Court Opinion

ID: 9961596
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-19 14:02:52.284093+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:21:02.134693
License: Public Domain

Rel: April 19, 2024

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) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections
may be made before the opinion is published in Southern Reporter.

 ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
                               OCTOBER TERM, 2023-2024
                                 ________________________

                                         CL-2023-0201
                                    ________________________

                                      Mary Wilson-Hinson

                                                      v.

                                            Jesse Hinson

                             Appeal from Lee Circuit Court
                                    (DR-20-900026)

MOORE, Presiding Judge.

        Mary Wilson-Hinson ("the mother") appeals from a judgment

entered by the Lee Circuit Court ("the trial court") awarding Jesse

Hinson ("the father") visitation with the parties' minor child, with the

right to delegate his visitation rights to George David Hinson and
CL-2023-0201

Tommie W. Hinson ("the paternal grandparents"). We reverse the trial

court's judgment and remand the case with instructions.

                              Background

     In pertinent part, the record shows that the child was born in

September 2018 during the marriage of the parties. In October 2019, the

parties separated after the father was incarcerated for crimes involving

the unlawful sale of securities. In January 2020, the mother filed a

complaint seeking a divorce from the father; the trial court subsequently

granted the parties a divorce but reserved ruling on any child-custody

matters. In April 2021, the paternal grandparents filed a motion to

intervene to request visitation with the child. In May 2021, the trial

court entered a pendente lite order allowing the paternal grandparents

to intervene and awarding them supervised visitation with the child for

three hours each month. In November 2021, after the father had been

released from incarceration, the trial court vacated that part of the

pendente lite order awarding the paternal grandparents visitation with

the child and entered a new pendente lite order awarding the father

visitation with the child. The new pendente lite order stated that "the

                                   2
CL-2023-0201

father may assign his visitation to [the paternal grandparents] as he sees

fit."

        On April 30, 2022, the father was again incarcerated following his

conviction for other crimes relating to the unlawful sale of securities. As

part of his sentence, he was ordered to be imprisoned for three years. The

case proceeded to a final hearing on July 28, 2022. Three days before the

hearing, the paternal grandparents filed a second motion to intervene to

again request visitation with the child; however, the paternal

grandparents had remained parties to the case and the trial court

therefore denied the motion to intervene as moot.           The paternal

grandmother was allowed to testify in support of the paternal

grandparents' request for visitation.

        At the time of the July 2022 hearing, the father was serving his

sentence at the Kilby Correctional Facility ("Kilby"). No party offered

any evidence regarding whether Kilby allowed prisoners to visit with

their children or the schedule followed at Kilby for such visitation. At

trial, the father testified as follows:

              "[Counsel for the father]: Are you wanting [the trial
        court] to give you visitation?
                                          3
CL-2023-0201

          "[The father]: I'm asking [the trial court] to give [the
     paternal grandparents] visitation.

           "[Counsel for the father]: While you're incarcerated?

           "[The father]: While I'm incarcerated, yes.

           "[Counsel for the father]: When you get out, you would
     like to be able to petition [the trial court] to have visitation,
     personally?

           "[The father]: Absolutely."

The paternal grandmother testified that she would like to have visitation

with the child one weekend a month "while [the father] is incarcerated."

     On October 27, 2022, the trial court entered a final judgment

awarding the mother sole legal and sole physical custody of the child and

child support, awarding the father visitation with the child, and denying

all other requests for relief. The judgment provides, in pertinent part:

"Visitation with the father shall be the 3rd Saturday of each month from

9:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. He may delegate those visits to his parents, but

if he does so, they must confirm their intent to exercise his visitation by

the 2nd Saturday of each month."            The mother timely filed a

postjudgment motion challenging the visitation provision, which was

                                    4
CL-2023-0201

denied by operation of law. See Rule 59.1, Ala. R. Civ. P. On March 20,

2023, the mother timely filed a notice of appeal to this court.

                                   Issues

     On appeal, the mother argues, as she did in her postjudgment

motion, that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding the father

visitation with the child and in allowing the father to delegate his

visitation rights to the paternal grandparents. The mother maintains

that the trial court did not receive sufficient evidence to support its award

of visitation to the father and that the trial court, in substance, awarded

visitation to the paternal grandparents without complying with the

Alabama Grandparent Visitation Act ("the GVA"), § 30-3-4.2, Ala. Code

1975, in violation of her due-process rights.

                            Standard of Review

     "The trial court has broad discretion in determining the visitation

rights of a noncustodial parent, and its decision in this regard will not be

reversed absent an abuse of discretion." Carr v. Broyles, 652 So. 2d 299,

303 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994). Every case involving a visitation issue must

be decided on its own facts and circumstances, but the primary

                                     5
CL-2023-0201

consideration   in   establishing    the   visitation   rights   accorded   a

noncustodial parent is always the best interests and welfare of the child.

Watson v. Watson, 555 So. 2d 1115, 1116 (Ala. Civ. App. 1989).

                                  Analysis

     Alabama law provides a noncustodial parent with reasonable

visitation rights if that visitation is in the best interests of his or her

child. Naylor v. Oden, 415 So. 2d 1118, 1120 (Ala. Civ. App. 1982). In

assessing whether it is in the best interests of a child to visit with an

incarcerated parent, the trial court should consider, among other factors,

the age of the child, the relationship between the parent and the child,

the reason for the incarceration, the length of the incarceration, the

visitation environment, the potential psychological impact on the child of

in-prison visits, and the feasibility of the visitation. See, e.g., Robert SS.

v. Ashley TT., 143 A.D.3d 1193, 1194, 40 N.Y.S.3d 245, 246 (2016); D.R.C.

v. J.A.Z., 612 Pa. 519, 536, 31 A.3d 677, 687 (2011); Harmon v. Harmon,

943 P.2d 599, 605 (Okla. 1997). Another factor to be considered is the

willingness of the incarcerated parent to visit with the child under the

conditions of his or her imprisonment.

                                      6
CL-2023-0201

     In this case, the father testified that he would not be seeking to

exercise any visitation with the child until he was released from prison.

The father had evidently determined that it would not be in the best

interests of the child for him to visit with the child in a prison

environment. Consequently, the father did not even attempt to make a

case that he should be awarded visitation with the child during his

incarceration. We agree with the mother that the trial court did not

receive any evidence showing that it would be in the best interests of the

child, who was three years old at the time of trial, to visit with the father

while he was incarcerated. Accordingly, the trial court should not have

awarded the father visitation with the child.

     Likewise, the trial court should not have awarded the father the

right to delegate any visitation rights to the paternal grandparents. The

paternal grandparents asserted their own claim to visitation with the

child, but the trial court denied that claim in the final judgment when it

ordered that all motions and requests not specifically granted were

denied. The judgment nevertheless affords the paternal grandparents

the right to exercise visitation with the child as designees of the father so

                                     7
CL-2023-0201

long as all conditions of the visitation provision are satisfied. As the

mother argues, the visitation provision circumvents the GVA.

     Ordinarily, a fit noncustodial parent who has been awarded

reasonable visitation rights with a child may authorize a family member

to visit with the child during the noncustodial parent's visitation period.

In at least one plurality opinion, this court has also recognized that,

under appropriate circumstances, a noncustodial parent who is unable to

exercise his or her visitation rights may delegate those rights to a family

member until parental visitation can be resumed.         See McQuinn v.

McQuinn, 866 So. 2d 570 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003) (plurality opinion).

However, as will be shown, the plurality opinion in McQuinn does not

support the trial court's decision in this case to empower the father to

delegate his visitation rights to the paternal grandparents.

     In McQuinn, a Tennessee court entered a judgment divorcing Scott

McQuinn and Jamie McQuinn. The Tennessee court found that it was in

the best interests of the McQuinns' minor children for Scott to have

visitation with them every other Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,

and it awarded Scott visitation accordingly. Jamie and the children

                                    8
CL-2023-0201

subsequently moved to Guntersville. A little over a year after the divorce

judgment was entered, Scott filed a petition to modify the visitation

provisions of the divorce judgment because he had joined the United

States Navy and was stationed in Washington state, making the

visitation as outlined in the divorce judgment impracticable.         The

Marshall Circuit Court modified the visitation provision to, among other

things, allow certain members of Scott's family to have access to the

children during Scott's visitation periods in his stead; however, after

considering a postjudgment motion filed by the mother, the Marshall

Circuit Court amended the modification judgment to only allow their

paternal grandfather to transport the children to visitations with Scott.

     Scott appealed the amended modification judgment to this court,

primarily arguing that the Marshall Circuit Court had erred in removing

his right to delegate his visitation rights to his family members.      A

plurality of the court agreed and reversed the judgment. The plurality

opinion proceeds from the concept that parents have a fundamental right

to control their children's companions and associations. A noncustodial

parent does not forfeit that right by divorcing the custodial parent and

                                    9
CL-2023-0201

joining the armed forces. When a court awards reasonable rights of

visitation to a fit noncustodial parent, that award ordinarily carries with

it the right of the noncustodial parent to decide who may visit with the

child during his or her visitation periods, a decision that may not be

vetoed by the custodial parent.

     As noted, McQuinn is a plurality opinion.       Judge Crawley and

Judge Pittman concurred in the main opinion, Presiding Judge Yates,

Judge Thompson, and Judge Murdock concurred only in the result as to

the discussion regarding visitation. Plurality opinions have questionable

precedential value at best. Ex parte Discount Foods, Inc., 789 So. 2d 842,

845 (Ala. 2001). Thus, McQuinn should not be read as establishing any

rigid rule of law holding that a noncustodial parent may delegate his or

her visitation rights to family members regardless of the circumstances

at issue. In the main opinion, the plurality said:

           "The present judgment, however, limits the father to
     utilizing the aid of only the paternal grandfather to transport
     the children during visitation. Such a restrictive limitation,
     based on the specific facts of this case, is an abuse of the
     [Marshall Circuit C]ourt's discretion because of the father's
     employment and the considerable distances involved, both
     between the father's home and the children's home and

                                    10
CL-2023-0201

      between the other family members' homes and the father's
      and the children's homes."

McQuinn, 866 So. 2d at 574 (emphasis added). The plurality carefully

worded its opinion in McQuinn to explain that the terms of the judgment

restricting the father's parental rights were an abuse of discretion based

on the specific facts of that case.

      Based on the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the trial

court abused its discretion in allowing the father to delegate his visitation

rights to the paternal grandparents. As we have already discussed, the

evidence shows that the father does not intend to visit with the child until

at least April 2025, after his release from prison; instead, the father

intends for the parental grandparents to exclusively exercise any

visitation rights to which he is entitled while he remains incarcerated.

The visitation provision, in effect, grants the father and the paternal

grandparents the visitation rights that they requested in their testimony

at trial.

       In In re Huff, 158 N.H. 414, 969 A.2d 428 (2009), the New

Hampshire Supreme Court considered whether a trial court could

authorize an incarcerated parent to delegate part of his visitation time to
                                      11
CL-2023-0201

his girlfriend and a third party. Lawrence Huff divorced Jamie Huff,

and, in a pendente lite order, he was allocated every-other-weekend

visitation with their child. Lawrence was subsequently incarcerated for

three to six years in a state penitentiary that allowed visitation only from

8:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. each Saturday. In the final divorce judgment, the

New Hampshire trial court nevertheless awarded Lawrence visitation

with his child a full weekend each month, authorizing Lawrence to

delegate the remainder of his visitation to his girlfriend and to a friend

in order to facilitate visitation between the child and his half siblings,

who resided with the girlfriend. The New Hampshire Supreme Court

reversed the judgment, reasoning that, "[w]here both parents are fit, the

trial court may only award the incarcerated parent that visitation time

which he can actually exercise." 158 N.H. at 419, 969 A.2d at 432. The

court concluded that "[t]ime allocated to the [incarcerated parent] beyond

that [to which he or she can actually exercise], which is then delegated to

a third party, is equivalent to awarding an unrelated third party

visitation rights." 158 N.H. at 420, 969 A.2d at 433.

                                    12
CL-2023-0201

     In this case, the record is devoid of any evidence indicating that the

father can exercise his visitation rights on "the 3rd Saturday of each

month from 9:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m.," and the evidence is clear that he

is unwilling to exercise that court-ordered visitation even if he could. For

the purposes of this opinion, we see no substantive distinction between

an incarcerated parent who is unable to visit with a child and an

incarcerated parent who is unwilling to visit with a child. In either case,

the visitation will not be exercised by the noncustodial parent due to his

or her current circumstances, so any visitation award that includes a

right to delegation necessarily inures to the benefit of third parties.

     We conclude that this case is analogous to In re Huff, which we find

to be well reasoned and persuasive. Under the specific facts of this case,

the visitation provision allowing the father to delegate his visitation is

the equivalent of awarding the paternal grandparents visitation rights.

Unlike in McQuinn, in this case, the original award of visitation

specifically contemplates that the paternal grandparents shall be the

only parties exercising visitation because, as the evidence indicates, the

father will automatically delegate all visitation rights to them while he

                                    13
CL-2023-0201

is incarcerated. As the mother correctly argues, the judgment indirectly

awards the paternal grandparents visitation with the child without

meeting the notice, evidentiary, and other standards set forth in the

GVA. See Ala. Code 1975, § 30-3-4.2(c), (d), (e), (l), and (m). McQuinn

did not envision a visitation provision like the one at issue in this case,

which does, in fact, run afoul of the GVA. We must therefore reverse the

judgment in this case.

     Finally, we recognize that the visitation provision was generally

favorable to the paternal grandparents because it awarded the paternal

grandparents the visitation that they had sought via the delegation

provision.   However, the judgment was unfavorable to the paternal

grandparents to the extent that it denied their independent claim for

visitation. The paternal grandparents could have filed a cross-appeal

challenging the denial of their independent claim for grandparent

visitation, but they did not. As a result, the denial of that claim has

become the law of the case. See Stocks v. Stocks, 49 So. 3d 1220, 1236

n.4 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010) (Moore, J., concurring in part and dissenting in

part) ("The custodians did not file a cross-appeal as to [the trial court's]

                                    14
CL-2023-0201

finding, so it is now the law of the case that the mother did not voluntarily

forfeit her rights to custody of the children."); see also Norandal U.S.A.,

Inc. v. Graben, 18 So. 3d 405, 410 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009) (explaining that

failure to file cross-appeal made unchallenged portions of judgment the

law of the case); accord Segers v. Segers, 675 So. 2d 459, 460 (Ala. Civ.

App. 1996). Because the denial of their GVA claim is now the law of the

case, the paternal grandparents are not entitled to visitation with the

child through any theory that they had proven their case under the GVA.

                                 Conclusion

      Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the visitation provision

implemented by the trial court was improper. We therefore reverse the

judgment insofar as it awards the father visitation with the child and

allows him to delegate his visitation to the paternal grandparents. See

Raybon v. Hall, 17 So. 3d 673, 676 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009) (" 'The reversal

of a judgment, or a part thereof, wholly annuls it, or the part of it, as if it

never existed.' " (quoting Shirley v. Shirley, 361 So. 2d 590, 591 (Ala. Civ.

App. 1978)). We remand the case with instructions for the trial court to

enter an order denying the father and the paternal grandparents

                                      15
CL-2023-0201

visitation with the child. Because the paternal grandparents did not file

a cross-appeal, the trial court may not, on remand, reconsider the denial

of their independent claim for grandparent visitation. Although our

disposition precludes the father and the paternal grandparents from

currently visiting with the child, and does not allow the trial court to

amend its judgment to allow the father and the paternal grandparents to

visit with the child, nothing in this opinion shall be interpreted as

preventing the father or the paternal grandparents from petitioning the

trial court to modify the no-visitation order if the material circumstances

change and the paternal grandparents otherwise comply with the GVA.

     REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

     Edwards, Fridy, and Lewis, JJ., concur.

     Hanson, J., dissents, without opinion.

                                    16