from Mobile Circuit Court (DR-04-501637.11 and
Michelle Tanner ("the mother") appeals from
judgments entered by the Mobile Circuit Court ("the
trial court") that, among other things, require her
visitation with her son, M.C.T. ("the son"), to be
supervised, denied her request to modify her child-support
obligation to Justin Clay Tanner ("the father"),
and ordered her to pay a portion of the fees of the son's
guardian ad litem. We affirm the judgments in part, reverse
the judgments in part, and remand the causes for further
parties were divorced by a judgment entered by the trial
court in 2004; pursuant to that judgment, the mother was
awarded sole physical custody of the son and the parties'
daughter, V.T. ("the daughter"). Through a series
of postdivorce proceedings, the divorce judgment was modified
so that the father obtained sole physical custody of the son
and the daughter, the mother was ordered to pay $320 per
month in child support, the mother was allowed visitation
with the daughter at the daughter's discretion, and the
mother was allowed visitation with the son under the
supervision of the mother's current husband.
December 22, 2014, the father filed a petition, assigned case
number DR-04-501637.11, requesting that the trial court
suspend, terminate, or restrict the mother's visitation;
he also requested that the mother be held in contempt of
court for her failure to pay child support. The mother
answered and asserted a counterclaim, requesting that the
trial court hold the father in contempt for his failure to
allow her to visit with the son. At the father's request,
a guardian ad litem was appointed to represent the interests
of the son, who is a child with special needs. On November 9,
2015, the mother filed a petition, assigned case number
DR-04-501637.12, seeking sole physical custody of the son and
the daughter on an emergency basis.
trial court conducted a consolidated trial. During the trial,
the mother requested that the trial court reduce her
child-support obligation. On May 31, 2016, the trial court
entered separate, but identical, judgments in both cases.
Among other things, the judgments denied the mother's
request to reduce her child-support obligation, awarded the
father a judgment against the mother in the amount of $5, 911
for her child-support arrearage, and required the
mother's visitation with the son to be supervised at the
Family Center in Mobile for at least six months and provided
that, if the visitation is without incident during that
six-month period, future visitation can be supervised by the
mother's current husband. On June 1, 2016, the trial
court entered separate, but identical, orders in both cases,
requiring that the father pay $500 of the guardian ad
litem's fees and that the mother pay the remaining $1,
400 of those fees.
30, 2016, the mother filed a postjudgment motion in both
cases. On September 26, 2016, the trial court entered
separate, but identical, orders in both cases allowing the
mother to "deduct ½ of the cost of visitation
from her child support" and providing that "[t]he
father will not have to come 'out of pocket' for the
visitation so long as he is owed child support
arrearages." All other claims for relief were denied. On
November 3, 2016, the mother filed her notice of appeal.
appeal, the mother first argues that the trial court erred by
requiring that her visitation with the son be supervised at
the Family Center because, she says, that requirement would
be cost-prohibitive to the mother. We note, however, that the
mother failed to present any evidence of the cost of having
her visitation supervised at the Family Center. Instead, in
her unverified postjudgment motion, she simply made an
assertion as to the cost of visitation without providing any
supporting authority. "'[S]tatements or arguments
... made in a motion do not constitute evidence.'"
Guthrie v. Alabama Dep't of Labor, 160 So.3d
815, 818-19 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014) (declining to consider
allegations made in unverified postjudgment motion) (quoting
Griffin v. Griffin, 159 So.3d 67, 70 (Ala. Civ. App.
2014)). Because the mother's argument is not supported by
evidence in the record, Guthrie, supra, we
decline to reverse the trial court's judgment, entered in
case number DR-04-501637.11, on this point.
mother next argues that the trial court erred in declining to
reduce her child-support obligation. Rule 32(E), Ala. R. Jud.
Adm., provides, in pertinent part:
"A standardized Child-Support Guidelines form (Form
CS-42 as appended to this rule) and a
Child-Support-Obligation Income Statement/Affidavit form
(Form CS-41 as appended to this rule) shall be filed in each
action to establish or modify child-support obligations and
shall be of record and shall be deemed to be ...