Appeal from Mobile Juvenile Court. (JU-92-1936.92). John F. Butler, TRIAL JUDGE.
Application for Rehearing Overruled June 9, 1995, . Certiorari Denied August 4, 1995.
Holmes, Retired Appellate Judge. All the Judges concur.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Holmes
HOLMES, Retired Appellate Judge
This is a child custody case.
S.F. (mother) and B.L.T. (father) are the parents of K.L.F. (child), who was born in December 1990. Apparently, the parents were not married to one another when the minor child was born and, in fact, have never been married to one another. However, neither party disputes that the father is the natural father of the child.
In June 1994 the father filed a petition for instanter custody of the minor child after the mother and her boyfriend were arrested for possession of marijuana. The petition was granted. Thereafter, pending a hearing on the merits, custody of the minor child was returned to the mother, with extended visitation rights vested in the father.
After a hearing on the merits, the trial court issued an order, which provided, in pertinent part:
"Testimony was taken ore tenus and the court finds that the mother ... has continued to disregard the warning of this court regarding the care and supervision of said child. The court finds that there has been a material change in circumstances since the order of this court [dated] September 8, 1992. The court finds that the mother has been arrested for distribution of controlled substances and was allowed youthful offender treatment; the mother has cohabited with a man who has been violent unto the mother in the child's presence; the mother has used illegal drugs; the child has been reported on several occasions to be neglected and unclean; and the home of the mother has not been maintained in a clean and acceptable condition.
"The court does therefore find that a change in custody is due and the court does ORDER that custody of [the child] is hereby awarded unto the father [with visitation rights granted to the mother] ....
"... The court does require that the mother not allow said child to be in the presence of [the mother's boyfriend] until such time as [the mother's boyfriend] has given proof unto this court of his being drug-free and ... has obtained psychological counseling regarding anger control so sufficient that he is not a danger to the mother or child and not until this court receives such proof and issues a written order regarding the allowance of visitation of said child without condition."
The mother filed a post-judgment motion, which was denied.
The mother contends that the trial court's judgment of October 14, 1994, is so unsupported by the evidence as to be plainly and palpably wrong and that the trial court committed reversible error when it failed to evaluate the evidence in ...