Court Opinion

ID: 9538046
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:28:54.911732+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:24.021912
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING
Petitioner submits that this court misapplied Headley v. Headley, 277 Ala. 464, 172 So.2d 29, in that in Headley, supra, the removal of the children was to a jurisdiction amenable to United States law, while in the instant case the removal was to Germany.
In view of the peculiar facts in the instant case, this court is of the opinion that such a distinction is not material. The record is clear to the effect that the appellee has at all times exhibited a willingness to allow the petitioner to visit the child. Furthermore, the appellant made no objection to the appellee’s taking the child to Germany in the first place. In addition, the record shows that appellee’s stay in Germany is only temporary while her present husband Is stationed there. To allow petitioner to stop the support payments under the facts as set out above is certainly not within the well established and often quoted “best interests of the child,” as the record clearly shows that the appellee and the minor child need the support payments.
Furthermore, in the case of Schneider v. Schneider, 207 Iowa 189, 222 N.W. 400, relied on and cited in Headley, supra, the Iowa Supreme Court stated:
“The question of whether he should penalize the plaintiff by refusing to pay alimony until the children were placed in a home in Council Bluffs (where the parties originally lived) is largely, if not wholly, a matter of discretion with the court, and we do not think he abused his discretion. It is true that * * * appellant * * * being a wage-earner and required to pay the amount specified in the decree to the support of these children, in addition to his own incidental expenses, would probably leave very little to defray the expenses of trips to St. Louis to visit these children, yet we are unable to see where we are in a position to remedy this situation.”
Similarly, in the case of Stanfield v. Stanfield, 67 Old. 56, 168 P. 912, cited in and relied on by Headley, supra, the court, faced with a removal of a minor child to Mexico, stated:
“Certainly, in the absence of a specific requirement in the decree that the plaintiff in error should keep herself or the children within the jurisdiction of the court, such absence ought not be held *438to suspend the payment of alimony * *
We therefore re-assert that in view of a lack of any showing of unwillingness to allow visitation, and in view of the rationale of the cases cited in Headley, supra, we feel that the decision is due to be affirmed.
Opinion extended.
Application for rehearing overruled.