Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): of the evidence presented, make a finding on the record as to whether domestic abuse occurred and then, if necessary, it must apply the remaining provisions of the Custody and Domestic or Family Abuse Act. REVERSED AND REMANDED. THOMPSON, J., concurs. YATES, J., concurs in the result. ROBERTSON, P.J., and MONROE, J., concur in the result only. 1 . For example, without a finding stated in the record, an appellate court cannot be certain whether the trial court has found that the alleged abuse did not occur, or has found that the abuse did occur but that the perpetrator of the abuse had rebutted the presumption against the child’s being placed in the sole or joint custody of the perpetrator. See Ala.Code 1975, § 30-3-131; see also Jackson v. Jackson, 709 So.2d 46, 48 (Ala.Civ.App.1997) 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the mclendon standard applied where an agreement between the parties granted the parties joint legal custody of the child with physical custody to the mother and the agreement had been adopted by the trial court (B) holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the best interest of the children require the continuation of primary physical custody with defendant and secondary custody with plaintiff and the trial court failed to make sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law for this court to determine whether the guidelines were followed (C) holding that the trial court must apply the provisions of the statute and specifically determine whether the perpetrator of domestic abuse had rebutted the presumption against an award of joint custody (D) holding the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting alternative perpetrator evidence where the record demonstrated the supposed alternative perpetrator was near the victim no more than ten minutes before the crime (E) holding that provisions concerning joint custody and healthcare of the parties child were consistent with the signed notes
Output (English): holding the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting alternative perpetrator evidence where the record demonstrated the supposed alternative perpetrator was near the victim no more than ten minutes before the crime