Court Opinion

ID: 9934290
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 18:53:45.20232+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:20:05.623944
License: Public Domain

This is the second time this child support modification case has been before this court. In Kelly v. Kelly, 599 So.2d 49
(Ala.Civ.App. 1992), this court held that the portion of the trial court's judgment as to child support was due to be reversed because of the trial court's failure to apply the guidelines or to make a finding that the application of the guidelines would be manifestly unjust or inequitable. On remand, the trial court's order provided:
 "2. The court is satisfied from the evidence that the application of the Child Support Guidelines, Rule 32 A.R.J.A., would be manifestly unjust or inequitable. Therefore, the court exercises its discretion and deviates from the said child support guidelines. The court's award of child support is calculated not by applying the guidelines, but rather based on the actual needs of the child, proven by the [mother] during the trial of the cause. The court further finds the father has a corresponding ability to respond to that need. Therefore, the child support ordered to be paid by the [father] to the [mother] for the support and maintenance of the minor child of the parties be and it hereby is increased to $650 per month effective December 1, 1990."
The mother contends in this appeal that the trial court again abused its discretion in failing to apply the Child Support Guidelines and argues that the record does not support a finding that the application of the guidelines would be manifestly unjust or inequitable.
The decision in matters of child support rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be altered on appeal except where that discretion was abused. East v. East,569 So.2d 409 (Ala.Civ.App. 1990). Also, this court is not permitted to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. Justice v. Justice, 460 So.2d 1330 (Ala.Civ.App. 1984).
After a careful review of the record and considering the totality of the judgment, we cannot hold that the trial court committed an abuse of discretion by finding that the application of the Child Support Guidelines would be manifestly unjust or inequitable. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
The mother's request for an attorney's fee on appeal is denied.
AFFIRMED.
THIGPEN, J., concurs in result.
YATES, J., dissents.