Title: Ex Parte Jones
Citation: 620 So. 2d 4
Docket Number: 1910120
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: July 31, 1992

620 So. 2d 4 (1992)
Ex parte Moses C. JONES.
(Re Zaida S. JONES v. Moses C. JONES).
1910120.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
July 31, 1992.
Rehearing Denied January 8, 1993.
*5 Jack Drake and Dorothy R. Drake, Tuscaloosa, for petitioner.
W. Cameron Parsons, Tuscaloosa, for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
This is a child custody modification case.
Moses Jones, a neurosurgeon in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, was married to Zaida Jones for 10 years prior to their divorce. Two minor children were born during the marriage, and the 1987 divorce judgment awarded custody of those minor children to Zaida Jones. The divorce judgment, however, stated that should Zaida Jones decide to move outside the State of Alabama, then the court would consider that there had been a material change of circumstances, and, therefore, that the custody issue would be reviewable. In 1989, Zaida petitioned the court for permission to move the children to Puerto Rico, where she is from. Moses Jones cross-petitioned, requesting custody of the children. Following an ore tenus hearing, the trial court, in an 18-page opinion, awarded custody to the father. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed, 620 So. 2d 1, and we granted Moses Jones's petition for the writ of certiorari. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals.
In Ex parte McLendon, 455 So. 2d 863 (Ala.1984), this Court set forth the standard of review for cases involving the question of a change of custody. We stated:
"Wood v. Wood, 333 So. 2d 826, 828 (Ala. Civ.App.1976).
455 So. 2d  at 865-66.
In an 18-page opinion, the trial judge determined that custody should be awarded to the father. He stated in that opinion, in pertinent part:
The trial court, reviewing Judge Conger's order, stated:
When reviewing a custody case wherein the evidence was presented ore tenus, an appellate court will not disturb the findings of the trial judge unless they are found to be unsupported by the evidence and therefore plainly wrong. Skinner v. Hargett, 494 So. 2d 652, 653 (Ala.Civ.App.1986), citing Cook v. Cook, 462 So. 2d 370 (Ala.Civ. App.1984). In this case, the Court of Civil Appeals, in our opinion, did not observe this standard of review. It is not enough that the Court of Civil Appeals would or could have reached the opposite conclusion; rather, the Court of Civil Appeals is bound to look at the evidence to determine if the trial judge was plainly and palpably wrong, in light of the standards set forth in Ex parte McLendon, supra. In light of McLendon, we conclude that the Court of Civil Appeals erred in reversing the judgment of the trial judge.
The record indicates that two psychologists testified. One testified that a change of custody would be "devastating" to the children; however, the other psychologist, Dr. Meyer, testified that although the change in custody would be traumatic for the minor children, she thought the best interests of the children would be better served if they were in the custody of their father. The trial judge found that, in light of the testimony and the demeanor of the parties, a change in custody would best promote the children's welfare and that the benefits of that change would outweigh the *8 effect the change of custody would have on the children. See Ex parte McLendon, supra.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded with instructions to reinstate the judgment of the trial court.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
MADDOX, SHORES, ADAMS, HOUSTON and STEAGALL, JJ., concur.
KENNEDY and INGRAM, JJ., dissent.