Appeals from Shelby Circuit Court (DR-11-900581.01 and
DR-11-900581.02), Lara M. Alvis, Trial Judge.
Logan Davis and Lauren Glass Spradling of Peeples & Davis,
Birmingham, for appellant.
Submitted on appellants brief only.
("the father") appeals from a judgment entered by
the Shelby Circuit Court ("the trial court"), in
case number DR-11-900581.01 and case number DR-11-900581.02,
to the extent the judgment declined to modify the physical
custody of E.S. ("the child"), the fathers child
with D.P.S. ("the mother") and declined to hold the
mother in contempt. In appeal number 2170865, involving the
contempt issues, we affirm the judgment; in appeal number
2170866, involving the custody-modification issues, we remand
the case to the trial court for further proceedings.
February 15, 2013, the parties were divorced by a judgment of
the trial court that incorporated an agreement between the
parties. That agreement provided that the mother would
exercise sole legal and sole physical custody of the child
and that the father would have specified visitation and
reasonable telephone contact with the child.
September 11, 2014, the father filed a verified petition for
a rule nisi; that petition was assigned case number
DR-11-900581.01. He alleged, among other things, that the
mother had failed to allow him his visitation periods with
the child, had failed to allow him reasonable telephone
contact with the child, and had failed to provide him notice
of her relocation with the child. He amended his petition on
October 27, 2014.
December 10, 2014, the mother filed a petition for a
modification of the fathers visitation; that petition was
assigned case number DR-11-900581.02. On April 22, 2015, the
father moved to consolidate the actions; that motion was
granted on April 24, 2015. On August 7, 2015, the father
filed, in case number DR-11-900581.02, a counterpetition to
modify custody, visitation, and child support. The mother
answered the counterpetition on August 12, 2015.
February 10, 2016, the father filed a motion requesting,
among other things, that the trial court hold the mother in
contempt for denying his weekend visitation and telephone
contact with the child.
March 11, 2016, the trial court entered an order stating that
the father would have "the care, custody, and
control" of the child "for an uninterrupted period
of twelve (12) consecutive days." The trial court
reserved the issue of contempt for the trial on the fathers
petition for a rule nisi, the mothers petition to modify,
and the fathers counterpetition to modify.
March 28, 2016, the father filed a verified motion for
contempt; he alleged that the mother had denied him his
"spring break" visitation with the child. On May
18, 2016, the father filed a second verified motion for
contempt, alleging, among other things, that the mother had
failed to allow him ...