Court Opinion

ID: 9390744
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-28 15:02:22.359772+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:36.442603
License: Public Domain

Rel: April 28, 2023

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, 2022-2023
                               _________________________

                                         2210161
                                 _________________________

                                           Jacob Shook

                                                    v.

                                       Erica Shook
                                 _________________________

                                         2210206
                                 _________________________

                                           Erica Shook

                                                    v.

                                           Jacob Shook

                       Appeals from Madison Circuit Court
                                (DR-17-900171.01)
2210161 and 2210206

HANSON, Judge.

     Jacob Shook ("the father") appeals from a judgment of the

Madison Circuit Court ("the trial court") that modified his child-support

obligation and held him in contempt of court. Erica Shook ("the

mother") cross-appeals from that same judgment, which denied her

request to modify custody of O.L.S. ("the child").

                           Procedural History

     The parties were divorced by a judgment entered by the trial court

in March 2018. The divorce judgment reads, in pertinent part:

           "1. The bonds of matrimony heretofore existing
     between the plaintiff and the defendant be and the same are
     hereby dissolved and [the mother] is forever divorced from
     [the father]….

           "2. The Settlement Agreement duly executed by the
     parties and filed with the Clerk of this Court on March 22,
     2018, is hereby ratified and approved by the Court, and is
     incorporated into and made a part hereof as though fully set
     out herein. It is ORDERED by the Court that the parties
     keep and obey the terms thereof, subject to penalty as for
     contempt.

           "….

          "4. Neither party shall be required to pay child support
     to the other party based on their exercise of joint physical
     custody of the minor child. Based upon the income and
     expenditures supplied by the parties in forms CS-41, [Child
     Support Obligation Income Statement/Affidavit] and having

                                     2
2210161 and 2210206

     considered the agreement of the parties, the Child Support
     Guidelines as established by Rule 32 of the Alabama Rules
     of Judicial Administration have not been followed and
     applied due to the joint physical custody arrangement for the
     child. The Court finds this to be fair and reasonable and said
     deviation is hereby ratified and approved by this Court."

     The parties' above-quoted "Settlement Agreement," which was

incorporated into the divorce judgment states, in pertinent part:

           "7. The parties agree that they will share true joint
     legal and true joint physical custody and control of the
     parties' minor child, [O.L.S.]…The parties understand and
     agree that all decisions related to education, religious
     upbringing, non-emergency medical and dental treatment,
     and extracurricular activities of the minor [child] should be
     made jointly. However, in the event that the parties are
     unable to reach an agreement regarding the education,
     medical/dental, religious, and extracurricular needs of the
     minor [child], the parties have agreed to divide decision
     making authority as follows:

                "Medical/Dental    Mother/Plaintiff
                "Education         Father/Defendant
                "Religious         Mother/Plaintiff
                "Extracurricular   Father/Defendant
                "Civic             Mother/Plaintiff
                "Cultural          Father/Defendant

          "Both parties understand and agree that the ability to
     exercise this decision-making authority does not negate the
     responsibility of the parties to communicate with one
     another and attempt to reach a joint agreement regarding
     these issues.

           "8. The parties have agreed with respect to the minor
     child's school that the minor shall attend school at Brookhill

                                    3
2210161 and 2210206

    Elementary school, which is or will be located in the
    Mother's school district from pre-school/Kindergarten
    through Grade four (4). The parties have agreed that
    beginning with the minor child's commencement the fifth
    (5th) grade school year that the minor child shall attend
    school in the father's school district, provided that the father
    still resides in the school district he is currently residing in
    at the time of this agreement.

          "9. The parties shall exercise custodial periods with the
    minor child as they can agree. However, if the parties cannot
    agree, the parties agree that they shall utilize the following
    schedule with respect to weekday/weekend custodial periods
    with their minor child:

          "The parties shall exercise rotating periods of custody
    with the Mother/Plaintiff having Custody of the minor child
    from Wednesday at 8:00 a.m. until Friday at 8:00 a.m. every
    week. The Father/Defendant shall have custody of the minor
    child from Monday at 8:00 a.m. until Wednesday at 8:00 a.m.
    every week. The party whose custodial period is beginning
    shall be responsible for picking up the minor child from the
    other party or from school if school is in session at the start
    of their custodial period. The parties agree that they shall
    alternate weekends from Friday at 8:00 a.m. until Monday
    at 8:00 a.m. each week. The parties agree that they shall
    begin utilizing this schedule for the first weekend of April
    2018 (April 6th-8th, 2018) and the first weekend shall be
    afforded to the Father/Defendant.

         "The parties agree that they will utilize the following
    schedule for the purposes of Holidays and Special Occasions,
    which shall take precedence and supersede the above
    weekday/weekend custodial schedule:

              "a. Parents are allowed to vary from the
         Court-ordered custody schedule by mutual
         agreement…However, if parents are not both in

                                   4
2210161 and 2210206

         agreement, the following custody schedule is to be
         followed. Failure to do so can subject a party to
         sanctions for contempt of Court.

               "b. Unless as otherwise set out herein, all
         visitation will be accomplished by the mother
         picking up the child at the residence of the father
         or school if visitation begins at the end of the
         school day, or such other reasonable place as the
         parties may mutually agree at the times provided
         for each period of visitation.

               "….

          "10. The parties have agreed that in consideration of
    their joint custodial agreement that neither party shall have
    a Child Support obligation to the other….

          "The parties agree that the Father/Defendant shall be
    responsible for the payment of all expenses related to
    extracurricular and uncovered medical/dental for the minor
    child each year up the sum of THREE THOUSAND AND
    00/100 ($3,000.00) DOLLARS, per calendar year. In the
    event that the extracurricular and uncovered medical/dental
    expenses for the minor child exceed THREE THOUSAND
    AND 00/100 ($3,000.00) DOLLARS, per calendar year, the
    parties agree that they shall evenly divide (50%-50%) all
    extracurricular and uncovered medical/dental expenses for
    the minor child in excess of this THREE THOUSAND AND
    00/100 ($3,000.00) DOLLARS, per calendar year. The parties
    further agree that they shall each pay and be responsible for
    one-half (1/2) of any and all school, related expenses for the
    parties' minor child, which include but are not limited to
    expense which are required by the school, or relate to field
    trips or other non-athletic/extracurricular school related
    functions for the minor child (e.g. book fairs).

                                  5
2210161 and 2210206

               "a. The party who incurs the expense shall
         present to the other party bills and/or receipts for
         payment or reimbursement within fifteen (15)
         days from the receipt of it. The party who did not
         incur the expense shall pay or reimburse the
         party who incurred the expense for his/her share
         of said expenses within fifteen (15) days from the
         receipt of it.

         "11. The parties agree to provide for their minor [child]
    in accordance with the 'Standard Parenting Clauses'
    attached hereto as Exhibit 'A'.

         "12. The minor child is covered on the Defendant's
    private health insurance. The parties agree that the Plaintiff
    shall continue to cover the minor child on his health
    insurance. The Defendant shall provide the Plaintiff with a
    copy of the policy, schedules of benefits, identification cards
    and claim forms to assist in the prompt payment of covered
    charges by the insurance company.

               "b. The parties agree that that the
         Father/Defendant in conjunction with his
         agreement as stated in Paragraph 10,
         hereinabove, to be responsible for the payment of
         extracurricular expenses for the parties' minor
         child, shall be responsible for the payment of any
         and all uninsured/uncovered medical, dental,
         pharmaceutical, orthodontic, ophthalmic and
         optometric expenses and any reasonable and
         necessary, therapeutic or rehabilitative expenses
         incurred for the benefit of the minor child up to
         the sum of THREE THOUSAND AND 00/100
         ($3,000.00) DOLLARS annually and per calendar
         year. In the event that the amount of
         uninsured/uncovered          medical,      dental,
         pharmaceutical, orthodontic, ophthalmic and
         optometric expenses and any reasonable and

                                  6
2210161 and 2210206

         necessary, therapeutic or rehabilitative expenses
         incurred for the benefit of the minor child and the
         extracurricular expense for the minor child once
         the expenses are in excess of this THREE
         THOUSAND AND 00/100 ($3,000.00) DOLLARS
         annual amount to be paid by the [mother].

                "c. The party who incurs the expense shall
         present to the other party bills and/or receipts for
         payment or reimbursement of uninsured medical
         and/or dental bills within fifteen (15) days from
         the receipt of it. The party who did not incur the
         expense shall pay or reimburse the party who
         incurred the expense for his/her share of said
         expenses within fifteen (15) days from the receipt
         of it. In the event that either party shall receive
         reimbursement for payment directly from the
         health insurance carrier, that party shall pay the
         other party (50%) of that reimbursement within
         ten (10) days.

              "….

               "30. The parties hereto are ordered and
         directed as follows:

              "(a) That each shall remain from any and all
         words, conduct, deeds, or activity which are
         intended or calculated to interfere with, abuse,
         embarrass or intimidate the other;

              "(b) That each will respect the privacy of the
         other from and after the date hereof; and

               "(c) That each will refrain from any activity,
         words, or deeds intended or calculated to
         interfere with the employment of the other, or

                                  7
2210161 and 2210206

             calculated or intended to interfere with the family
             or social life of the other."

(Capitalization in original.)

        The above-referenced "Standard Parenting Clauses," which were

also incorporated into the parties' divorce judgment, read, in pertinent

part:

              "(1) For so long as the children reside in Madison
        County, Alabama, all visitation will be accomplished by the
        non-custodial parent picking up and redelivering the minor
        children to the residence of the custodial parent, or such
        other reasonable place as that parent may indicate, at the
        times provided for each period of visitation.

             "(2) Both parties shall have reasonable telephone
        access to the minor children while they are in the physical
        control of the other parent. The minor children shall also
        have reasonable telephone access to both parties at
        reasonable times."

        On June 22, 2020, the mother filed a verified petition seeking to

modify custody of the child and to hold the father in contempt of court.

In her petition, the mother asserted that the father had failed to comply

with various provisions that had been incorporated into the parties'

divorce judgment and that there had been a material change in

circumstances, making it in the best interest of the child for her to have

                                     8
2210161 and 2210206

sole physical custody of the child. The father thereafter filed his

response to the mother's petition, denying the mother's allegations.

     Shortly thereafter, the father sought and received permission from

the trial court to file a counterclaim against the mother. In his

counterclaim, the father requested, among other things, that the

mother be held in contempt of court and that the parties be equally

responsible for the child's extracurricular-activity expenses. After a

trial, the trial court entered its final judgment, which states, in

pertinent part:

           "1. The parties shall continue to exercise joint legal
     custody of their minor child, [O.L.S.], whose date of birth is
     November 17, 2015. The mother has proven to the Court's
     satisfaction that material changes affecting the child's
     welfare since the entry of the original order warrant a
     change in custody to promote the best interests of the child.
     As such, the mother is hereby awarded primary physical
     custody of the parties' minor child.

           "2. In the event the mother and the father are unable
     to agree on any aspect of the academic, religious, civic,
     cultural, athletic or medical and dental activities of the
     child, the mother is designated as having the primary
     authority and responsibility regarding involvement of the
     minor child in said activity. As such, Paragraph No. 8 of the
     [Settlement Agreement] entered into by the parties and
     ratified and adopted by the Final Decree of Divorce dated
     March 23, 2018,… is hereby vacated.

                                   9
2210161 and 2210206

         "The designation of a parent to possess primary
    authority and responsibility regarding the involvement of
    the minor child in certain activities is not intended by this
    Court to negate the responsibility of the parties to notify and
    communicate with each other in the exercise of joint legal
    custody of their minor child.

          "3. Paragraph No. 9 of the [Settlement Agreement]
    entered into by the parties and ratified and adopted by the
    Final Decree of Divorce dated March 23, 2018,… is hereby
    vacated. As such, commencing on April 7, 2021, the father
    shall exercise visitation with the parties' minor child as
    follows:

         "A. Every Wednesday from 3:00 p.m. until 8:00
         a.m. on Thursday morning. Transportation for
         this period of visitation shall be as agreed upon
         by the parties. In the event the parties are unable
         to agree, the father shall pick up the minor child
         on Wednesday afternoon and shall return the
         minor child on Thursday morning.

         "B. Every other Wednesday from 3:00 p.m. until
         6:00 p.m. on the Sunday following, beginning on
         Wednesday, April 14, 2021. Transportation for
         this period of visitation shall be as agreed upon
         by the parties. In the event the parties are unable
         to agree, the father shall pick up the minor child
         on Wednesday afternoon, and the mother shall
         pick up the minor child on Sunday evening.

         "Further, the parties shall exercise holiday and special
    occasion periods of visitation with the child. …

         "….

         "5. The father shall pay to the mother the sum of
    $985.00 per month for the support and maintenance of the

                                  10
2210161 and 2210206

    parties' minor child … As such, Paragraph No. 10 of the
    [Settlement Agreement] entered into by the parties and
    ratified and adopted by the Final Decree of Divorce dated
    March 23, 2018,… is hereby vacated.

          "Based upon the income and expenditures supplied by
    the parties in forms CS-41, [Child Support Obligation
    Income Statement/Affidavit] the Child Support Guidelines
    as established by Rule 32 of the Alabama Rules of Judicial
    Administration have not been followed and applied based on
    the custody schedule, the parties' respective incomes and the
    needs of the minor child. The Court finds this to be fair and
    reasonable and said deviation is hereby ratified and
    approved by this Court.

         "….

         "6. The mother shall be responsible for and shall pay
    30% and the father shall be responsible and shall pay 70% of
    all extracurricular, athletic, and school related expenses
    incurred on behalf of the minor child of the parties.

          "In the event either party advances extracurricular,
    athletic and/or school related expenses as described
    hereinabove on behalf of the minor child, then the party
    advancing such costs shall be entitled to reimbursement for
    the party's contribution. …

         "….

          "8. The evidence presented proves that the father
    unilaterally changed the location for pick up of the minor
    child on more than one occasion in violation of Paragraph
    No. 9(b) of the [Settlement Agreement] entered into by the
    parties and ratified and adopted by the Final Decree of
    Divorce dated March 23, 2018. Given the mother's request
    for a finding of only one (1) act, the Court finds the father
    guilty of one (1) act of contempt of court for his willful

                                 11
2210161 and 2210206

    violation of the Order of this Court, and that as punishment
    the father is sentenced to five (5) days in the Huntsville-
    Madison County Metro Jail. Said sentence is hereby
    suspended, and the father is placed on unsupervised
    probation for a period of two (2) years.

          "9. The evidence presented proves that the father failed
    to provide the mother with a copy of the health insurance
    policy and schedule benefits. …

          "10. The evidence presented proves that the father sent
    harassing communications to the mother on several
    occasions in violation of Paragraph No. 30 of the [Settlement
    Agreement] entered into by the parties and ratified and
    adopted by the Final Decree of Divorce dated March 23,
    2018. The Court finds the father guilty of one (1) act of
    contempt of court for his willful violation of the Order of this
    Court, and that as a punishment the father is sentenced to
    five (5) days in the Huntsville-Madison County Metro Jail.
    Said sentence is hereby suspended, and the father is placed
    on unsupervised probation for a period of two (2) years.

          "11. The evidence presented proves that the father
    failed to provide the mother with reasonable telephone
    access to the minor child during March 2019 in violation of
    Paragraph No. (2) of the Standard Parenting Clauses
    incorporated into and made a part of the Final Decree of
    Divorce dated March 23, 2018. The Court finds the father
    guilty of one (1) act of contempt of court for his willful
    violation of the Order of this Court, and that as a
    punishment the father is sentenced to five (5) days in the
    Huntsville-Madison County Metro Jail. Said sentence is
    hereby suspended, and the father is placed on unsupervised
    probation for a period of two (2) years.

          "12. The evidence presented proves that the father
    failed to notify the mother of the minor child's medical
    appointment. …"

                                  12
2210161 and 2210206

The final judgment also included what the court referred to as

"Parenting Clauses," which, among other things, addressed reasonable

telephone access to the child, alienation of the child, conflict between

the     parents,   extracurricular   activities,   visitation,   medical/dental

appointments, relocation, and the overall well-being of the child.

        The father then filed a timely postjudgment motion pursuant to

Rule 59(e), Ala. R. Civ. P., asking the trial court to alter, amend, or

vacate the judgment. On July 8, 2021, the parties agreed to extend the

time for ruling on the postjudgment motion. See Rule 59.1, Ala. R. Civ.

P. A hearing on the postjudgment motion was initially scheduled for

August 20, 2021; however, the mother requested a continuance due to

her attorney having a scheduling conflict. The trial court granted the

continuance and set the hearing for September 8, 2021. On September

6, 2021, the mother filed her response to the father's postjudgment

motion. The following day, the father filed a motion to strike the

mother's response to his postjudgment motion.

        After a hearing on the father's postjudgment motion, the trial

court entered an amended final judgment which stated, in pertinent

part:

                                      13
2210161 and 2210206

    "A. Paragraph No. 1 of the Final Order of Modification dated
    April 6, 2021, is hereby vacated and rescinded, and the
    following shall constitute Paragraph No. 1:

         "1. The parties shall exercise joint legal and joint
         physical custody of their minor child, [O.L.S.]
         whose date of birth is November 17, 2015. The
         father shall exercise periods of physical custody
         and/or visitation with the minor child pursuant to
         Paragraph No. 3 herein below.

    "B. Paragraph No. 2 of the Final Order of Modification is
    hereby vacated and rescinded, and the following shall
    constitute Paragraph No. 2:

         "2. To comply with the implementation provisions
         of § 30-3-153, Code of Alabama (1975) and
         consistent with the holding in Ford v. Ford, 3 So.
         3d 872 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008), in the event the
         mother and the father are unable to agree on any
         aspect of the academic, religious, civic, cultural,
         athletic or medical and dental activities or needs
         of their minor child, the following parent is
         designated as having the primary authority and
         responsibility regarding involvement in said
         activity:

              "Medical/Dental              Mother
              "Religious                   Mother
              "Civic                       Mother
              "Cultural                    Father
              "Extracurricular/Athletic    Father
              "Academic                    Mother

         "The designation of a parent to possess primary
         authority and responsibility regarding the
         involvement of the minor child in certain
         activities is not intended by this Court to negate

                                 14
2210161 and 2210206

          the responsibility of the parties to notify and
          communicate with each other in the exercise of
          joint legal custody of their minor child.

          "Paragraph No. 8 of the [Settlement Agreement]
          entered into by the parties and ratified and
          adopted by the Final Decree of Divorce dated
          March 23, 2018,…is hereby vacated and
          rescinded. Further, the mother's residence shall
          be utilized to determine the child's school district.

    "….

    "D. Regarding child support (Paragraph No. 5 of the Final
    Order of Modification dated April 6, 2021), the Court
    informed the parties and counsel during oral arguments that
    the child support forms required by Rule 32 of the Alabama
    Rules of Judicial Administration, which were prepared by
    this Court on April 2, 2021, had inadvertently been secured
    with the exhibits. Copies of the forms required by Rule 32
    have now been made a part of the record in this cause.

    "The Court further explained that child support had been
    calculated several ways before the Final Order of
    Modification dated April 6, 2021, was issued:

          "i. Using the information provided by the mother
          on her CS-41 with minimum wage as the
          mother's income and work-related child-care costs
          at $820.00 per month (per the Child Support
          Guideline the mother's obligation would be
          $262.91 and the father's obligation would be
          $1,590.09);

          "ii. Using the mother's income at minimum wage
          as provided on her CS-41 and adjusting the work-
          related child-care costs downward to $5576.00 per
          month utilizing the Alabama Department of

                                   15
2210161 and 2210206

         Human Resources Child Care Subsidy Program
         Provider Rate Chart (per the Child Support
         Guidelines the father's obligation would be
         $1,378.84);

         "iii. Using the information provided by the
         mother regarding her income at $23.00 per hour
         and work-related child-care costs at $820.00 per
         month (per the Child Support Guidelines the
         father's obligation would be $1,317.94);

         "iv. Using the information provided by the mother
         regarding her income at $23.00 per hour and
         adjusting the work-related child-care costs
         downward to $576.00 per month utilizing the
         Alabama Department of Human Resources Child
         Care Subsidy Program Provider Rate Chart (per
         the Child Support Guidelines the father's
         obligation would be $1,154.37); and,

         "v. Using the information provided by the mother
         regarding her income at $23.00 per hour and
         omitting the work-related child-care costs (per
         the Child Support Guidelines the father's
         obligation would be $768.24).

    "Taking all of the facts and evidence in this case into
    consideration, including the income and expenses of the
    parties, along with the various calculations with four (4) of
    the five (5) placing the father's child support obligation
    above that which was ordered, this Court finds that a
    deviation in the father's favor was merited. As such, the
    father's child support obligation shall remain at $985.00 per
    month consistent with Paragraph No. 5 of the Final Order of
    Modification dated April 6, 2021.

    "E. Paragraphs No. 6 and Paragraph No. 7 of the Final
    Order of Modification dated April 6, 2021, and only the first

                                 16
2210161 and 2210206

    (1st) paragraph of Paragraph No. 10 of the [Settlement
    Agreement] entered into by the parties and ratified and
    adopted by the Final Decree of Divorce dated March 23,
    2018,…are hereby vacated and rescinded.

    "F. This Court shall now address Paragraphs No. 8 through
    12 of the Final Order of Modification dated April 6, 2021,
    regarding the findings of Contempt of Court. After over
    twenty-five (25) years on the bench and with the knowledge
    that some specificity is required regarding these claims, the
    Court is concerned that at some point the parties' minor
    child may review this Order and that specific statements
    from a parent would serve no purpose other than to
    condemn, confuse or embarrass. As such, suffice it to say
    that some of the father's communications were more than
    inappropriate, some of the exhibits contain profane content,
    and the late night telephone calls were unwanted. Therefore,
    in order to clarify the basis for this Court's decision, exhibits
    utilized to form the basis of this Court's opinions that were
    made part of the record in this cause shall be referenced by
    number.

    "Paragraph No. 8: The evidence presented proves that the
    father willfully and intentionally changed the pick-up
    location from his home to his place of business (Polaris) on
    April 10, 2019. On the night before the exchange was to
    occur the following morning, the mother informed the father
    she had plans (a date). The mother did not hear from the
    father again until 6:23 a.m. by text message at which time
    he informed her if she could not be at his house between 7:00
    and 7:30 a.m., she would have to pick the child up at Polaris
    at 8:00 a.m. The father then went on to inquire about her
    night. In isolation the father's conduct perhaps appears
    innocent, but when viewed in the context of the distance
    between the parties' homes and the time frames referenced
    along with the father's overall conduct regarding the
    mother's personal life, this act was indeed a willful and
    intentional violation of Paragraph No. 9(b) of the

                                   17
2210161 and 2210206

    [Settlement Agreement] entered into by the parties and
    ratified and adopted by the Final Decree of Divorce dated
    March 23, 2018….

    "Paragraph No. 9: While the father's duty pursuant to
    Paragraph No. 12 of the [Settlement Agreement] entered
    into by the parties and ratified and adopted by the Final
    Decree of Divorce dated March 23, 2018, to provide the
    mother with a copy of the policy…the mother did state
    during her testimony, 'I don't believe it was intentional…' As
    such, Paragraph No. 9 of the Final Order of Modification
    dated April 6, 2021, is hereby vacated and rescinded.

    "Paragraph No. 10: The parties acknowledge that their
    divorce was final on March 23, 2018, and that from
    September to November 2018 they engaged in a sexual
    relationship. According to the testimony presented, once the
    relationship ended in November, the father began harassing
    the mother with late night telephone calls and harassing,
    threatening, profane and unrequested inappropriate text
    and email communications. Said conduct continued for a
    period of time until the father received a second letter on
    July 11, 2019 from the mother's attorney to cease violating
    Paragraph No. 30 of the [Settlement Agreement] entered
    into by the parties and ratified and adopted by the Final
    Decree of Divorce dated March 23, 2018, which orders and
    directs the parties to a) refrain from any and all words,
    conduct, deeds, or activity which are intended or calculated
    to interfere with, abuse, embarrass or intimidate the other;
    b) to respect the privacy of the other from and after the date
    hereof; and c) refrain from any activity, words, or deeds
    intended or calculated to interfere with the employment of
    the other, or calculated or intended to interfere with the
    family or social life of the other. After review of the exhibits
    and testimony, the Court finds that the father willfully and
    intentionally violated the terms and provisions set forth in
    Paragraph No. 30 of said [Settlement Agreement]. (See
    Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 11, Mother 'Can you just leave me

                                  18
2210161 and 2210206

    alone with that kind of thing? ...'; Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 12;
    Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 15, Page 2; and Plaintiff's Exhibit No.
    16.)

    "Paragraph No. 11: Between March 20, 2020 and April 8,
    2020, the mother's communication with the minor child was
    willfully and intentionally 'cut off' by the father. The mother
    was not allowed to see the child or talk to him, even though
    she requested such opportunities. After review of the
    exhibits and testimony, the Court finds that the father
    willfully and intentionally violated Paragraph No. 2 of the
    Standard Parenting Clauses attached as Exhibit 'A' to the
    [Settlement Agreement] entered into by the parties and
    ratified and adopted by the Final Decree of Divorce dated
    March 23, 2018, which states, 'Both parties shall have
    reasonable telephone access to the minor children while they
    are in the physical control of the other parent. The minor
    children shall have reasonable telephone access to both
    parties at reasonable times.' After review of the exhibits and
    testimony, the Court finds that the father willfully and
    intentionally violated the provisions of Paragraph No. 2 of
    said Standard Parenting Clauses. (See Plaintiff's Exhibit No.
    5 and Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 6, along with the testimony
    related to this issue.)

    "Paragraph No. 12: To complete her CRNA requirements,
    the mother went to Texas (TCU) for the fall 2019 semester.
    She asked the father for permission to take the child to
    Texas, and as is his right, the father said no. The mother
    then offered the father her custodial time with the minor
    child from August to December of that year, but the father
    stated that he wasn’t going to do favors for an ex-wife. (See
    Pages 60-298 of the transcript.) As such, the mother's sister
    exercised the mother's periods of custody with the child
    while the mother was in Texas. Pursuant to Paragraph No.
    17 of the Standard Parenting Clauses attached as Exhibit 'A'
    to the [Settlement Agreement] entered into by the parties
    and ratified and adopted by the Final Decree of Divorce

                                  19
2210161 and 2210206

     dated March 23, 2018, 'both parents shall have the
     opportunity to attend a child's medical and/or dental
     appointments …' and 'a parent scheduling any such
     appointment…should give the same notice to the other
     parent as soon as received.' Although the mother had never
     missed a medical appointment for the child, and it was the
     mother's request for the father to schedule an appointment
     for the child's four (4) year wellness check-up, there is
     nothing in the record to show that the father willfully and
     intentionally violated the provisions of the afore-referenced
     Paragraph No. 17. As such, Paragraph No. 12 of the Final
     Order of Modification dated April 6, 2021, is hereby vacated
     and rescinded.

     "G. All other claims for relief not specifically addressed
     herein are hereby denied.

     "H. Any and all provisions of the Final Order of Modification
     dated April 6, 2021, not specifically modified herein shall
     remain in full force and effect."

Both parties timely filed a notice of appeal from the trial court's

amended final judgment entered on October 14, 2021.

                                Facts

     The testimony and documentary evidence from the trial conducted

on January 25, 2021, and the postjudgment-motion hearing conducted

on September 8, 2021, revealed the following pertinent facts. Following

the parties' divorce, the parties worked out a custody arrangement in

which the parties would alternate custody of the child on a weekly

basis. The parties had agreed that the mother would exercise final

                                  20
2210161 and 2210206

decision-making authority over all medical, religious, and civic-related

decisions regarding the child, and the father would have final decision-

making authority over all educational and extracurricular activity

decisions regarding the child. Concerning the financial support of the

child, there was no child-support obligation for either party, but the

father was required to pay all expenses related to extracurricular

activities and uncovered medical/dental expenses up to $3,000 each

year for the child.

     After the parties divorced, the mother continued to reside with the

father. Approximately two months after the divorce, the father began

sending the mother sexually-explicit text messages, and, on at least one

occasion, the parties had traveled together and had stayed in the same

hotel room. Both parties agree that they began a sexual relationship in

September 2018. The mother testified that the sexual relationship

between the parties had ended in November 2018, while the father

testified that the sexual relationship had continued until February

2019. The mother asserted that the father had continued to send her

sexually-explicit text messages even though their sexual relationship

had ended and that she did not welcome that type of communication.

                                  21
2210161 and 2210206

The father declared that he had sent sexually-explicit text messages to

the mother only between May 2018, and February 2019, which, he says,

was during the time he had had a sexual relationship with the mother.

     The father stated that the mother sent him a sexually-explicit text

messages, i.e., a picture of the mother in a yoga pose. He further stated

that the mother waited months before letting him know that she was

uncomfortable with his text messages. As soon the mother asked him to

stop sending her sexually-explicit text messages, the father asserted

that he had stopped. The mother, however, testified that the father did

not cease sending her sexually-explicit text messages until after her

attorney sent him a letter asking him to cease sending those types of

messages to the mother.

     The mother testified that she was afraid to upset the father in any

way because he would retaliate against her or change the custody

arrangement that they had been exercising. For instance, the mother

testified that in March 2019, during one of the weeks that the father

had had custody of the child, the father denied the mother telephone

access to the child. Thus, the mother was unable to communicate with

the child for the entire week that the child was in the custody of the

                                   22
2210161 and 2210206

father. Another example of the father retaliating against the mother,

according to the mother, occurred on April 10, 2019. On April 9, 2019,

the mother had informed the father that she would be unavailable that

night because of a romantic engagement. The mother did not hear from

the father until the following morning at 6:23 a.m., when the father

sent her a text message informing her that if she could not pick up the

child that day between 7:00 and 7:30 a.m., she would have to pick up

the child at his place of employment at 8:00 a.m. After the last-minute

change, the father went on to inquire about her night.

     From August 2019 to December 2019, the mother temporarily

relocated to Texas to complete a nursing extension program in order to

become a nurse anesthetist. The mother asked the father whether he

would be willing to take sole physical custody of the child during the

time that she had to be in Texas. The father refused. Thus, the mother's

sister took the place of the mother, resulting in the father and the

mother's sister alternating custody of the child on a weekly basis. In

December 2019, the mother returned to Alabama and continued her

training at a hospital in Huntsville. At the time of trial, the mother was

not employed and would be depending on funds from student loans until

                                   23
2210161 and 2210206

December 2021, which was when she would graduate and be able to

gain employment.

     While the mother was in Texas, she met and began dating a man,

J.P. When the mother returned to Alabama, J.P. would visit the

mother, and he would either stay overnight with the mother's sister or

he would stay overnight in his car when the child was in the mother's

custody. In March 2020, the father withheld the child from the mother

because he suspected that J.P. had physically hurt the child. On that

occasion, the father did not allow the child to return to the custody of

the mother, and he did not allow the mother to communicate with the

child by any means, including telephone calls.

     At the time of trial, the mother was in a serious relationship with

a physician from Huntsville. The mother testified that she had been

contemplating moving to Huntsville and expressed her desire to enroll

the child in a private school in Huntsville. At the time of trial, the

father lived in Madison County and worked for Polaris Industries with

a monthly salary of $8,108 per month. Although the father stated that

he preferred to enroll the child in a public school in Madison County, he

                                   24
2210161 and 2210206

admitted that it would not be impossible for him to accommodate his

schedule and route to take the child to school in Huntsville.

                                 Standard

     "When a trial court receives ore tenus evidence, its judgment
     based on that evidence is entitled to a presumption of
     correctness on appeal and will not be reversed absent a
     showing that the trial court exceeded its discretion or that
     the judgment is so unsupported by the evidence as to be
     plainly and palpably wrong. Scholl v. Parsons, 655 So. 2d
     1060 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995). 'Th[is] presumption of
     correctness is based in part on the trial court's unique ability
     to observe the parties and the witnesses and to evaluate
     their credibility and demeanor.' Littleton v. Littleton, 741
     So. 2d 1083, 1085 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999). The trial court's
     ability to observe witnesses is particularly important in
     child-custody cases. Ex parte Fann, 810 So. 2d 631, 633 (Ala.
     2001)(quoting Williams v. Williams, 402 So. 2d 1029, 1032
     (Ala. Civ. App. 1981))(' "In child custody cases especially, the
     perception of an attentive trial judge is of great
     importance." '). This court is not permitted to reweigh
     evidence on appeal and substitute its judgment for that of
     the trial court. Somers v. McCoy, 777 So. 2d 141 (Ala. Civ.
     App. 2000)."

Mullis v. Mullis, 994 So. 2d 934, 936-37 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007). However,

the ore tenus standard of review does not apply to a trial court's

conclusions as to legal issues. R.K. v. R.J., 843 So. 2d 774, 776 (Ala. Civ.

App. 2002). Issues of law are reviewed de novo. Barber v. Moore, 897 So.

2d 1150, 1153 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004).

                                 Analysis

                                    25
2210161 and 2210206

     On appeal, the father makes three arguments: (1) that the trial

court erred in calculating his child-support obligation; (2) that the trial

court erred in ordering him to pay 70% of the child's extracurricular-

activity expenses and school-related expenses in addition to paying the

full amount of his child-support obligation; and (3) that the trial court

erroneously held him in contempt of court for three counts. On cross-

appeal, the mother argues that the trial court erred in the amended

final judgment by changing her award of sole physical custody from the

final judgment to an award of joint physical custody.

                        I.      Child-Support Award

     The father argues that the trial court incorrectly calculated his

child-support obligation before it decided to deviate from the amount

calculated using the schedule of basic child-support obligations.

Specifically, the father asserts that the trial court erroneously included

monthly child-care costs that were incurred by the mother while she

was completing a nursing extension program in determining his child-

support obligation. We agree.

     The calculation of a parent's child-support obligation is governed

by the application of Rule 32, Ala. R. Jud. Admin. In Edwards v.

                                    26
2210161 and 2210206

Edwards, [Ms. CL-2022-0584, Dec. 2, 2022] __ So. 3d __, __ (Ala. Civ.

App. 2022), this court has explained:

     "Rule 32(C)(1), Ala. R. Jud. Admin., requires a trial court to
     first determine the basic child-support obligation owed for
     the benefit of the children by ascertaining the combined
     monthly adjusted gross income of the parents and applying
     the schedule of basic child-support obligations contained in
     the appendix to the rule. Rule 32(C)(2), Ala. R. Jud. Admin.,
     then requires the trial court to add in work-related child-
     care costs and health-insurance costs to ascertain the total
     child-support obligation, which is then multiplied by the
     percentage of each parent's share of the combined adjusted
     gross income to determine the obligor's parent's child-
     support obligation. If the obligor parent is responsible for
     paying the health-insurance costs for the children, then that
     amount is subtracted from that parent's child-support
     obligation to determine the obligor parent's monthly child-
     support obligation. Rule 32(C)(3), Ala. R. Jud. Admin.,
     requires the court to round up the resulting figure to the
     nearest whole dollar amount."

"The trial court may, within its discretion, deviate from the Child

Support Guidelines; however, if it does so, it must enter a written

finding, supported by the evidence, that the application of the

guidelines would be unjust or inequitable." Robinson v. Robinson, 795

So. 2d 729, 734 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001).

     The amended final judgment states, in pertinent part, that the

parties would share joint legal and joint physical custody of the child;

                                   27
2210161 and 2210206

that the father's child-support obligation was $985 per month; and that

the father was held in contempt of court on three counts.

     "Although the trial court expressed that it was deviating from the

[Rule 32, Ala. R. Jud. Admin.,] child-support guidelines, the trial court

has a mandatory duty to first correctly determine the basic monthly

child-support obligation of [the father] in order to ascertain the extent

of its deviation." Sutchaleo v. Sutchaleo, 228 So. 3d 475, 479 (Ala. Civ.

App. 2017).

     The father cites C.C. v. E.W., 207 So. 3d 67 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016),

for the proposition that child-care expenses related to educational

pursuits are not included in the definition of child-care costs set forth in

Rule 32(B)(8). In C.C. v. E.W., this court analyzed the statutes of

neighboring jurisdictions and stated:

           "Rule 32 does not expressly refer to child-care expenses
     for education-related pursuits, and it does clearly define
     'child-care costs.' Rule 32(B)(8), in pertinent part, defines
     'child-care costs' as costs 'incurred on behalf of the children
     because of employment or job search of either parent.'
     (Emphasis added.) Certainly the pursuit of a college
     education can be related to employment or a job search;
     however, to support an interpretation in favor of the mother,
     we would have to conclude that education-related child-care
     costs are incurred 'because of' employment or a job search
     and we would be forced to turn a blind eye to the obvious
     lack of inclusion in the definition of 'child-care costs' of

                                    28
2210161 and 2210206

     education-related child-care costs, which are included in the
     definitions of 'child-care costs' or 'childcare expenses' in the
     statutes of our neighboring jurisdictions."

207 So. 3d 67, 71 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016). In C.C. v. E.W., this court

reversed the portion of the trial court's judgment awarding the mother a

prorated amount of work-related child-care expenses, instructed the

juvenile court to include in its calculation only the costs of work-related

child care, and stated:

           "Nothing in this opinion is intended to imply that the
     juvenile court could not then deviate from the child-support
     guidelines upon its inclusion of a 'written finding on the
     record indicating that the application of the guidelines would
     be unjust or inappropriate,' Rule 32(A), [Ala. R. Jud.
     Admin.,] based upon 'facts or circumstances that the court
     finds contribute to the best interest of the child or children
     for whom child support is being determined.' Rule
     32(A)(1)(g)[, Ala. R. Jud. Admin]."

207 So. 3d at 71. After C.C. v. E.W., was issued in 2016, Rule 32 was

amended in 2019 to allow for a deviation from the guidelines when a

parent incurs child-care costs that are associated with a parent's

training or education necessary to obtain a job. Rule 32(A)(1), Ala. R.

Jud. Admin., provides, in pertinent part:

     "(1) Reasons for deviating from the guidelines. Reasons for
     deviating from the guidelines may include, but are not
     limited to, the following:

                                    29
2210161 and 2210206

           "….

           "(g) A parent incurs child-care costs associated
           with the parent's training or education necessary
           to obtain a job or to enhance that parent's
           earning potential, not to exceed a reasonable time
           as determined by the court. To justify deviating
           from the guidelines on this basis, the parent must
           prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the
           job training or education will benefit the child or
           children being supported, and child-care costs
           associated with such training or education shall
           not exceed the amount required to provide care
           from a licensed source for the child or children,
           based on a schedule of guidelines developed by
           the Alabama Department of Human Resources."

(Emphasis added.)

     In this case, the trial court computed the father's basic child-

support obligation in five different ways. Four out of the five

calculations included child-care costs incurred by the mother while she

was a full-time student. The fifth calculation, which did not include any

child-care costs, indicated the father's child-support obligation to be

$768. In its amended final judgment, the trial court ordered the father

to pay the mother $985 per month in child support and explained:

     "Taking all of the facts and evidence in this case into
     consideration, including the income and expenses of the
     parties, along with various calculations with four (4) of the
     five (5) placing the father's child-support above that which

                                   30
2210161 and 2210206

     was ordered, this Court finds that a deviation in the father's
     favor was merited."

     Although the trial court may, in its discretion deviate from the

guidelines when a parent incurs child-care costs associated with

training or education, the trial court must first determine the basic

child-support obligation, which does not include child-care costs

associated with a parent's training or education. After calculating the

basic child support obligation, the trial court may, it is discretion,

decide to deviate from the guidelines for reasons such as child-care costs

incurred and associated with a parent's training or education. Rule

32(A)(1)(g), Ala. R. Jud. Admin. In four of its five calculations of the

basic child-support calculation, the trial court erroneously awarded the

mother work-related child-care expenses, not school-related expenses.

At the time of the child-support calculations, the mother was not

employed; she was a full-time student. Accordingly, we must reverse the

final judgment to the extent that it improperly calculated the father's

basic child-support obligation, and we remand the cause for the trial

court to determine the father's child-support obligation after properly

applying the formula to calculate his basic child-support obligation

under Rule 32(C)(1).

                                   31
2210161 and 2210206

     Because the father contends that the custody arrangement

between the parties should be considered in determining his child-

support obligation for the first time on appeal, we cannot consider this

argument. See Andrews v. Merritt Oil Co., 612 So. 2d 409, 410 (Ala.

1992) ("[An appellate court] cannot consider arguments raised for the

first time on appeal; rather, [an appellate court's] review is restricted to

the evidence and arguments considered by the trial court.").

        II.   Extracurricular-Activity Expenses and School-Related

                                     Expenses

     The father next argues that the trial court's judgment requiring

him to pay 70% of the child's extracurricular-activity expenses and

school-related expenses, in addition to paying the full amount of his

child-support obligation, should be reversed because the trial court

failed to state its reasons for making additional awards and the

additional awards were not supported by the evidence.

     Rule 32(A), Ala. R. Jud. Admin., provides that

     "[t]here shall be a rebuttable presumption, in any judicial or
     administrative proceeding for the establishment or
     modification of child support, that the amount of the order
     that would result from that the application of these
     guidelines is the correct amount of child support to be
     ordered. A written finding on the record indicating that the

                                    32
2210161 and 2210206

     application of the guidelines would be unjust or
     inappropriate shall be sufficient to rebut the presumption if
     the finding is based upon:

                 "(i) A fair, written agreement between the
           parties establishing a different amount and
           stating the reasons therefor; or

                "(ii) A determination by the court, based
           upon evidence presented in court and stating the
           reasons therefor, that application of the
           guidelines would be manifestly unjust or
           inequitable."

"[A]lthough the amount of child support established by the guidelines

creates a presumption as to the correct amount of child support to be

awarded,   that   presumption    is    rebuttable,   and,   under   certain

circumstances, a trial court has the discretion to award child support

outside the guidelines." A.B. v. J.B., 40 So. 3d 723, 733 (Ala. Civ. App.

2009). Furthermore, Rule 32(C)(4), Ala. R. Jud. Admin., provides:

     "In addition to the recommended child-support order, the
     court may order additional amounts for extraordinary
     medical, dental, and education expenses if (i) the parties
     have in writing agreed to these amounts or (ii) the court,
     upon reviewing the evidence, determines that these amounts
     are in the best interest of the children and states its reasons
     for ordering these additional amounts."

     In A.B. v. J.B., 40 So. 3d 723 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009), this court

reversed the portion of the trial court's judgment requiring a mother to

                                      33
2210161 and 2210206

pay one-half of extracurricular-activity expenses in addition to the full

amount of child support recommended by the child-support guidelines.

This court determined in A.B. that the record, in that case, revealed

that no evidence was presented to rebut the presumption created by the

guidelines and that the trial court's final judgment failed to indicate

that application of the guidelines would be manifestly unjust or

inequitable.

     Here, it is undisputed that the father encouraged the child's

participation in extracurricular activities, such as participating in

swimming lessons and sports activities. However, there was no evidence

presented at trial about school-related expenses because the child was

not in school at the time of trial and because the mother testified at

trial that if the child were to attend a private school in the future that

she would be paying for the child's tuition. Additionally, although the

parties' Settlement Agreement, which was incorporated into the divorce

judgment, stated that the parties agreed that the father would be

responsible for the payment of all expenses related to extracurricular

activities and uncovered medical/dental services for the child each year,

up to the sum of $3,000 each year, the parties had not agreed for the

                                   34
2210161 and 2210206

father to be responsible for 70% of the extracurricular-activity expenses

and school-related expenses. Because the trial court failed to state its

reasons in its final judgment or in its amended final judgment for

making these additional awards and the parties did not have any

subsequent agreement requiring the father to pay that amount, we

must reverse the portion of the trial court's judgment that requires the

father to pay 70% of the child's extracurricular-activity expenses and

school-related expenses. See A.B. v. J.B., 40 So. 3d 723, 733 (Ala. Civ.

App. 2009) (reversing a judgment insofar as it required a parent to pay

half of the child's expenses for extracurricular activities because, among

other reasons, "[t]he final judgment … failed to include the language

necessary to support an award under Rule 32(C)(4)[, Ala. R. Jud.

Admin.]").

                          III.   Contempt of Court

     On appeal, the father argues that the trial court erred in holding

him in criminal contempt for the following three counts: (1) unilaterally

changing the pick-up location of the child; (2) sending harassing

communications to the mother on several occasions; (3) and failing to

                                    35
2210161 and 2210206

provide the mother with reasonable telephone access to the child during

March 2019.

           "The issue whether to hold a party in contempt is solely
     within the discretion of the trial court, and a trial court's
     contempt determination will not be reversed on appeal
     absent a showing that the trial court acted outside its
     discretion or that its judgment is not supported by the
     evidence. Brown v. Brown, 960 So. 2d 712, 716 (Ala. Civ.
     App. 2006)."

Poh v. Poh, 64 So. 3d 49, 61 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010).

     In this case, the trial court held the father in contempt for

violating three provisions of the Settlement Agreement that had been

incorporated into the parties' divorce judgment. The trial court did not

specify in its final judgment dated April 6, 2021, or in its amended final

judgment, dated October 14, 2021, the type of contempt in which it

found the father. Thus, before we address whether sufficient evidence

supported holding the father in criminal contempt, we must first

address whether the trial court held the father in criminal or civil

contempt.

     Rule 70A, Ala. R. Civ. P., governs contempt proceedings. Rule

70A(a)(2)(C), Ala. R. Civ. P., specifies that "criminal contempt" is either:

         "(i) Misconduct of any person that obstructs the
     administration of justice and that is committed either in the

                                    36
2210161 and 2210206

     court's presence or so near thereto as to interrupt, disturb, or
     hinder its proceedings, or

          "(ii) Willful disobedience or resistance of any person to
     a court's lawful writ, subpoena, process, order, rule, or
     command, where the dominant purpose of the finding of
     contempt is to punish the contemnor."

     That rule further explains that "civil contempt" is a "willful,

continuing failure or refusal of any person to comply with a court's

lawful writ, subpoena, process, order, rule, or command that by its

nature is still capable of being complied with." Rule 70A(a)(2)(D), Ala.

R. Civ. P. "A finding of civil contempt seeks to compel compliance with a

court's order; a criminal-contempt determination is designed to punish

a contemnor for disobedience of a court's order." S.T.W. v. T.N., 141 So.

3d 1083, 1086 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013). To hold a party in contempt under

either Rule 70A(a)(2)(C) (criminal contempt) or 70A(a)(2)(D) (civil

contempt), the trial court must find that the party willfully failed or

refused to comply with a court order. T.L.D. v. C.G., 849 So. 2d 200, 205

(Ala. Civ. App. 2002).

           " 'The question of whether [an action involves] civil
     contempt or criminal contempt becomes important …
     because a contemnor must be in a position to purge himself
     from the contempt. Mims v. Mims, 472 So. 2d 1063 (Ala. Civ.
     App. 1985). In order to purge himself in a criminal contempt
     case, the contemnor must pay the fine imposed, serve the

                                   37
2210161 and 2210206

     authorized time, or do both. Kalupa v. Kalupa, 527 So. 2d
     1313 (Ala. Civ. App. 1988). In order to purge himself in a
     civil contempt case, the contemnor must comply with the
     court's order. Rule 33.4(b), A[la]. R. Crim. P.' "

Davenport v Hood, 814 So. 2d 268, 272-73 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000) (quoting

Hill v. Hill, 637 So. 2d 1368, 1370 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994)).

     Here, the trial court did not order the father to be incarcerated or

to be put on unsupervised probation until he complied with its orders.

In other words, the trial court was not seeking to obtain the father's

compliance with its orders. Rather, the trial court stated in its

judgment for each of the three counts of contempt that "as punishment

the father is sentenced to five (5) days in the Huntsville-Madison

County Metro Jail. Said sentence is hereby suspended, and the father is

placed on unsupervised probation for a period of two (2) years."

(Emphasis added.) Thus, the contempt finding in the trial court's

judgment found the father to be in criminal contempt. See S.T.W.,

supra.

     We now address the father's argument that the record does not

substantiate the trial court's holding him in criminal contempt for

unilaterally changing the pick-up location of the child, sending

harassing communications to the mother on several occasions, and

                                    38
2210161 and 2210206

failing to provide the mother with reasonable telephone access to the

child during March 2019.

     The father first argues that the trial court's determination that

the father unilaterally changed the pick-up location of the child is based

on a provision incorporated into the parties' divorce judgment that is

not "an order of reasonable specificity." The father specifically argues

that the provision places no limitations on the pick-up location and that

the father "could have traveled with the child to China and the mother

would have been required to retrieve the child from there[.]" We note

that the father failed to raise this issue before the trial court. Thus, we

cannot consider this argument. See Andrews v. Merritt Oil Co., supra.

     The father also argues that the trial court's holding him in

contempt for unilaterally changing the pick up location of the child is

not supported by the evidence. Because the father failed to cite any

authority for this argument, we affirm the trial court's judgment as to

this issue. See Rule 28(a)(10), Ala. R. App. P.; Sea Calm Shipping Co.,

S.A. v. Cooks, 565 So. 2d 212, 216 (Ala. 1990) ("Where an appellant fails

to cite any authority for an argument, [an appellate court] may affirm

the judgment as to those issues, for it is neither [an appellate court's]

                                    39
2210161 and 2210206

duty nor its function to perform all the legal research for an

appellant.").

     The father next argues that the trial court erred in holding him in

contempt for sending harassing communications to the mother on

several occasions. Before addressing the merits of that issue, we must

address the mother's contention that the father failed to preserve the

issue for appellate review.

     In his brief, the father argues that the parties' divorce judgment

did not contain a provision on harassment. Rather, he says, paragraph

30 of the Settlement Agreement prohibited him from conduct that

would embarrass or intimidate the mother and there was insufficient

evidence to support the trial court's holding him in contempt on that

count. In her brief, the mother contends that the father's "nitpicking

over the specific verbiage" of paragraph 30 has been brought for the

first time on appeal. Because the father's argument that paragraph 30

of the Settlement Agreement does not contain the term "harassment" is

raised for the first time on appeal, we cannot consider that argument

See Andrews v. Merritt Oil Co., supra.

                                  40
2210161 and 2210206

     In addressing the father's sufficiency-of-the-evidence argument,

which was preserved for appellate review, we note that:

     "[T]he standard of review in an appeal from an adjudication
     of criminal contempt occurring in a civil case is whether the
     offense, i.e., the contempt, was proved beyond a reasonable
     doubt. Hicks v. Feiock, 485 U.S. 624, 108 S. Ct. 1423, 99 L.
     Ed. 2d 721 (1988); Combs v. Ryan's Coal Co., 785 F.2d 970
     (11th Cir. 1986); and United States v. Turner, 812 F.2d 1552
     (11th Cir. 1987) …. In Turner, the Court, in discussing the
     standard of review in a criminal-contempt case, said:

           " 'The essential elements of the criminal contempt
           for which punishment has been imposed on [the
           defendant] are that the court entered a lawful
           order of reasonable specificity, [the defendant]
           violated it, and the violation was willful. Guilt
           may be determined and punishment imposed only
           if each of these elements has been proved beyond
           a reasonable doubt.'

     "Turner, 812 F. 2d at 1563. The Turner court also stated,
     quoting Gordon v. United States, 438 F.2d 858, 868 n.30 (5th
     Cir. 1971):

           " ' "The test is whether the evidence is sufficient to
           justify the trial judge, as trier of the facts, in
           concluding beyond a reasonable doubt that the
           defendant was guilty, and that such evidence is
           inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of
           his innocence. Such is the substantial evidence
           test." '

     "Turner, 812 F.2d at 1563."

Ex parte Ferguson, 819 So. 2d 626, 629 (Ala. 2001).

                                    41
2210161 and 2210206

     Paragraph 30 of the Settlement Agreement reads:

     "The parties' hereto are ordered and directed as follows:

               "(a) That each shall refrain from any and all
          words, conduct, deeds or activity which are
          intended or calculated to interfere with, abuse,
          embarrass or intimidate the other;

               "(b) That each will respect the privacy of the
          other from and after the date hereof; and

                "(c) That each will refrain from any activity,
          words, or deeds intended or calculated to
          interfere with the employment of the other, or
          calculated or intended to interfere with the family
          or social life of the other.

     Concerning the harassing communications, the trial court stated

in its amended final judgment:

     "The parties acknowledge that their divorce was final on
     March 23, 2018, and that from September to November 2018
     they engaged in a sexual relationship. According to the
     testimony presented, once the relationship ended in
     November, the father began harassing the mother with late
     night telephone calls and harassing, threatening, profane
     and     unrequested     inappropriate    text   and    email
     communications. Said conduct continued for a period of time
     until the father received a second letter on July 11, 2019[,]
     from the mother's attorney to cease violating Paragraph No.
     30 of the Agreement entered into by the parties and ratified
     and adopted by the Final Decree of Divorce dated March 23,
     2018."

                                   42
2210161 and 2210206

     After the parties' divorce was finalized, the father began sending

the mother text messages that were sexual in nature. Thereafter, the

parties engaged in a sexual relationship for approximately two months.

After their sexual relationship had ended, the father continued sending

the mother text messages that were sexual in nature. The father argues

on appeal that it was apparent from the mother's engagement in a

sexual relationship with him that the mother did not find his text

messages harassing. Otherwise, he says, the mother would have never

agreed to engage in a sexual relationship with him after their divorce.

     Based on the text messages admitted into evidence, the father was

not respecting the mother's privacy, which could support the trial

court's finding that the father had harassed the mother. For instance,

one of the father's text messages to the mother stated, "Have you had

any sexual activity since you've been single? Just curious. No judgement

either way." To which the mother replied, "Sex with other people isn’t

something I'm comfortable discussing. If you're looking for that please

go elsewhere." Additionally, on multiple occasions, the father sent the

mother a series of crude and inappropriate messages even though the

mother had indicated that she no longer wanted to receive those types

                                   43
2210161 and 2210206

of messages. For example, the father sent a text message to the mother

that said, "If I ask you something old will you promise to answer … .

One more question then no more tonight?" The mother replied, "Leave

me alone with that kind of thing." Although the mother never engaged

in these types of conversations, the father continuously asked the

mother about her sexual life. Based on the foregoing, we determine that

there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding of

contempt of court for sending harassing communications to the mother

on several occasions.

     The father lastly argues that the trial court erred in holding him

in criminal contempt for failing to provide the mother with reasonable

telephone access to the child during March 2019. The father argues that

the trial court's contempt determination is not substantiated by the

record and that the order requiring the father to provide the mother

with reasonable telephone access to the child is not an order of

reasonable specificity. We first address whether the provision providing

for reasonable telephone access is an order of reasonable specificity.

     On appeal, the father contends that paragraph two of the

Standard Parenting Clauses ("Paragraph No. 2") is not an order of

                                    44
2210161 and 2210206

reasonable specificity; thus, the father says, he cannot be held in

contempt of violating this provision. Although the father did not argue

this issue at trial, he did assert this argument in his postjudgment

motion, after which the trial court entered an amended order. Thus, we

will consider this argument. See Aramini v. Aramini, 220 So. 3d 322,

333 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016) ("The trial court has the discretion to consider

a new legal argument presented for the first time in a postjudgment

motion….").

     In Nave v. Nave, 942 So. 2d 372, 379 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005), this

court determined that the divorce judgment in that case was reasonably

susceptible to two meanings and was, therefore, ambiguous. This court

determined that, because the judgment was ambiguous, "the trial court

could not have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the father willfully

violated a lawful order of reasonable specificity." 942 So. 2d at 379. This

court stated in Nave:

           "An agreement, including one merged into a divorce
     judgment, is ambiguous when it is reasonably susceptible to
     more than one meaning. Ex parte Littlepage, 796 So. 2d 298
     (Ala. 2001).

           " 'When a trial court adopts a separation
           agreement, it is merged into the final judgment of
           divorce. A judgment of divorce is to be interpreted

                                    45
2210161 and 2210206

           or construed like other written instruments.
           Whether an agreement is ambiguous is a
           question of law to be determined by the trial
           court. If the agreement is susceptible to more
           than one meaning, then an ambiguity exists. If
           only one reasonable meaning clearly emerges,
           then the agreement is unambiguous.'

     "Wimpee v. Wimpee, 641 So. 2d 287, 288 (Ala. Civ. App.
     1994) (citations omitted)."

942 So. 2d at 378.

     Here, the provision that provides for reasonable telephone access

is Paragraph No. 2 of the Standard Parenting Clauses incorporated into

the parties' divorce judgment. Paragraph No. 2 states that "[b]oth

parties shall have reasonable telephone access to the minor children

while they are in the physical control of the other parent. The minor

children shall also have reasonable telephone access to both parties at

reasonable times." While the father contends that the term "reasonable"

is ambiguous and subject to individual interpretation, Black's Law

Dictionary defines "reasonable" in pertinent part as "Fair, proper, or

moderate under the circumstances; sensible." Reasonable, Black's Law

Dictionary (11th ed. 2019).

     Although the father posits that the term "reasonable" is

ambiguous, the finding of contempt does not rest on the definition of the

                                   46
2210161 and 2210206

term "reasonable." Rather, the court stated in its amended final

judgment that "[b]etween March 20, 2020[,] and April 8, 2020, the

mother's communication with the minor child was willfully and

intentionally 'cut off' by the father. The mother was not allowed to see

the child or talk to him, even though she requested such opportunities."

In other words, the father denied the mother any telephone access to

the child during that time. As the mother argues, reasonable telephone

access is certainly not a "total lack of" telephone access.

     The father next argues that the trial court's amended order

incorrectly references the period between March 20, 2020, and April 8,

2020, as the time when the father allegedly denied the mother

telephone access to the child, while the final judgment references March

2019. At trial, the mother testified that the father denied her

reasonable telephone access to the child on two occasions; with one

occurring in March 2019 and the other occurring in April 2020.

     The mother testified that the father would not allow her to talk to

the child for an entire week in March 2019 during which time the father

had physical custody of the child. Between March 2020 and April 2020,

the father kept the child in his physical custody without consent from

                                     47
2210161 and 2210206

the mother and did not provide the mother with any telephone access to

the child. The father admitted to withholding the child from the mother

and explained that he feared that the mother's boyfriend had injured

the child. The father also stated that he had allowed the mother to

"make-up time" for her missed custodial period. However, the mother's

missed custodial period is not at issue here. The trial court held the

father in contempt for failing to provide reasonable telephone access to

the mother between March 20, 2020, and April 8, 2020. Between that

time, the testimony presented indicates that the father did not allow

the mother to communicate with the child via telephone.

      Accordingly, the trial court did not err in holding the father in

contempt for failing to provide the mother with reasonable telephone

access to the child.

                        Unsupervised Probation

     The father argues that the trial court erred in placing him on

unsupervised probation for two years. Before addressing the merits of

that issue, we address the mother's contention that the father failed to

preserve the issue for appellate review.

                                   48
2210161 and 2210206

     The imposition of a sentence concerns subject-matter jurisdiction.

See Ex parte Butler, 972 So. 2d 821, 825 (Ala. 2007) (plurality opinion)

(" '[A] trial court does not have [subject-matter] jurisdiction to impose a

sentence not provided for by statute.' " (quoting Hollis v. State, 845 So.

2d 5, 6 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002)). Thus, an appellate court is not limited

by the parties' arguments as to that issue. See Ex parte Smith, 438 So.

2d 766, 768 (Ala. 1983) ("Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may not be

waived by the parties and it is the duty of an appellate court to consider

lack of subject matter jurisdiction ex mero motu.")

     In addressing the father's argument, we note that sanctions for

criminal contempt are limited by statute to a maximum fine of $100 and

imprisonment not to exceed five days. See § 12-11-30(5), Ala. Code 1975.

     "[U]nder the Alabama Criminal Code, [criminal] contempt is
     only an 'offense,' § 13A-1-2(1), [Ala. Code 1975,] not a 'crime,'
     § 13A-1-2(5)[, Ala. Code 1975]. The maximum sentence the
     circuit court can impose for criminal contempt is 5 days in
     jail and a $100 fine. Ala. Code 1975, § 12-11-30(5). An
     offense that may be punished only for 30 days or fewer days
     in jail is a 'violation,' § 13A-1-2(2)[, Ala. Code 1975]. Only
     misdemeanors and felonies (not violations) are crimes. §
     13A-1-2(5). Therefore, under our statutes, criminal contempt
     is a violation, and is merely an offense, not a crime."

Ex parte Ivey, 698 So. 2d 187, 188 (Ala. 1997). "Under Alabama law, the

probationary period for a sentence imposed upon a defendant's

                                    49
2210161 and 2210206

conviction of a misdemeanor cannot exceed two years, and the

probationary period for a sentence imposed upon a defendant's

conviction of a felony cannot exceed five years. § 15-22-54(a), Ala. Code

1975." L.S. v. A.S., 272 So. 3d 169, 184 (Ala. Civ. App. 2018).

     In L.S., the juvenile court determined that the mother had

committed five separate acts of contempt and sentenced her to five days

in jail for each act. The juvenile court then stated in its judgment that it

would suspend that sentences and place the mother on unsupervised

probation for two years for each count. This court held that the juvenile

court had exceeded its authority in imposing a two-year unsupervised

probationary period for the offense of criminal contempt and stated,

"Our holding is not be understood as a prohibition against the

suspension of sentences in actions of criminal contempt. We merely

conclude that a period of probation cannot be imposed as part of such a

sentence." L.S. v. A.S., 272 So. 3d at 184.

     In this case, the trial court held the father in criminal contempt

and sentenced him to five days in jail, suspended that sentence, and

placed him on unsupervised probation for two years. In accordance with

L.S., we conclude that the trial court had no authority to impose on the

                                    50
2210161 and 2210206

father a probationary period for the offense of criminal contempt.

Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's imposition of a two-year

probationary period for his contempt.

                            IV.   Cross-Appeal

     On appeal, the mother argues that the trial court erred by

awarding the parties joint physical custody of the child. Before

addressing the merits of that issue, we must address the father's

contention that the mother failed to preserve the issue for appellate

review. In his brief, the father contends that the mother failed to file a

postjudgment motion after the trial court entered its amended order

awarding the parties joint physical custody of the child.

     Although the father posits in his postjudgment motion that the

facts supporting the contempt orders were the reasons for the initial

custody modification, the final judgment dated April 6, 2021, and the

amended final judgment dated October 14, 2021, of the trial court do

not correlate the custody modification to the findings of contempt. Both

the final judgment and the amended judgment lack any specific findings

of fact relating to the custody modification. When the trial court has

made no written findings of fact in a nonjury trial, a party must move

                                   51
2210161 and 2210206

for a new trial in order to preserve for review a question relating to the

sufficiency or weight of the evidence. New Prop. LLC v. Stewart, 905 So.

2d 797, 801 (Ala. 2004). In other words, the party must file a

postjudgment motion in order to preserve an argument relating to the

sufficiency of the evidence for appellate review. The mother failed to file

a postjudgment motion; she did not move for a new trial in this case or

otherwise argue that the judgment was not supported by sufficient

evidence. Accordingly, the mother failed to preserve this issue for

appellate review, and we affirm the portion of the trial court's judgment

awarding the parties joint physical custody of the child.

                               Conclusion

     For the reasons set forth herein, the judgment of the Madison

Circuit Court is affirmed as to the trial court's holding the father in

contempt for unilaterally changed the pick-up location of the child; as to

the trial court's holding the father in contempt for sending harassing

communications to the mother; as to the trial court's holding the father

in contempt for failing to provide the mother with reasonable telephone

access to the child; and as to the trial court's judgment awarding the

parties joint physical custody of the child. The judgment is reversed as

                                    52
2210161 and 2210206

to the trial court's imposition of a probationary period and as to the trial

court's judgment requiring the father to pay 70% of the child's

extracurricular-activity expenses and school-related expenses. The

judgment is also reversed as to the amount of the child-support award,

and the cause is remanded for the trial court to properly determine

father's child-support obligation in accordance with Rule 32, Ala. R.

Jud. Admin. The trial court may, in its discretion, compute that

obligation according to the child-support guidelines or expressly state

the reasons why a deviation from the guidelines is necessary, such as

taking into consideration the child-care costs that the mother incurs

associated with her education and the custody arrangement between

the parties.

     2210161 -- AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND

     REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

     2210206 -- AFFIRMED.

     Thompson, P.J., and Moore, Edwards, and Fridy, JJ., concur.

                                    53