Corrected August 4, 2015.
from Talladega Circuit Court. (DR-12-900154).
Judge. Thompson, P.J., and Pittman, Moore, and Donaldson,
Livingston Barrett (" the wife" ) appeals from a
judgment of the Talladega Circuit Court (" the trial
court" ) divorcing her from Clifton Drew Barrett ("
the husband" ).
parties were married on August 20, 2005; one child was born
of the marriage on February 21, 2009. On April 11, 2012, the
wife filed in the trial court a complaint for a divorce
seeking, among other things, sole legal and physical custody
of the child and an ex parte petition for pendente lite
custody of the child and exclusive use of the marital
residence; the ex parte petition asserted that the husband
was residing in a drug-rehabilitation facility. The trial
court granted the wife's ex parte petition on April 19,
2012. On May 8, 2012, the husband filed an answer and a
counterclaim for a divorce in which he sought joint legal and
physical custody of the child. The trial court entered an
order on May 11, 2012, in which it found that the husband had
a history of drug abuse and awarded the husband supervised
visitation with the child during the pendency of the divorce
proceedings; the trial court entered another order on May 21,
2012, ordering the husband to pay monthly child support
during the pendency of the divorce proceedings. The husband
filed a motion seeking to hold the wife in contempt on May
24, 2012, asserting that the wife had refused to allow him to
visit with the child; he filed a second contempt motion on
December 18, 2012, asserting that the wife had prevented him
from retrieving his personal property from the marital
trial at which the trial court heard evidence ore tenus, the
trial court entered a final judgment on September 2, 2014,
which, among other things, divorced the parties, awarded the
parties joint legal custody of the child, awarded the wife
sole physical custody of the child, and ordered the husband
to pay $302 in monthly child support. The trial court awarded
the husband visitation with the child and ordered that the
visitation be supervised for six months and that,
" [a]fter a period of six (6) months, the [trial] court
will review [the] case and should there not be any major
issues as it pertains to visitation then the visitation on
behalf of the [husband] shall be extended to standard
visitations so that the child will have consistent contact
with the [husband] as is standard in this
September 5, 2014, the husband filed a motion to clarify the
visitation schedule. The wife filed a motion to alter, amend,
or vacate the judgment on October 2, 2014, in which she
challenged, among other things, the trial court's
determination that the husband's visitation would,
barring " any major issues," change from being
supervised to being unsupervised after six months elapsed.
The wife filed a notice of appeal on October 14, 2014, which
was held in abeyance until the wife's postjudgment motion
was disposed of. See Rule 4(a)(5), Ala. R. App. P. The record
does not indicate that the trial court ever ruled on the
wife's postjudgment motion; therefore, it was denied by
operation of law on December 1, 2014. See Rule 59.1, Ala R.
brief on appeal, the wife argues (1) that the trial court
erred by awarding the parties joint legal custody, (2) that
the provision in the trial court's judgment stating that
the husband's visitation would be modified after six
months elapsed was an abuse of discretion, and (3) that the
trial court failed to comply with Rule 32, Ala. R. Jud.
the wife's issues out of order, we first address her
argument that the trial court exceeded its discretion by
providing that the husband's supervised visitation would
be reviewed in six months and by stating that, barring "
any major issues," the husband's visitation would be
modified to standard unsupervised ...