In a case highlighting the significance of establishing an evidentiary record, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals recently adjudicated a matter originating in Autauga County. This case, Reginald Hunter v. Jessica Trammer Allen, explores a child visitation dispute between the child’s father and mother, navigating the careful balance of equity while simultaneously ensuring the record is sufficient to support any awards.
During the mother’s marriage to her former husband, she gave birth to a child. The former husband disclaimed his parentage, and the Autauga Circuit Court found Reginald Hunter to be the biological father of the child. As part of the judgment, the court awarded sole physical custody to the mother, giving visitation rights to the father. Both biological parents shared joint legal custody of the child. Additionally, the father was required to pay child support. Although the custody arrangement was agreed upon by both parents, the father took issue with the visitation arrangements. The mother and child resided in Alabama, but the father lived across the country in California, making visitation a challenge. He wanted the child to be able to visit him in California, but the court’s judgment required him to form a stable relationship with the child first, and let the child reach an age where cross-country travel is suitable.
On appeal, the father raised two primary arguments. First, the father argued that the judgment requiring him to travel to Alabama to visit the child created an unfair “territorial restriction” on his visitation rights. Additionally, the father disputed a $4,004 child support payment that the circuit court ordered retroactively. While the mother and father had agreed to a child support increase as the father’s income rose, but no figure was ever settled upon. The father argued that, under Rule 59.1 of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs the limits for disposition of posttrial motions, his post-judgment motion should not have been denied.
On the first issue, the Court ruled against the father. The argument was not raised at the trial court, and therefore it was not preserved for appeal. In the absence of any further reason to alter the trial court’s original judgment, the Court declined to alter the geographical visitation restrictions.
On the second issue, the Court’s analysis was more complicated. Looking back to the record, the Court unraveled the complexities of the mother and father’s agreements amongst themselves. The Court found that in August of 2021, the father’s monthly child support payments were set at $377. In April of 2022, the parents agreed to recalculate child support beginning in the next month, but the trial court failed to specify a new figure. Despite this failure to solidify an increase in the payments, the trial court retroactively ordered a $4,004 payment to cover the period from May 2022 through May 2023. Reviewing this award, the Court found no evidence in the record reflecting the father’s income and expenses during the relevant period. Therefore, the Court was unable to determine the accuracy of the lower court’s $4,004 figure. Accordingly, the Court reversed the denial of the father’s post-judgment motion, remanding the issue of retroactive child support for further proceedings.
Reginald Hunter v. Jessica Trammer Allen emphasizes several critical legal concepts. Primarily, the Court’s decision to reverse the denial of the father’s post-judgment motion demonstrates the importance of establishing a strong evidentiary record. Although the lower court did not err in ordering the father to pay retroactive payments, the absence of the father’s income and expenses in the record made it impossible to accurately quantify the deficit. Additionally, the Court affirmed the lower court’s judgment on the father’s first claim, illustrating the importance of raising issues as they arise. Because the issue had not been raised at a prior moment, it was not preserved for appeal.
If you have a Federal Criminal case, a State Criminal case, a Municipal Case or a Family Law case, contact Joe Ingram or Ingram Law LLC at 205-335-2640. Get Relief Get Results.