Court Opinion

ID: 9773915
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:03:45.175564+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:59.257413
License: Public Domain

HANNA, Presiding Judge,
concurring.
On the issue of the change of custody, I agree that the majority reached the correct result. I disagree, however, with the majority’s order on remand to transfer custody to the mother without further evidence being heard. In spite of the undisputed evidence that the mother left the children without adult supervision from 11:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M., the majority has ordered custody transferred to the mother without further review. The shortage of evidence before the trial court with regard to the mother’s lack of supervision is of concern.1 Since the majority’s opinion on remand directs the trial court to hear additional evidence concerning the father’s fitness for visitation, I would also direct the trial court to hear evidence on the lack of supervision issue.
If there is any basis for a change of custody, it must be because of the mother’s lack of supervision. As the majority has determined, and I agree, the other charges, standing alone, are not sufficient to constitute a change in circumstances that warrant a change in custody. The evidence consisted of the uncontested fact that the children, ages 15 and 11 at the time in question, were *456left without adult supervision from 11:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. while the mother worked nights. There was little or no evidence of the maturity level of either child. Most notably, the maturity level of the 15-year-old, who was in charge during her mother’s absence, was never raised at trial. Furthermore, other than the mother’s hours of employment, there was no other explanation concerning reasons for the lack of adult supervision or what efforts, if any, were made to mitigate the lack of direct supervision. For example, there was no evidence as to whether there were other precautions taken to insure the children’s safety; what, if any, guidance, direction, or teaching did the children receive concerning the unsupervised periods; and—consistent with the father’s testimony—what dangers, emotional and physical, were the children subjected to because of the area in which they lived.2 The brief but undisputed evidence raises a substantial concern that should not be ignored, even if the matter was not being remanded for more evidence on the father’s fitness for visitation and other matters.

. The trial transcript covered 105 pages and less than three pages of testimony is devoted to the mother’s lack of supervision. Over 80 percent of the testimony concerned the prior agreement and how much money the father owed in back child support.

. I am also troubled by the majority’s discrediting the father's trial testimony that the children lived in a violent area.- As such, the majority’s analysis infringes on the trial court’s responsibility to judge the credibility of the witnesses and.to draw reasonable inferences from the facts presented.