David Dudley Crum v. Michelle Yessick Crum

Rel: April 24, 2026

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, 2025-2026
_________________________

CL-2025-0941
_________________________

David Dudley Crum

v.

Michelle Yessick Crum

Appeal from Lee Circuit Court
(DR-19-900251.01)

EDWARDS, Judge.

David Dudley Crum ("the father") appeals from a judgment of the

Lee Circuit Court ("the trial court") modifying his visitation with H.C.

("the child"). For the reasons set forth below, we reverse the trial court's

judgment and remand the case for further proceedings.
CL-2025-0941

The father and Michelle Yessick Crum ("the mother") were divorced

by a judgment entered by the trial court in November 2019. Pursuant to

a marital settlement agreement that was incorporated into the trial

court's November 2019 divorce judgment, the mother was awarded sole

physical custody of the child and the parties were awarded joint legal

custody of the child.1 The child is the parties' only child as a result of the

marriage; the father has three adult children from a previous marriage,

who, he stated, were familiar with the child. The November 2019 divorce

judgment provided a detailed schedule of the days and times that the

father could visit the child and provided the father the right to "private

telephone communication" with the child "at all reasonable times and

places."

It appears that the father visited the child pursuant to the terms of

the November 2019 divorce judgment for approximately six months

following its entry. According to the mother, she and the child each

attempted to contact the father in the six months after he stopped visiting

but did not receive a response. Sometime after that six-month period,

1The child was born in February 2014 and was five years old at the

time of the parties' divorce.
2
CL-2025-0941

Edward Crum ("the paternal grandfather") and Robert Crum ("the

paternal uncle") filed a petition in the Tallapoosa Probate Court ("the

probate court") seeking to be appointed joint guardians of the father's

person and joint conservators of the father's estate. The record suggests

that the paternal grandfather and the paternal uncle believed that the

father had serious mental-health issues that impaired his judgment and

prevented him from managing his own affairs. In May 2021, the probate

court granted the paternal grandfather and the paternal uncle's petition

and named them as joint guardians and conservators. The father was

permitted to seek to have the guardianship and conservatorship removed

after submitting to a medical examination and a psychological

examination and providing results of those examinations demonstrating

that the father would be capable of managing his own affairs.

Despite the probate court's judgment, in August 2021 the father

relocated to Little Torch Key, Florida, and gained access to many of his

bank accounts.2 He did not inform the mother of his relocation. The

2The father did not visit the child between approximately May 2020,

which was six months after the parties' divorce, and August 2021, when
the father moved to Florida.

3
CL-2025-0941

record reveals that the father completed a psychological evaluation in

Florida in October 2021and that the father submitted the results of that

evaluation to the probate court. The guardianship and conservatorship

were removed in June 2022.3

In December 2021, the father contacted the mother through e-mail

requesting visitation with the child at his new Florida residence. The

father stated that the child could meet two of the father's adult children,

the child's half siblings, at the Atlanta airport and fly to Florida with

them. The mother responded to the father's e-mail, stating that she

wanted the child to visit the father but that she was not comfortable with

the child's traveling that distance without her or the father

accompanying him. She also informed the father that she did not have

the father's current address or telephone number. The father made

similar requests in February 2022 and July 2022, which the mother also

denied.

3It appears that the paternal grandfather and the paternal uncle

initially contested the removal of the guardianship and the
conservatorship. It is unclear whether they eventually conceded to the
removal of the guardianship and the conservatorship.
4
CL-2025-0941

In September 2022, the father filed a verified petition in the trial

court seeking to modify the visitation schedule set out in the November

2019 divorce judgment and requesting a rule nisi, claiming that the

mother had violated the terms of the November 2019 divorce judgment

by preventing him from visiting the child. In November 2022, the mother

filed an answer to the father's petition and asserted a counterclaim for a

rule nisi based on her assertion that the father had failed to reimburse

her for certain child-related expenses and had failed to maintain the child

on his health insurance as required by the November 2019 divorce

judgment.

In November 2023, the trial court entered an order finding that the

father had failed to exercise his visitation rights for "an extended period

of time" and that "a period of reunification" between the child and the

father was required. To that end, the trial court ordered that the father

would have visitation with the child in Lee County between 9:00 a.m. and

8:00 p.m. and that the father's visitation would be required to occur "in

the presence of a third party of the father's family."4 In December 2023,

4The trial court did not specify in its order on what dates the father

was to exercise visitation. We presume that the trial court intended, at
5
CL-2025-0941

the father filed a motion in the trial court requesting that the trial court

permit expanded visitation during the Christmas holidays and that the

trial court lift the requirement that a paternal relative be present during

his visits.5 The mother filed an objection to that motion.

On February 2, 2024, before the trial court held a hearing or ruled

on the father's motion, the father filed another motion asserting that the

mother had attempted to prevent the father from reestablishing a

relationship with the child by failing to respond to his inquiries regarding

visitation dates. The father also requested that he be permitted

unsupervised visitation with the child on specific dates in February,

including the weekend that the father was to be in Lee County for a

February 23, 2024, hearing before the trial court, and that, thereafter, he

be permitted to resume his "normal" visitation schedule. The trial court

held a status hearing on February 23, 2024, at which the trial court heard

arguments concerning the father's request for visitation. During that

a minimum, for the father to exercise his visitation on those dates that
he would have had pursuant to the divorce judgment.

5The father explained that he did not have a harmonious
relationship with the paternal grandfather or the paternal uncle. It
appears that the father was engaged in litigation against the paternal
grandfather and the paternal uncle throughout these proceedings.
6
CL-2025-0941

hearing, the trial court reemphasized the need for the father to visit the

child and for a third party to be present during the visits to alleviate any

anxiety that the child might experience as he resumed visits with the

father.6 Following the hearing, the trial court entered an order directing

the parties to "arrange visitation amongst themselves" before the father

returned to Florida and when the father returned for another hearing

scheduled for March 8, 2024.

The trial court conducted another status hearing on March 27,

2024, concerning, among other things, the father's request for specific

visitation dates. The mother's attorney reported that the father's first

visit with the child following the February 23, 2023, hearing "went

relatively well" and that, after experiencing "scheduling issues," the

parties had managed to "work[] together without the necessity of

attorneys" to ensure that the father was able to continue visiting the

child. The father's attorney echoed the parties' positive conduct and

requested that the father be permitted to visit the child without

supervision and in Florida for specific periods, including the month of

6The mother stated that the child was "anxious" and took Adderall

"for his anxiety." It does not appear that the child has been formally
diagnosed with any anxiety-related disorders.
7
CL-2025-0941

July. The mother, through her counsel, continued to express her

hesitation about permitting the child to travel to Florida for an entire

month. She also maintained her concerns that the father might have

continued mental-health issues despite the probate court's removal of the

father's guardianship and conservatorship. The trial court stated that it

did not intend to permit the child to travel to Florida at that time and

that it would like the father to visit the child more before it would permit

the child to travel to Florida.

On May 3, 2024, the trial court entered an order specifying seven

visitation periods in Lee County between April 2024 and June 2024, four

of which were to be supervised "by an adult child of [the father] or any

other person approved by [the mother]," with the remaining visits to be

unsupervised. The order specifically noted that the parties could modify

the order to provide additional visitation for the father, including

overnight visitation. The father was also permitted "unfettered contact

via telephone, text, e-mail, or social media" with the child and was

required to initiate telephone or videoconferencing contact with the child

at least once each week. In addition, the trial court ordered the father to

8
CL-2025-0941

submit to a psychological evaluation by a psychiatrist or licensed

psychologist in Lee County.

In June 2024, the father filed a motion, again requesting

unsupervised visitation with the child or, in the alternative, permitting

Bart Casey, a friend of the father who lived in Opelika, to serve as a

supervisor. In his motion, the father noted that he had been unable to

complete one of his scheduled visits because his adult children were

unable to serve as supervisors and that the mother had refused to agree

to Casey's serving as a supervisor. The mother objected to the father's

motion, asserting that the father had not notified her of his desire to have

Casey, with whom she claimed the child was not familiar, supervise a

visit until the father and Casey had arrived at the scheduled visit.7 On

September 24, 2024, the trial court held a hearing on the father's motion.

At that hearing, the mother asserted that the father had belatedly

scheduled his psychological evaluation, that the father had failed to

initiate telephone or videoconferencing contact with the child once per

week as required by the trial court's May 3, 2024, order, and that the

7She also asserted that the father had not completed his
psychological evaluation.
9
CL-2025-0941

father had not attended the child's various activities when the father was

in Lee County outside of his set visitation periods. The father claimed

that he had been unable to schedule a psychological evaluation until

August and that he and the child primarily communicated through a

messaging app, but that the child "rarely respond[ed]." It appears that

the trial court orally authorized Casey to serve as a supervisor but did

not enter a written order to that effect.

On November 6, 2024, the father filed a motion requesting that the

mother be held in contempt for failing to permit the father to carry out a

scheduled visitation on October 26, 2024. In his motion, the father noted

that he and Casey, who was to act as a supervisor for the visit, had

arrived at "the drop-off location" but that the mother had "failed or

refused to appear" with the child. The mother filed a response to the

father's motion, claiming that the father had initially refused to confirm

who would be supervising the father's visit but had eventually confirmed

that Casey would attend the visit as the supervisor.8 The mother again

noted her objection to Casey because, she asserted, the child was not

familiar with Casey and the child had expressed his concern to the

8The mother also attached documents in support of that assertion.

10
CL-2025-0941

mother about Casey's supervising the visit.9 In an affidavit attached to

her motion, the mother acknowledged the trial court's oral acceptance of

Casey but stated that she was "uncomfortable" with Casey's acting as a

supervisor absent a written order from the trial court.

On December 20, 2024, the trial court held a hearing on the father's

contempt motion, which the father was unable to attend due to travel

delays.10 The parties largely reiterated their positions regarding Casey's

ability to act as a supervisor; the record indicates that the child had

expressed to the father in a text message that he was uncomfortable with

Casey or any nonfamily member supervising the father's visitation.11

The trial court orally reissued its authorization that Casey could serve as

a visitation supervisor and subsequently entered a written order to that

effect. The trial court also noted that there had been no allegations that

9It appears that the child had previously met Casey during another

visit.

10At
that hearing, the trial court also considered various other
motions not relevant to this appeal.

11The child specifically requested that the paternal grandfather, the

paternal uncle, or one of the child's half siblings supervise the father's
visits. The mother e-mailed the father on a separate occasion stating that
the child had requested that a relative serve as a supervisor.
11
CL-2025-0941

the child would be unsafe with the father and that it had ordered

supervised visitation because it had been informed that the child had not

seen his father in several years. The child was also appointed a guardian

ad litem.

A trial on the father's modification petition was held on June 4,

2025. The testimony of both parties largely recounted the history set out

above. In addition, the father testified that he had visited the child in

January 2025 and February 2025 but that the parties had been unable

to agree on visitation dates for March, April, and May 2025. The father

specifically requested to have visitation with the child for one week

during the Christmas holiday, "a week" during the child's spring break,

and occasionally throughout the year. He also requested that the child

visit him for the month of July in Florida. The father stated that he

would be willing to fly to Lee County for weekend or short-term visitation

periods but that he would prefer the child to come to Florida for longer

visits.12 The father acknowledged that he would likely be able to

financially afford to fly to Atlanta for weekend visits with the child in Lee

12The father indicated that he was willing to fly to Atlanta, pick up

the child, and fly back to Florida for longer visits.
12
CL-2025-0941

County five or six times each year. The father also admitted that he "was

not in a real good spot in [his] life" after the parties' divorce and that he

had "started doing a lot better" after moving to Florida.

The father conceded that he did not know the last time that he had

called the child on the telephone.13 The father's testimony generally

indicates that he had requested various dates for visitation and had

repeatedly attempted to secure overnight or weekend-long visitation,

that the mother had not accepted those requests, and that the parties

had failed to reach a consensus regarding visitation or to adequately

communicate. The father testified that Casey's residence, in which he

stayed when he was in Lee County, had an available bedroom for the

child to use, provided that Casey's adult children were not visiting at the

same time. The father also testified that he believed that his visits with

the child had been positive and that he had tried to engage in activities

that the child enjoyed. It also appears that the father had been able to

exercise unsupervised visitation with the child pursuant to the trial

court's May 3, 2024, order.

13The record indicates that the father's last text message to the
child was sent on May 27, 2025.
13
CL-2025-0941

The mother's testimony indicates that the parties had difficulties

communicating and reaching an agreement regarding the father's visits.

The mother stated that she believed that it would be helpful for the trial

court to order a specific visitation schedule. She also stated that she

believed that it would be "a very bad idea right now" for the child to visit

the father in Florida based on the mother's perception of the child's

relationship with the father and "the amount of time [that] [the father

and the child] have spent here in Lee County." She also stated that she

would not feel comfortable sending the child to Florida until the father

had "more successful visits [in Lee County] so [the child] feels

comfortable going." The mother opined that she would want between 5

and 10 more successful visits before she would consider sending the child

to Florida. According to the mother, the child had indicated that he did

not want to have overnight visitation with the father and that he did not

want to travel to Florida.

The mother testified that the child had maintained a relationship

with the paternal grandfather and the paternal uncle. She also stated

that she did not have an issue with the child's being around his half

siblings. Regarding Casey, the mother testified that she knew Casey and

14
CL-2025-0941

that he was "someone that [she] would speak to if [she] saw him in

public," but she asserted that she did not consider him to be a friend; she

also said that Casey's role as a visitation supervisor "created another

level of anxiety" for the child. The mother's testimony also indicates that

the father had had two-day, unsupervised visits with the child in January

and February 2025. The mother explained that, during the February

2025 visit, the child had called her from Baumhower's Victory Grill, a

restaurant, and had asked her to pick him up. According to the mother,

the child was upset at being "unsupervised for an extended period of

time."14

After the parties had testified, the guardian ad litem recommended

that the father exercise a minimum of four visits per year in Lee County

for "an extended period of time" before exercising overnight visitation or

visits to Florida. The trial court noted that the father had not made as

much progress toward "reunification" with the child as it had hoped and

that he had failed to take full advantage of the opportunities the trial

court had provided him. The trial court also stated that the parties had

14It appears that the child was upset that the father had brought

the child to Baumhower's so that the father could watch sports with his
friends during his visit with the child.
15
CL-2025-0941

difficulties communicating and coming to an agreement on visitation

matters.

The trial court concluded the trial by issuing its judgment

regarding the modifications to the father's visitation from the bench.

Notably, the trial court awarded the father six specific three-day

weekend visits each year to be exercised in Lee County. The trial court

restricted those visits to between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. because, the

trial court explained, it did not want the child to stay at a house owned

by a friend of the father or in a hotel. The trial court entered its written

judgment on June 10, 2025, modifying certain provisions of the

November 2019 divorce judgment pertaining, in relevant part, to the

child's visitation. As discussed above, the father was awarded six specific

three-day weekend visits each year. The trial court specifically stated

that "th[ose] visits will not include overnights" and would take place

between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on each day of each weekend visit. The

trial court maintained the father's Christmas holiday and "spring break"

holiday visitations from the divorce judgment.15 The father was awarded

15The father was encouraged but not required to have one of the

child's half siblings present for the Christmas holiday visit if that visit
took place in Florida.
16
CL-2025-0941

summer visitation with the child between July 2 and July 7, 2025; one of

the child's half siblings was required to be present during that visit. The

trial court ordered that all subsequent summer visits occur between June

29 and July 12; no requirement was made for any of the child's half

siblings to be present for summer visitations after 2025.

On July 10, 2025, the father filed a postjudgment motion

challenging, in relevant part, the trial court's prohibition on overnight

visitation with the child during his weekend visits as an unnecessary

burden on his visitation rights. The trial court scheduled a hearing on

the father's postjudgment motion for September 30, 2025. No transcript

of that hearing appears in the record, and the father's postjudgment

motion was denied by operation of law on October 8, 2025. See Rule 59.1,

Ala. R. Civ. P. The father timely appealed.

On appeal, the father challenges the trial court's modification

judgment insofar as it prohibits him from exercising overnight visitation

with the child during his weekend visits.16

" 'This court has held that a noncustodial
parent's visitation rights may be restricted " 'in
order to protect children from conduct, conditions,

16The mother did not file an appellee's brief responding to the
father's argument.
17
CL-2025-0941

or circumstances surrounding their noncustodial
parent that endanger the children's health, safety,
or well-being.' " B.F.G. v. C.N.L., 204 So. 3d 399,
404 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016) (quoting Pratt v. Pratt,
56 So. 3d 638, 641 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010)). However,
a restriction on a noncustodial parent's visitation
must not " 'do[] more than necessary to protect the
children.' " Id. See also Norrell v. Norrell, 473 So.
2d 523, 525 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985) ("When justified
and supported by the evidence or reasonable
inferences therefrom, a trial court cannot be
faulted in visitation matters for being reasonably
careful in establishing restrictions upon the
visitation rights of a parent so as to attempt to
assure a young child's safety and welfare.").'

"Wells v. Tankersley, 244 So. 3d 975, 984 (Ala. Civ. App.
2017). Although a trial court has broad discretion over the
issue of visitation, a noncustodial parent should be given the
opportunity to maintain a meaningful relationship with his or
her child. Carr v. Broyles, 652 So. 2d 299, 303, 304 (Ala. Civ.
App. 1994)."

Lester v. Lester, 378 So. 3d 555, 567 (Ala. Civ. App. 2022).

The father relies heavily on our decision in Lester to support his

argument on appeal. In Lester, which was also an appeal from a

judgment of the Lee Circuit Court, the trial court modified a father's

visitation to preclude overnight visitation and extended summer or

holiday visitation despite the lack of evidence in the record indicating

that overnight visitation posed a peculiar danger to the children in that

case. We explained that

18
CL-2025-0941

" 'if a … judgment is modified to limit a parent's visitation
based on misconduct, the limitation ordered must be
supported by evidence that the misconduct of the parent is
detrimental to the child.' Carr [v. Broyles], 652 So. 2d [299,]
304 [(Ala. Civ. App. 1994)]. Although we do not hold that a
trial court cannot place limits on a parent's visitation unless
the children involved have first suffered harm a result of the
parent's misconduct, the record must disclose that the
limitations imposed on a parent's visitation are to protect the
children from anticipated harm resulting from the
noncustodial parent's behavior."

378 So. 3d at 568. We concluded that, because the record in Lester

demonstrated that the children in that case did not have a fear of that

father and desired to resume normal visitation with him, and because no

evidence indicated that the father's misconduct had been directed at or

occurred in the presence of the children, the trial court's visitation

restriction was not supported by the evidence. The father argues that

the record in the present case lacks any evidence indicating that

overnight visitation posed a peculiar danger to the child and that,

because the trial court also awarded him unsupervised, multiple-day

visits with the child in Florida, the trial court's judgment is internally

inconsistent. We agree.

Nothing in the record suggests that the father posed a danger to the

child or would suggest that the prohibition on overnight visits during the

19
CL-2025-0941

weekend visits is warranted. Although the mother testified that the child

was "anxious" about visits with the father and the potential of staying

with the father overnight, the trial court's judgment clearly indicates

that the trial court did not give that testimony much weight. The trial

court explicitly awarded the father unsupervised visits in Florida for

periods exceeding a week, and those visits necessarily require the child

to stay with the father overnight. Although the trial court expressed

reservations about the child's staying in a house owned by a friend of the

father or in a hotel during the weekend visits, nothing in the record

supports a conclusion that the father's exercising his visits by staying in

a house owned by a friend or in a hotel with the child overnight would

place the child's well being at risk. Because the record does not contain

evidence indicating that the exercise of overnight visitation by the father

during weekend visits in Lee County would present any risk to the child,

the trial court's restriction on the father's weekend visits does not serve

to ameliorate any potential danger to the child.17 Thus, the trial court's

prohibition on overnight visitation during the father's weekend visits in

17We note that the trial court did not prohibit the father from
having his friends present when the child was in his care.
20
CL-2025-0941

Lee County exceeded the trial court's authority and cannot be affirmed.

See Pratt v. Pratt, 56 So. 3d 638, 641 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010).

We conclude that the trial court's prohibition on overnight

visitation during the weekend visits in Lee County is overly broad and

an abuse of the trial court's discretion. Accordingly, we reverse that part

of the trial court's judgment, and we remand the case for the entry of a

judgment consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Moore, P.J., and Hanson, Fridy, and Bowden, JJ., concur.

21