Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Skinner v. Hargett
Citations: 494 So. 2d 652; 1986 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 1370Docket: Civ. 5181
Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama; May 21, 1986; Alabama; State Appellate Court
In this child custody modification case, the Tennessee divorce decree from 1984 awarded joint custody of Allison Skinner to her parents, Susan Hargett and Steven Skinner, with the father having custody for nine months and the mother for three months during the summer. After the divorce, the father moved to Decatur, Alabama, to live with his parents when he could not find suitable care for Allison in Tennessee. The mother remarried in February 1985. In August 1985, she filed a petition in Alabama to modify the custody arrangement, seeking full custody. A pendente lite hearing in August 1985 maintained custody with the father until a final hearing in October 1985. The trial court found a material change in circumstances justifying the modification and awarded custody to the mother, prompting the father's appeal. He argued that the mother did not meet her burden of proof to demonstrate that a change in custody would benefit Allison. The appellate court noted that the trial court is presumed to exercise its discretion correctly regarding the child's best interests. The father referenced the precedent set in Ex parte McLendon, which requires the modifying parent to show that the child's welfare would be materially improved by the custody change. The trial court found sufficient evidence of a material change, concluding that the positive aspects of the custody change outweighed any potential disruption to the child, who was very young and had not yet established a school routine. The mother had remarried, had a stable income, and could provide a dedicated home for Allison, indicating a more suitable living situation compared to the father's arrangement, where Allison would share a room and primarily be cared for by her paternal grandmother due to the father's work schedule. Ultimately, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to grant custody to the mother, concluding that there was no error in determining that Allison's best interests were served by this change. The decree was affirmed with concurrence from the presiding judges.