Case Title: Ex Parte Patronas

Citation: 693 So. 2d 473

Docket Number: 1960100

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1997-02-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
693 So. 2d 473 (1997)
Ex parte Otha Phillip PATRONAS.
(In re Deborah K. PATRONAS v. Otha Phillip PATRONAS).
1960100.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
February 21, 1997.
W. Gregory Hughes, Mobile, for Petitioner.
Buzz Jordan and A. Jerome Dees of Huntley, Jordan & Associates, Mobile, for Respondent.
HOUSTON, Justice.
Otha Phillip Patronas ("the father") and Deborah K. Patronas ("the mother") were divorced in 1990. The trial court awarded custody of the two minor children to the mother. In 1995, the father petitioned for *474 custody, which the trial court granted. The mother appealed. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed, holding as follows:
Patronas v. Patronas, 693 So. 2d 469 (Ala. Civ.App.1996).
The father petitioned for certiorari review, which this Court granted to determine whether the trial court had properly awarded custody of the minor children to the father.
The father maintains that he carried the burden imposed under Ex parte McLendon, 455 So. 2d 863 (Ala.1984), and that the Court of Civil Appeals erred by reweighing the evidence, Ex parte Bryowsky, 676 So. 2d 1322 (Ala.1996), and by not according the trial court's custody order the proper presumption of correctness, Phillips v. Phillips, 622 So. 2d 410 (Ala.Civ.App.1993). According to the father, he presented sufficient evidence to establish that the mother's living situation was unstable and put the children at risk, both physically and psychologically; that there had been a great deal of improvement in his lifestyle and circumstances; and that he was a fit and proper person to have custody of the childrenthat is, that he presented sufficient evidence to show that there had been a material change in circumstances and that a change in custody would materially promote the best interests of the children and would more than offset the disruptive effect caused by that change.
Although the trial court did not make specific findings of fact, a review of the record indicates that the court heard extensive testimony from the mother, the father, the minor children, character witnesses, and expert witnesses, much of which was disputed, concerning the mother's alleged drug use, the lifestyles of the mother and the father, the environment each of the parties could provide, and the alleged risk the children were exposed to while in the mother's custody. This Court stated in Ex parte Bryowsky, 676 So. 2d 1322, 1324-26 (Ala.1996):
Suffice it to say, without an in-depth recitation of the facts, that after thoroughly reviewing the record, we find it apparent that the Court of Civil Appeals "reweighed" the evidence in this case and substituted its judgment for that of the trial court when, in fact, its review was limited to whether there was evidence to support the trial court's judgment. There was sufficient evidence to support the trial court's apparent finding (see Ex parte Bryowsky, supra, holding that in the absence of specific findings of fact, appellate courts will presume that the trial court made those findings necessary to support its judgment, unless such findings would be clearly erroneous) that the change in custody would materially promote the children's best interest and that the benefits of the requested change would more than offset the inherently disruptive effect caused by uprooting the children. Ex parte McLendon, supra.
The judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
HOOPER, C.J., and MADDOX, SHORES, and SEE, JJ., concur.
KENNEDY and COOK, JJ., dissent.