Case Title: Ex Parte PGB

Citation: 600 So. 2d 259

Docket Number: 1901615

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1992-01-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
600 So. 2d 259 (1992)
Ex parte P.G.B.
(Re S.B.
v.
P.G.B.)
1901615.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
January 10, 1992.
Rehearing Denied April 10, 1992.
Jerry Knight of Hardwick, Knight & Haddock, Decatur, for appellant.
Sherryl Snodgrass Goffer, Huntsville, for appellee.
MADDOX, Justice.
This is a child custody modification case. The issue presented is whether the Court of Civil Appeals, 600 So. 2d 256, erred in reversing the trial court's judgment that changed custody of the child from the mother to the father.
Under the terms of a 1988 divorce judgment, which was substantially based upon a settlement agreement between the parties, S.B., the mother, obtained custody of her child, R.P.B., then one and one-half years old. Two years later, she filed a petition to modify the divorce judgment to increase the father's child support payments. The father, P.G.B., counterclaimed, seeking custody of R.P.B. and periodic support from the mother. S.B. answered the counterclaim, alleging that the father had sexually abused R.P.B.
The trial court entered a judgment modifying the original judgment, changing custody from the mother to the father, and ordering the mother to pay periodic child support to the father. The judgment of modification reads in pertinent part as follows:
The mother appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals. That court stated the facts as follows:
600 So. 2d  at 258.
Relying heavily upon Ex parte McLendon, 455 So. 2d 863 (Ala.1984), the Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, stating:
S.B. v. P.G.B., 600 So. 2d 256, 258 (1991).
The Court of Civil Appeals overruled the father's application for rehearing, and the father petitioned this Court for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to the Court of Civil Appeals, alleging that that court had:
We granted the writ under A.R.App.P. Rule 39(c)(4).
Where the trial court has heard ore tenus evidence in a child custody case, an appellate court presumes the court's findings to be correct and will not reverse absent a showing of clear abuse of discretion or plain error. Reuter v. Neese, 586 So. 2d 232 (Ala.Civ.App.1991); J.S. v. D.S., 586 So. 2d 944 (Ala.Civ.App.1991). The presumption is especially applicable where the evidence is conflicting, as it was in this case. An appellate court will not reverse the trial court's judgment unless it is based on findings so poorly supported by the evidence as to be plainly and palpably wrong. See Ex parte Walters, 580 So. 2d 1352 (Ala.1991) (a child custody case), and cases cited therein.
A trial judge is in a position to observe the parties and to hear their testimony, id. at 1353, and the trial judge here, in finding that no sexual abuse had occurred, specifically held:
In the present case, the father bore the burden of proving that the change of custody "materially promote[d] the welfare and best interest of [R.P.B.]" in a manner sufficient to more than offset the effects caused by removing from his mother. See Ex parte McLendon, 455 So. 2d 863 (Ala.1984).
*262 After considering the evidence and all inferences to be drawn from it, the trial court held not only that the father had met this burden, but that he had "exceeded his burden of proof."
We have meticulously read the voluminous record and have given particular attention to those portions of the record used by the Court of Civil Appeals to overturn the findings made by the trial judge. We conclude that the Court of Civil Appeals erred; we cannot say that the trial court's findings of fact are plainly and palpably wrong or that they constitute a clear abuse of discretion or plain error.
Based upon the foregoing, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals and remand the cause for the entry of an order consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
HORNSBY, C.J., and ALMON, HOUSTON, STEAGALL, KENNEDY and INGRAM, JJ., concur.
SHORES and ADAMS, JJ., dissent.