Court Opinion

ID: 9937308
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 19:01:07.942586+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:01.846205
License: Public Domain

I disagree with the proposition, advanced in one of the special writings in this case, that the Alabama Supreme Court should revisit Ex parte Farm, *Page 926 810 So.2d 631 (Ala. 2001), in this case in that the appellant has not argued in her brief that Fann was wrongly decided. Moreover, I am not convinced that the Supreme Court's primary holding in Fann — that the express terms of the Custody and Domestic or Family Abuse Act, § 30-3-130 et seq., Ala. Code 1975 ("the CDFAA"), as enacted by the Legislature in 1995 do not include a statutory requirement that trial courts make specific factual findings concerning abuse allegations — is unsound.
If the Legislature wishes to amend the CDFAA so as to mandate express findings of abuse in custody cases (and Judge Thompson's special writing offers sound reasons for undertaking such a course of action), that body has the power to do so.3 Barring such action, however, it is not the province of the judiciary to improve upon the CDFAA. SeeEx parte Brookwood Med. Ctr., Inc., 895 So.2d 1000, 1006
(Ala.Civ.App. 2004).
3 Alternatively, the Legislature might choose to exercise its authority under § 150 of the Alabama Constitution of 1901 to change Rule 52(a), Ala. R. Civ. P., which provides that "[i]n all actions tried upon the facts without a jury . . . the court may upon written request andshall when required by statute, find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon" (emphasis added).