Question of whether the Court erred in granting an increased award of attorney’s fees.

Couple divorced in 2005. Children and child support awarded to father with mother awarded visitation. In 2008, the mother filed a petition to temporarily suspend child support obligation due to lost employment. Child support was reduced.

In 2010, father filed a petition to modify child support and an award of attorney’s fees due to mother’s increase in income. Child support was increased and mother was ordered to pay unpaid medical and extracurricular expenses. Father was awarded attorney’s fees.

Post Judgment motions were filed resulting in a decrease in the child support and an increase in the award of attorney’s fees to the father based on his contempt motion. The mother appealed.

The Appeals Court agreed that the Court could not award attorney’s fees to the bather on the basis of his contempt motion since the mother was not found to be in contempt. Case was remanded for trial court to enter a new judgment omitting an award of a fee for contempt motion.

Reversal.

Question of whether the Court erred when it applied the McLendon standard to its determination of custody as opposed to the standard set in Ex parte Terry, 494 So.2d 628 (Ala. 1986).

In 2007, the custody of a child was awarded to a maternal relative. Child’s father was identified in 2009. Paternity was established and father was required to pay child support. Father sought custody. In 02/11, Father was awarded visitation, but the custody claim was denied.

Father argued that the Court erred by not treating his petition as dispute between parent and nonparent subject to standard set in Terry which states that a “natural parent has presumptive right to the custody of a child against a nonparent” and that right exists until parent “voluntarily forfeits custody of the child or a judgment awards custody of the child to a nonparent.”

Father claims he never forfeited his right to custody and that previous dependency judgment did not apply to him because he was not a party to the action.

Court found that the child support judgment “effectively adjudicated the respective custody rights of the father” and that the juvenile court correctly applied the McLendon standard.

Judgment affirmed.

Today, Mr. Joseph A. Ingram, was retained to represent Mr. Christian Hofmann, a French and Swiss Citizen. Hofmann was arrested and extradited from the Netherlands regarding his arrest for Interference with Child Custody of his daughter. Mr. Ingram, added” “I look forward to presenting all of the facts regarding this case to the court on behalf of Mr. Christian and believe that he will clear his good name.” 

See related news articles 

4-year old kidnapped by father; both found in Amsterdam - Click to Read Full ABC Story

Kidnapped Birmingham child found with father in Amsterdam - Click to Read Full ai.com Story

Related Story - See Alabama Notes