Order that the mother
comply with this [c]ourt's previous Order for a mental[-]health
assessment to be performed and provided to the [c]ourt.

"8. A hearing was held this date, July 28, 2023, after
rescheduling previous settings due to conflicts by counsel for
the father. The [m]other testified a mental[-]health
assessment has been performed, that she is continuing to
receive mental[-]health care through continued visits to CED
Mental Health Center and is currently seeing a local
psychiatrist here in Gadsden to receive her mental[-]health
medication. The [c]ourt directed counsel for the father to issue
subpoenas to CED Mental Health Center to receive records to
confirm the testimony of the mother, and to issue a subpoena
to Dr. Kushro Huma ....

"….

"10. The [c]ourt further notes that the [guardian ad
litem] in this case, in addition to the father, has concerns with
the mother's current mental state as stated in open [c]ourt
July 28, 2023. The [guardian ad litem] further represented to
the [c]ourt that given the mother's current mental state she
could not agree with the mother's continued supervised visits,
in-person and via FaceTime, phone or other means with the
... child, until such time [as] the [c]ourt is presented with a
current mental[-]health assessment and records of the mother

7
CL-2024-0570

from CED Mental Health and the mother's medical records
reviewed by the [c]ourt with her psychiatrist, Dr. Kushro
Huma.

"11. The [c]ourt has previously entered a Protective
Order as to the CED Mental Health Center records of the
mother on March 17, 2023, and will issue a separate
Protective Order relating to Dr. Kushro Huma's records of the
mother simultaneously with entry of this Third Interim
Order.

"12. The [c]ourt also notes from the testimony and
evidence received July 28, 2023, that the mother made an
'alarming' … call to 911 alleging she had killed several people,
which was in fact untrue, but was done to get the attention of
911, in addition to the 911 call evidencing the mother has shot
a firearm in the Country Club neighborhood of Gadsden.

"13. The [c]ourt further notes for the record that the
mother has been arrested and plead[ed] guilty to Attempting
to Elude and Reckless Driving recently and that she has a
pending case in the District Court of Etowah County,
Alabama with the charge of Unlawful Possession of Drug
Paraphernalia which remains pending in District Court ...
before District Judge Willis H. Clay.

"14. The [guardian ad litem] also informed the [c]ourt
that the ... child has done excellent at Carlisle Elementary
while she has been in the father's sole custodial care.

"15. The [c]ourt to date has been trying to assist the
mother with a 'road map' to address her current mental[-]
health issues in hopes of trying to restore the mother's mental
health and reunite her with her ... child, but to date the
mother has failed to comply with the directions of the [c]ourt,
continues to show evidence of mental[-]health
decompensation at hearings before this [c]ourt, in addition to
now receiving criminal cases in Municipal Court to which she

8
CL-2024-0570

has plead[ed] guilty and one case which the [c]ourt
understands is still pending in Etowah County District
Court."

Based on those findings, the trial court awarded the father temporary

sole physical and sole legal custody of the child; terminated all the

mother's visitation; stated that, upon receipt of the mother's mental-

health records, the trial court would address the custody and visitation

of the mother; and set the case for a hearing on October 11, 2023.

On October 2, 2023, the mother filed a second handwritten letter to

the court in which she asserted that she had previously proved the

father's allegations to be false, that there was no evidence indicating that

she posed a risk to the child, that it was a "known fact" that she had

"fragile mental health under stress," that she had suffered trauma

because of "a paranoid father," and that her social-media posts were not

threats. She attached a mental-health evaluation that CED had

performed on her in May 2023.

On November 15, 2023, the mother filed a third handwritten letter

in which she asked the trial court to enter an order sending her to

rehabilitation, stated that she was sorry that pressure and stress had

caused her to relapse, and asked the trial court for telephone visitation

9
CL-2024-0570

with the child. That same day, the trial court entered an order regarding

the mother's third handwritten letter that found that the mother was

currently serving a sentence in the Etowah County Detention Center in

an unrelated case in Gadsden's municipal court; that she would not

complete her sentence until sometime in May 2024; and that, while she

was incarcerated, the trial court would try to set up a mental-health and

substance-abuse assessment in hopes that, once she completed her

sentence, she could enter into a co-occurring inpatient facility or such

other facility per her assessment. Also on November 15, 2023, the trial

court entered an order awarding the father temporary custody of the

child and providing that the mother would not have any visitation at that

time.

On January 9, 2024, an attorney filed a notice of appearance on

behalf of the mother. On February 2, 2024, the trial court held a review

hearing and entered an order granting the mother telephone visitation

with the child for 15 minutes each Sunday and ordering the guardian ad

litem to meet with the child and to file a motion to modify the mother's

telephone visitation if the child did not want to have telephone visitation

with the mother. On February 8, 2024, the child's guardian ad litem filed

10
CL-2024-0570

a report stating that she had met with the child to discuss the proposed

telephone visitation between her and the mother, that the child had not

had any contact with the mother since July 2023, and that, in the

guardian ad litem's opinion, the child was not emotionally ready for

telephone visitation with the mother. That same day, the trial court

entered an order suspending the mother's telephone visitation and

stating that the trial court would reconsider the issue of telephone

visitation once the mother had provided the trial court with

documentation regarding her mental-health treatment and progress in

her substance-abuse treatment.

On March 28, 2024, the guardian ad litem notified the trial court

that the mother had provided her with copies of medical records from

Christ Health Center and from Ascension St. Vincent's East Emergency

Department regarding the mother. On April 8, 2024, the mother filed a

motion requesting that the trial court allow her telephone visitation with

the child before the final hearing, which was then scheduled for April 29,

2024. On April 9, 2024, the trial court ordered the guardian ad litem to

file a response to the mother's April 8, 2024, motion within seven days.

That same day, the father filed a response to the mother's motion in

11
CL-2024-0570

which he objected to the trial court's granting the mother telephone

visitation with the child. On April 15, 2024, the guardian ad litem filed a

response to the mother's motion, in which the guardian ad litem advised

the trial court that the Lovelady Center, a drug-rehabilitation facility,

had informed her that the mother, who had been a patient at the

Lovelady Center, had left that facility; the guardian ad litem

recommended that the trial court address the mother's motion at the final

hearing. On April 15, 2024, the trial court denied the mother's motion for

telephone visitation before the final hearing.

On April 29, 2024, the trial court entered an order reciting that the

parties had appeared for the final hearing on that day, that the mother

had subpoenaed her records from Christ Health Services, the Lovelady

Center, and the UAB substance-abuse program, that the mother had

wanted the trial court to review those records before making a final

decision in the case, and that, consequently, the trial court had reset the

final hearing for June 11 and 12, 2024.

On May 14, 2024, the mother filed a motion alleging that four of her

drug screens had been negative for the presence of illegal drugs and

requesting that the trial court grant her telephone visitation with the

12
CL-2024-0570

child before the final hearing. On May 15, 2024, the trial court entered

an order denying the mother's motion.

On June 11 and 12, 2024, the trial court held a final hearing at

which the mother and the father testified and the parties and the trial

court introduced exhibits into evidence. The mother testified that she had

gone to live with her grandmother at some point when she was a child

because, the mother said, her mother had become addicted to drugs. The

mother also said that, at some point during her childhood, she became a

victim of sexual abuse. She said that her sister had become a drug addict

and, ultimately, the mother herself had become addicted to drugs. The

mother testified that, after college, she had been a nurse but that she had

had to surrender her nursing license to the Alabama Board of Nursing.

The mother testified that, when she was 21, CED diagnosed her as

suffering from anxiety and depression and had prescribed medication for

treatment of those conditions. Later, she testified, her father bled to

death in front of her, and she was then diagnosed with PTSD. At some

point, she stopped taking her medication for her anxiety and depression

because, she said, the father had claimed in a previous court proceeding

that the medication made the mother too drowsy to take care of the child.

13
CL-2024-0570

She said that, after the present dispute with the father had begun, she

had lost her job and, consequently, had lost her apartment, and had

begun living in her automobile.

The mother said that, approximately four months after the present

dispute with the father had begun, she had relapsed into using

methamphetamine every day. She testified that she had made the social-

media posts to which the father had objected while she was taking

methamphetamine and that she was ashamed of things she had done

while she was taking methamphetamine. The father introduced those

social-media posts, which range in date from March 2023 to June 10,

2024, which was approximately four months before the trial. The 2023

social-media posts include the following:

"If my kids can't have me, no one can, not even 'God.' Or
spirit, whomever is supposed to be our 'creator.' F**k
everyone!! Lose my number. And I mean everyone!!!! Family
in Georgia, ever [so-called] 'fam' here in Gadsden. Everyone,
f**k y'all and your God and the whole United States. I hope
Satan eats ev[e]ryone[] of your souls for a snack. [Because] I
don’t give a f**k no more. … Frank, Daniel and [J.P.] burn in
hell. Oak Park burn in hell[.] Walnut Park burn in hell[.]
Anyone of blood kin to me burn in hell[.] Sansom, Forrest,
Gadsden City and anyone who[']s ever met me burn in hell[.]
The retards and geniuses Burn in hell[.] ..."

"The whole human race has let me and my children
down. I just here [sic] soon. It's me and my children no matter

14
CL-2024-0570

what men make me seem 'crazy.' … [M]eet me somewhere
and line up s[o] I can off your ass. … I regret not plac[ing] that
bullet somewhere else besides the dirt next to my foot."

"My kids deserve a public apology on d**n television by
every b*****d in this town. Especially [the father] and [the
Marshall County Department of Human Resources] and [the
trial-court judge] … Return [the child] [before] this gets
[worse] for anyone else. … And [don't] dare say [I'm] crazy[.]
[N]ot a d**n soul needs to say that [because] if I was crazy
[you'd] already be dead[.] Best believe[.] …"

"I hope people take me seriously when I say I will kill
anyone and everyone over my 2 children. I 1000% percent
mean that. … "

On May 27, 2024, the mother posted:

"My God is about to deal with the people in my children's
lives that try to prevent them from having a healthy
relationship with their mother. My daughter has been abused
by her father and the [E]towah [C]ounty court[] system for
allowing him to do what he's done to mine and hers
relationship. … There's a difference in having a drug problem
and an evil [ex-husband] problem. God saw everything and is
still seeing everything and certain [people's] [doomsday] is
very near for them."

On May 29, 2024, the mother posted a picture of the motion-picture

character "Chucky" and wrote: "Woke up thinking about all the [s]**t I

let slide. … I'm going to [j]ail this summer." On May 30, 2024, the mother

posted:

"Lord[,] please please help me to be patient. I sit around
and watch how Satan is trying to set me up with anything and

15
CL-2024-0570

everything all because I'm starting to speak up for myself. I
have always been able to speak up for others but for some
reason I couldn't for myself. Everyone said I needed some
healing so that means a bunch of dark[,] sick things I didn't
wanna face that I kept buried for a long long time has and is
gonna come rolling out and accountability is gonna be handed
out where it is rightfully deserved. … God's [about] to fix this
and I trust him fully. He knows both sides and the truth, not
just [the father's] opinions."

On June 7, 2024, the mother posted:

"People are going to leave me the hell alone. God is going to
give me and the kids back double what was stolen from us and
that is most importantly our memories and time we could
have had together. This s**t show is going to stop[.] I don't
care if I go to jail for my children's mental and psychological
health and respect."

On June 8, 2024, the mother posted:

"This ring of little boys running around giving women
Liquid G and sexually assaulting and taking photos of them
while unconscious, just know your time is near to [be] hung
from a nice, big tree in Gadsden. I know well too many women
this has been done [to] and it's just time it stops since it's
easier to escape appropriate charges [because] [you are] all
snitches for feds and dtf. The ones from Southside and North
Gadsden, all of [you]. [T]he whole Satanic cult y'all have been
going on is [about] to be busted up by some real men of God.
There's the police, then there's God's police. Since DTF and
some of the police are crooked in [E]towah [C]ounty, it must
be handled by God's people. And if I get harassed [because] of
this post just know it won't go well for anybody involved.
Thanks. [W]atch out [because] you never know if that
regular[-]looking man next to you is gonna be the last person
you get to see or not."

16
CL-2024-0570

On June 10, 2024, the mother posted:
"Everything I have done the past few years has felt like
it's pre-programmed to already happen. Is this God or is it
[d]eja vu etc.??? Something's just really weird. I have done all
the things I am doing [because] I have the memories, yet
everyone else is saying I have never done these certain things
before. Wtf!!!!!"

The mother testified that she had entered the inpatient substance-

abuse program at The Lovelady Center on December 21, 2023, and that

she had stayed there until the end of April 2024. She testified that her

other child's father had brought the other child to The Lovelady Center

to visit her on Christmas Day and on the other child's birthday. The

mother said that all her drug screens were negative for the presence of

illegal drugs while she was at The Lovelady Center. She said that she

decided to transfer from The Lovelady Center to the UAB substance-

abuse program because, she said, the Alabama Nursing Board had told

her that it would not accept proof of her sobriety from The Lovelady

Center in determining whether to reinstate her nursing license but that

it would accept proof of her sobriety from UAB for that purpose. She

testified that she had transferred from The Lovelady Center to the UAB

substance-abuse program at the end of April 2024, and that she was still

receiving substance-abuse and mental-health treatment through UAB at

17
CL-2024-0570

the time of the trial of this action. The mother denied that she had quit

The Lovelady Center or had unilaterally decided to leave that facility and

said that she had transferred to the UAB substance-abuse program

rather than dropping out of The Lovelady Center. She said that she did

not get a certificate of completion of the substance-abuse program from

The Lovelady Center but that she did get a letter from The Lovelady

Center transferring her to the UAB substance-abuse program. She

testified that UAB personnel perform random drug screens on her one to

two times a week and that she receives both group and individual

counseling. She said that all her random drug screens at both The

Lovelady Center and at UAB had been negative for the presence of illegal

drugs. The mother testified that, at the time of the trial in this case, she

had been participating in intensive outpatient substance-abuse

treatment at UAB for two months. Her UAB records indicate that, on

three occasions, the mother had left Zoom classes at UAB, once because

she was sick and twice without explanation.

The mother testified that, two weeks after she had entered The

Lovelady Center, she had begun seeing a psychiatrist at Christ Health

Center. According to the mother, the psychiatrist gave her new

18
CL-2024-0570

prescriptions for Wellbutrin and Buspar to treat her depression and

anxiety. She said that she takes Wellbutrin once a day, that she takes

Buspar twice a day, and that those medications were working well for

her. She said that she also has a prescription for Vistaril for out-of-the

ordinary anxiety attacks but that she had taken only one of those pills

since December 2023. The mother testified that she sees her psychiatrist

at Christ Health Center once per month and that she also sees a

psychiatrist or psychologist at UAB once per month.

The mother testified that she is doing well currently and that she

is emotionally and mentally stable. She said that she had done all that

she could to overcome her drug addiction and mental-health problems.

The mother said that she was living in a two-bedroom, two-bathroom

apartment and that she had gotten a job at a Publix grocery store. She

said that she goes to work at 4:00 a.m. to make salads and desserts in the

Publix bakery and that she gets off work at 12:00 p.m. She testified that

she had told Publix that she was in outpatient treatment for substance

abuse at UAB and that Publix was letting her work around her

appointments at UAB. The mother said that she is earning $14.50 per

hour and that she would receive her first paycheck from Publix in a

19
CL-2024-0570

couple of days. She said that she wants to pay child support and that she

will begin paying again when she receives her first paycheck from Publix.

The mother testified that, since December 2023, she has done

everything she could to see the child. She said that the child's half-sibling

had been begging to see the child because, she said, he had not seen the

child for the same period that she had not seen the child. She said that,

in the past, when the trial court had ordered that she have visitation with

the child, the father had not always obeyed the trial court's order and had

not let her see the child. The mother testified that the father has two

forms of mental illness.

The mother testified that she would like to have standard visitation

with the child, including overnight visits. She said that she would be

willing for the child's guardian ad litem to inspect her apartment to make

sure that it was acceptable for the child. She testified that she would also

like for the child to receive counseling because, she said, she knew from

her own experiences that a dispute like the one between her and the

father was hard on a child.

On cross-examination, the mother denied that she had been

diagnosed with bipolar disorder. She testified that there is a difference

20
CL-2024-0570

between a diagnosis of bipolar one or bipolar two, on the one hand, and

bipolar, unspecified, on the other. According to the mother, a diagnosis of

bipolar, unspecified, equates with a diagnosis of anxiety and depression,

without mania.

She testified that the last time she had used methamphetamine had

been on November 7, 2023, shortly before she entered The Lovelady

Center. She said that using methamphetamine made her paranoid. She

admitted that her May 8, 2023, CED evaluation stated that she had not

experienced trauma, but she insisted that that was a mistake because,

she said, she had indeed experienced trauma.

The mother admitted that, in April 2023, she had been arrested on

charges of eluding the police, attempting to elude the police, resisting

arrest, and reckless driving and that she had pleaded guilty to those

charges. She also admitted that, on July 4, 2023, she had been arrested

on a charge of driving under the influence of a controlled substance and

that she had pleaded guilty to that charge. Moreover, she admitted that,

on July 7, 2023, she had been arrested on a charge of possession of drug

paraphernalia and that she had pleaded guilty to that charge.

21
CL-2024-0570

The mother testified that she had gone to CED on one occasion after

her evaluation on May 8, 2023, but that UAB took over her mental-health

treatment after that second visit to CED. The mother admitted that she

had undergone a substance-abuse evaluation in 2018 and that she had

completed six weeks of intensive outpatient treatment for substance

abuse at Bradford.

The mother testified that she had worked for Walmart for eight

months in 2023 and that her child support was deducted from her

paycheck during those eight months. She did not, however, testify that

the only child-support payments she had made since commencing the

present action were the ones that Walmart had deducted from her

paycheck during the eight months she had worked for Walmart.

Specifically, she testified:

"[The father's counsel]: Q How long did you work with
Walmart?

"[The mother]: A Walmart, last year, eight months.

"Q Did you pay any child support during that time?

"A Yes It came out of my check.

"….

22
CL-2024-0570

"Q Okay. And you worked at Walmart for over a year,
and you didn't pay any child support then, did you?

"A Yeah, I did. It came out of my checks. It was eight
months I worked at Walmart.

"Q You're behind on child support, correct?

"A Yes.

"Q $2,700, I believe, correct?

"A No.

"Q How much are you behind?

"A [$]1,900."

The father's counsel offered as evidence an e-mail from a

Department of Human Resources ("DHR") caseworker that stated that,

as of June 5, 2024, the mother owed a child-support arrearage in the

amount of $2,231.46, and interest thereon in the amount of $313.76 and

$224.10 for June 2024, which totaled $2,769.32. The mother's counsel

objected to that e-mail being admitted into evidence because, he said, it

was hearsay. The trial court sustained the objection when the father's

counsel initially offered that e-mail for admission into evidence, but, later

in the trial, the following colloquy regarding that e-mail occurred:

"THE COURT REPORTER: You just didn't admit that one.

23
CL-2024-0570

"THE COURT: What was the Yolonda James? I can't
remember.

"[The father's counsel]: Eight is the --

"[The mother's counsel]: It was the child support thing.

"THE COURT: Oh.

"[The mother's counsel]: I objected to hearsay.

"THE COURT: Okay.

"[The father's counsel]: I can put [the father] back on the
stand.

"THE COURT: No, no I'm going to overrule [the
mother's objection to the e-mail]. I'll let it in to the weight, but
I understand your objection, and or she had around 2,900,
whatever. [The e-mail] is admitted."

The mother admitted that her friend F.P. had filed a protection-

from-abuse petition against her when she was using methamphetamine.

The mother denied calling 911 and reporting that she had killed a bunch

of people. However, the father's counsel then played a tape recording of

the 911 call. On the recording, the mother said: "I just killed a bunch of

people." The mother said that she was high when she made that 911 call.

The father's counsel also played a tape recording of a 911 call that F.P.

made on the same occasion in which F.P. said: "[T]his girl is crazy. She's

out in my yard shooting a gun."

24
CL-2024-0570

The mother testified that there was a court order stating that she

did not have custody of, or visitation with, her other child but that she

and that child's father had informally agreed that he would bring that

child to see her every other weekend.

The father testified that he has a bachelor's degree from the

University of Alabama in social work and that he had been admitted to

graduate school at the University of Alabama to obtain a master's degree

in social work. He said that he was a former police officer.

The father testified that, since the child had been in his sole

custody, the child had been happy, had been well-behaved, had been

doing well in school, and had been doing well in extracurricular activities.

He said that, based on his observations of the mother, she was mentally

and emotionally unstable and that, based on her social-media posts, she

was dangerous. He testified that, in his opinion, awarding the mother

any kind of visitation, including supervised visitation, would not be in

the child's best interests, and he asked the trial court not to award her

any kind of visitation.

On June 20, 2024, the trial court entered a final judgment. In

pertinent part, the judgment stated:

25
CL-2024-0570

"1. The Court readopts its Findings of Fact set forth in
its July 28, 2023[,] Third Interim Order in this case as if fully
set out herein.

"2. Since the date of this [c]ourt's July 28, 2023[,]
Findings of Fact adopted herein, the [m]other has spent time
in the Etowah County Detention Center ('ECDC') for
approximately 3 weeks in November of 2023 on City of
Gadsden case(s) for failing to appear in court. Thereafter, the
[m]other entered into the Lovelady Center on or about
December of 2023. Lovelady Center is a 9 to 12-month faith-
based recovery program for women.

"3. The [m]other testified she left the Lovelady Center
prior to completing their 9 to 12-month program and
transitioned to the UAB Intensive Outpatient Program ('UAB
IOP') because the Alabama Nursing Board would recognize
the UAB IOP if she ever tried to be reinstated as a Registered
Nurse in Alabama; however, no evidence was presented by the
[m]other evidencing the Alabama Nursing Board is
considering reinstating her Registered Nurse license. The
[m]other at the time of the final hearing remains in the UAB
IOP and has been a part of this program since April of 2024.

"4. The [c]ourt noted in its July 28, 2023[,] Findings of
Fact the following:

" 'The [c]ourt to date has been trying to assist
the [m]other with a 'road map' to address her
current mental[-]health issues and addiction
issues she has struggled with in hopes of trying to
restore the [m]other's mental health and reunite
her with her ... child.'

"Understanding the [m]other is currently in a certified
intensive outpatient program at UAB, the [c]ourt finds their
[sic] is much work to be done on behalf of the [m]other to face
her mental[-]health conditions of depression, anxiety and bi-
26
CL-2024-0570

polar disorder, unspecified, given the testimony presented in
this case.

"5. The [c]ourt further finds from the testimony, the ...
child is doing well in school with her grades and in her
extracurricular activities. The [c]ourt also notes in the
February 8, 2024[,] [guardian ad litem] Report filed in this
cause, it was the [guardian ad litem's] position after meeting
with the ... child [that the child] was not emotionally ready to
have supervised phone visitation with the [m]other, much less
supervised [physical] visitation.

"Based upon the evidence received and considered by
the [c]ourt, ore tenus, it is

"ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows:

"1. The [c]ourt hereby modifies the parties' true shared
custodial relationship with the ... child and awards the
[f]ather …, the sole legal and physical custody of the ... child
.... The [m]other shall have no visitation with the ... child. The
[c]ourt finds this is in the best interests of the parties' ... child.

"2. As previously ordered by this [c]ourt, the [m]other
shall continue to pay to the [f]ather towards the support and
maintenance of the ... child, the sum of Two Hundred
Twenty[-]Four and 10/100 ($224.10) DOLLARS, per month.
Said child support shall continue on the first (1st) day of each
month hereafter as previously ordered in the Amended Final
Order in the .01 case, and shall continue to be due and payable
on the first (1st) day of each month thereafter, until the ...
child shall reach the age of majority according to the State of
Alabama, shall marry, die, or otherwise become emancipated.

"3. The [c]ourt finds the [m]other is in arrears in her
child support obligation to the [f]ather in the sum of Two
Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty-Nine and 32/100 ($2,769.32)
Dollars. The [m]other shall repay this child[-]supporting

27
CL-2024-0570

arrearage to the [f]ather at the rate of $30.00 per month, said
payments to begin on the first day of July, 2024 and on the
first day of each consecutive month thereafter until said
arrearage and all interest accrued thereon is paid in full."

(Emphasis added; capitalization in original.)

The mother timely filed a postjudgment motion. Following a

hearing on that motion, the trial court entered an order denying it. The

mother then timely appealed.

Standard of Review

When a trial court makes child-custody and visitation

determinations based on evidence it hears ore tenus, an appellate court

accords a presumption of correctness to the trial court's findings

regarding disputed facts and will not reverse the trial court's judgment

based on those findings unless it is palpably erroneous or manifestly

unjust. See J.L.W. v. C.J.P., [Ms. CL-2023-0561, May 17, 2024] ___ So.

3d ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2024); and B.C.H. v. M.H., 323 So. 3d 661, 669 (Ala.

Civ. App. 2020). However, the presumption of correctness is rebuttable,

and may be overcome when there is insufficient evidence presented to the

trial court to sustain its judgment. B.C.H., 313 So. 3d at 669. Alabama

law does not allow an appellate court to substitute its judgment for that

of the trial court or to reweigh the evidence. See J.L.W., ___ So. 3d at ___.

28
CL-2024-0570

" 'In ore tenus proceedings, the trial court is the sole judge of the facts

and of the credibility of the witnesses, and it should accept only that

testimony which it considers worthy of belief.' " Ex parte R.E.C., 899 So.

2d 272, 279 (Ala. 2004) (quoting Clemons v. Clemons, 627 So. 2d 431, 434

(Ala. Civ. App. 1993)). The ore tenus presumption of correctness does not

apply to the trial court's conclusions of law or its application of the law to

the facts. See B.C.H., 323 So. 3d at 669.

A trial court's evidentiary rulings are generally left to the discretion

of the trial court, and the trial court's determination on those questions

will not be reversed except upon a clear showing of an abuse of discretion.

See Madrigal v. Madrigal, 399 So. 3d 258, 263 (Ala. Civ. App. 2023).

Analysis

The mother first argues that the trial court erred by refusing to

award her any visitation with the child. A trial court has discretion in

determining visitation, and an appellate court will not reverse a trial

court's determination regarding visitation unless it is so contrary to the

evidence presented as to amount to plain abuse of that discretion and is

therefore contrary to the best interests of the child. See M.B. v. L.B., 154

So. 3d 1043, 1047 (Ala. Civ. App 2014). In making determinations

29
CL-2024-0570

regarding visitation, a trial court must consider the specific facts and

circumstances of the case before it. Id.

In the present case, it is undisputed that, before entering The

Lovelady Center in December 2023, the mother had been addicted to and

had been using methamphetamine. It is also undisputed that, while

under the influence of methamphetamine, the mother was unstable and

that she had fired a gun in the yard of a friend. It is also undisputed that

the mother had made social-media posts threatening to commit acts of

violence. Although the mother blamed her use of methamphetamine for

her strange and threatening posts on social media, she testified that she

had last used methamphetamine in November 2023. Her strange and

threatening posts on social media continued up until approximately four

months before the trial. The trial court reasonably could have found that

the mother has serious mental-health problems that have not been

effectively addressed by the treatment she testified that she had received

and the medication she testified that she had been taking for her mental-

health problems.

In addition, it was undisputed that the mother had committed

several crimes, including driving under the influence of an illegal

30
CL-2024-0570

substance and eluding the police, that placed both her life and the lives

of other people at risk. Finally, it was undisputed that, since relapsing

into methamphetamine use before the trial of this action, the mother had

not successfully completed her treatment for substance abuse at either

The Lovelady Center or at UAB. Moreover, the trial court was able to

observe the mother's demeanor when she appeared at several hearings

and testified at the trial. An appellate court, which is limited to a written

transcript of the trial, cannot match the trial court's vantage point in

evaluating the mother's demeanor and credibility as a witness.

Accordingly, based on the evidence that was before it, we find no error in

the trial court's judgment insofar as it refused to award the mother any

visitation.

The mother next argues that the trial court erred in finding that

she owed the father a child-support arrearage in the amount of $2,769.32

because, the mother says, the only evidence that supported that amount

of child-support arrearage was the e-mail from a DHR caseworker that

the mother had objected to on the ground that it constituted hearsay. In

response, the father makes the following argument:

"The mother testified she was only $1900 in arrears as
to her child[-]support obligation. She did not explain her

31
CL-2024-0570

determination of that amount. She also testified [that] during
the pendency of this case, she had only paid child support for
the eight months she was employed by Wal-Mart [sic]. Based
upon her testimony, during the nineteen months the case was
pending, she only worked eight months for Wal-Mart [sic].
Her obligation would have been $2,464 for the remaining
eleven months. She did not include interest in her calculation.
The Court [of Civil Appeals] has held the trial court 'is without
authority to waive the imposition of statutorily imposed post-
judgment interest upon such payments.' Collins v. O'Neil, 228
So. 3d 1003 (Ala Civ. App 2017)."

However, the record does not support the father's contention that

the mother testified that, during the 19 months the case had been

pending, "she had only paid child support for the eight months she was

employed by Wal-Mart [sic]." The mother did testify that she had worked

at Walmart for 8 months while the case was pending and that Walmart

had deducted her child-support payments from her paycheck during

those 8 months; however, she did not testify that those 8 months were

the only months for which she had paid child support during the 19

months the case had been pending. She was never asked to testify

regarding the total number of months for which she had paid child

support during the 19 months the case had been pending. Thus, the

father's argument is based on an erroneous premise, i.e., that the mother

testified that she had paid child support for only 8 of the 19 months the

32
CL-2024-0570

case had been pending. Accordingly, we find no merit in the father's

argument.

" 'Hearsay' is a statement, other than one made by the declarant

while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the

truth of the matter asserted." Rule 801(c), Ala. R. Evid. The DHR

caseworker who wrote the e-mail regarding the mother's child-support

arrearage did not testify at the trial. Thus, the content of the e-mail was

a statement that was not made by a witness testifying at the trial. And

the father offered the e-mail as evidence to prove the truth of the matter

asserted in the e-mail, i.e., the amount of the mother's child-support

arrearage. Consequently, the content of the e-mail fell squarely within

the definition of hearsay. Subject to exceptions not here applicable,

hearsay is not admissible. See Rule 802, Ala. R. Evid. An error in the

admission of evidence can be harmless if it does not injuriously affect the

substantial rights of the party against whom the evidence was

introduced, see Rule 45, Ala. R. App. P.; however, the admission of the e-

mail from the DHR caseworker injuriously affected the substantial rights

of the mother in this case because it indicated that her child-support

arrearage was more than the $1,900 to which she had testified.

33
CL-2024-0570

Therefore, we reverse the trial court's judgment insofar as it determined

that the mother's child-support arrearage was $2,769.32, and we remand

the case for the trial court to determine the amount of the mother's child-

support arrearage based on the admissible evidence presented to it and

without relying on the inadmissible content of the e-mail.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED

WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

Moore, P.J., and Edwards and Hanson, JJ., concur.

34