Case Title: Ex parte Herman Buford Cowart, Jr.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1150286

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2016-04-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
04/01/2016
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-
0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before
the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
OCTOBER TERM, 2015-2016
____________________
1150286
____________________
Ex parte Herman Buford Cowart, Jr.
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
(In re: Herman Buford Cowart, Jr.
v.
Debra Burnham)
(Lee Circuit Court, DR-01-461.03;
Court of Civil Appeals, 2140112)
BRYAN, Justice.
1150286
WRIT DENIED. NO OPINION.
Stuart, Bolin, Parker, Shaw, Main, and Wise, JJ., concur.
Moore, C.J., and Murdock, J., dissent.
2
1150286
MOORE, Chief Justice (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. Based on the facts as presented
in Judge Moore's special writing below and the facts submitted
to this Court, I would grant the petition for a writ of
certiorari filed by Herman Buford Cowart, Jr. ("the father"),
to review the 12-month suspension of his visitation rights and
the alleged delegation to Debra Burnham ("the mother") of
judicial authority by the Lee Circuit Court ("the circuit
court") in deciding visitation.
This case involves a postdivorce custody and visitation
dispute. The circuit court found that the father had
psychologically abused the child by intentionally alienating
the child from the mother. As a result of that finding, the
circuit court ordered, among other things, the suspension of
the father's visitation rights for 12 months, subject to the
mother's allowing visitation during that period on the
recommendation of the child's psychologist after consulting
with the parents' counselor. The circuit court also ordered
the father to support without question any house rules imposed
by the mother on the child. Cowart v. Burnham, [Ms. 2140112,
October 9, 2015] ___ So. 3d ___ , ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2015)
(Moore, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
3
1150286
On appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals, the father
alleged that the evidence presented, as well as prior
decisions of the Court of Civil Appeals, did not support the
circuit court's decision to suspend his visitation rights for
a year. The father relied on the following expert testimony by
Dr. Bridget Smith, the court-appointed psychologist in this
case:
"'What the research shows is that once
there is a permanent decision made by the
Court, that generally the symptoms of the
alienation decreases significantly as the
conflict is, at least in the short-term,
resolved because a decision has been made.
So in most cases, you would hope that both
parents would be able to have –- say [the
mother] was given custod[y]. You would hope
that 
the 
father 
would 
have 
liberal
visitation. But there would still have to
be a monitoring of alienation. And if that
doesn’t decrease and it continues and [the
child] continues to be resistant to working
on his relationship with his mother, then
you 
still 
have 
to 
assess 
outside
influences. And in that case, you have to
wonder whether there is anything going on
that does need to be supervised during
visitation.'
"....
"'... 
[T]he 
standard 
recommendation 
of
severe alienation is more quality time with
the parent who has been alienated and
family therapy, and to try [to,] what they
usually 
refer 
to 
as, 
contain 
the
alienation, making sure that the child's
not being unduly influenced about negative
factors.
4
1150286
"'So in this case, [the child] needs
more quality time with his mother and more
therapy with his mother. And his father
needs some guidance, I believe, on setting
boundaries and how, for both parents, to
encourage the relationship with him. If
there continues to be alienation at this
level, 
then 
the 
recommendation 
generally 
is
supervised visits with the parent who is
doing the alienation.'"
Cowart, ___ So. 3d at ___ (Moore, J., concurring in part and
dissenting in part)(emphasis added). On appeal, the Court of
Civil Appeals affirmed the decision without an opinion; Judge
Moore concurred in part and dissented in part and issued a
special writing. The father petitioned this Court for
certiorari review, which the Court today denies.
Based on the facts in the father's petition, I believe
that the father has properly asserted grounds for our review.
According to M.R.D. v. T.D., 989 So. 2d 1111, 1118 (Ala. Civ.
App. 2008), a trial court's discretion in awarding visitation
"should be exercised with a view towards the policy of
preserving 
relationships 
between 
parents 
and 
children 
whenever
possible." In addition, "'[t]he trial court is entrusted to
balance the rights of the parents with the child's best
interest to fashion a visitation award that is tailored to the
specific facts and circumstances of the individual case.'"
Ratcliff v. Ratcliff, 5 So. 3d 570, 586 (Ala. Civ. App.
5
1150286
2008)(quoting Nauditt v. Haddock, 882 So. 2d 364, 367 (Ala.
Civ. App. 2003)). A trial court may restrict visitation to
protect 
children 
from 
conduct, 
conditions, 
or 
circumstances 
of
their 
noncustodial 
parent 
that 
endanger 
the 
children's 
health,
safety, or well-being. Ex parte Thompson, 51 So. 3d 265, 272
(Ala. 2010). However, "if the danger to the child from
visitation 
can 
be 
ameliorated 
through 
some 
lesser 
restriction,
that restriction should be pursued instead of a total denial
of visitation." Y.N. v. Jefferson Cty. Dep't of Human Res., 67
So. 3d 76, 86 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011)(Moore, J., concurring in
the result). See also C.O. v. S.O., 85 So. 3d 460, 466 (Ala.
Civ. App. 2011) (reversing the juvenile court's judgment
suspending mother's visitation rights entirely because less
restrictive measures were not explored before suspension);
Pratt v. Pratt, 56 So. 3d 638, 641 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010)
(holding 
that, 
in 
fashioning 
the 
appropriate 
restrictions, 
the
trial court may not use a restriction more broad than
necessary to protect the child). Thus, the circuit court in
this case was required to tailor visitation rights in a less
restrictive manner than a year-long total suspension if such
measures were available.
6
1150286
Nevertheless, the circuit court suspended the father's
visitation entirely, even though the expert testimony
supported a less severe restriction. Dr. Smith gave a thorough
analysis addressing the alienation of the mother by the
father, which is the core component of the current dispute.
Nowhere in her testimony did Dr. Smith suggest that the father
should be prohibited from visiting the child. Rather, Dr.
Smith gave the standard recommendation in severe alienation
cases, which did not include suspending the father's
visitation rights, even temporarily. Thus, based on what is
before us, it appears there were means available to the
circuit court less restrictive than a total suspension of the
father's visitation rights for 12 months.
The cases cited by the Court of Civil Appeals for
temporarily suspending visitation rights are distinguishable
from this case. In Cole v. Cole, 507 So. 2d 1333 (Ala. Civ.
App. 1987), the trial court found that the father caused great
emotional and mental detriment to the child by teaching her to
lie, steal, deceive, and be disrespectful to authority,
thereby breaching her ties with the mother. Based on those
facts, the Court of Civil Appeals found that the trial court
did not exceed its discretion when it temporarily suspended
7
1150286
the father's visitation for 10 months. In Robbins v. Robbins,
560 So. 2d 266 (Ala. Civ. App. 1984), the Court of Civil
Appeals upheld the trial court's decision to suspend the
father's visitation rights for 12 months because the father,
in clear disregard of the custody order granting sole custody
to the mother, twice took the child away from the mother
without permission. On one such occasion, the father did not
return the child after visitation, but instead moved to
Florida with the child, where he lived under a different name.
The child was not returned to the mother until FBI agents
located the father's residence.
Similarly, in Laurent v. Laurent, 434 So. 2d 266 (Ala.
Civ. App. 1983), the parents were divorced, and legal custody
of the child was awarded to the paternal grandparents, with
the mother receiving visitation rights. When the mother
petitioned the trial court to modify the custody award, the
paternal grandparents petitioned to suspend the mother's
visitation rights. The trial court suspended the mother's
visitation rights until the hearing. During the hearing, two
witnesses testified that the child, who was very difficult to
control, began to calm down and to act like a different person
eight weeks before the hearing, which coincided with the
8
1150286
period during which the mother's visitation rights were
suspended. The court-appointed psychiatrist recommended that
visitation be suspended temporarily, that the mother and the
paternal grandparents attend counseling to remove the
conflicts that existed between them, and that the visitation
with the mother not resume until after the child was evaluated
at the end of the suspension period.  After the hearing, the
trial court suspended the mother's visitation rights for an
additional six months. 
In each case cited in the Court of Civil Appeals' no-
opinion affirmance, the trial court acted upon evidence and
testimony that heavily favored a suspension of visitation
rights. In the present case, however, the court-appointed
psychologist did not recommend that the father's visitation
rights be suspended, because there were no facts to indicate
that the father was acting in a manner that would harm the
child. 
Second, the father argued that the circuit court erred in
delegating judicial authority to the mother by giving her,
with the consultation of the child's psychologist, the
exclusive right to control the father's 12-month visitation
restriction. The court further ordered the father to enforce
9
1150286
house rules made by the mother with the consultation of
counselors for the child and the parties. In Pratt v. Pratt,
56 So. 3d 638, 641 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010), the Court of Civil
Appeals stated: "'"The trial court is entrusted to balance the
rights of the parents with the child's best interests to
fashion a visitation award that is tailored to the specific
facts and circumstances of the individual case."' That
judicial function may not be delegated to a third party."
(Quoting Ratliff v. Ratliff, 5 So. 3d 570, 586 (Ala. Civ. App.
2008)(final emphasis added).) If the circuit court 
allowed 
the
mother and her counselor to relieve the father's suspension at
the recommendation of the child's psychologist, this would
give the mother the authority to modify the father's
"visitation rights," which is a clear delegation of judicial
authority to a third party. 
In addition, the circuit court gave the mother no
guidelines on how to formulate the house rules the father was
to obey. Instead, the court stated only that the father had to
enforce the mother's rules without question or remedy. Judge
Moore noted in his special writing that the circuit court
received evidence regarding the manner in which both parents
ran their households, but imposed no house rules designed to
10
1150286
protect the child. Instead, the court allowed the mother to
promulgate whatever child-rearing guidelines she and her
counselor deemed advisable and ordered the father to support
and to follow those rules. Cowart, ___ So. 3d at ___ (Moore,
J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). This was an
additional improper delegation of judicial authority.
Under the laws of Alabama, a noncustodial parent's
visitation rights are to be protected. The courts have a duty
to tailor the visitation rights based on the specific
circumstances of each case. Although courts have, at times,
suspended 
a 
noncustodial 
parent's 
visitation 
rights, 
they 
have
done so when the child's health, safety, or well-being is
endangered by the noncustodial parent. I am not convinced that
such circumstances existed in the present case. Therefore, I
respectfully dissent.
11