Rel: April 24, 2026
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, 2025-2026 _________________________
CL-2025-0941 _________________________
David Dudley Crum
v.
Michelle Yessick Crum
Appeal from Lee Circuit Court (DR-19-900251.01)
EDWARDS, Judge.
David Dudley Crum ("the father") appeals from a judgment of the
Lee Circuit Court ("the trial court") modifying his visitation with H.C.
("the child"). For the reasons set forth below, we reverse the trial court's
judgment and remand the case for further proceedings. CL-2025-0941
The father and Michelle Yessick Crum ("the mother") were divorced
by a judgment entered by the trial court in November 2019. Pursuant to
a marital settlement agreement that was incorporated into the trial
court's November 2019 divorce judgment, the mother was awarded sole
physical custody of the child and the parties were awarded joint legal
custody of the child.1 The child is the parties' only child as a result of the
marriage; the father has three adult children from a previous marriage,
who, he stated, were familiar with the child. The November 2019 divorce
judgment provided a detailed schedule of the days and times that the
father could visit the child and provided the father the right to "private
telephone communication" with the child "at all reasonable times and
places."
It appears that the father visited the child pursuant to the terms of
the November 2019 divorce judgment for approximately six months
following its entry. According to the mother, she and the child each
attempted to contact the father in the six months after he stopped visiting
but did not receive a response. Sometime after that six-month period,
1The child was born in February 2014 and was five years old at the
time of the parties' divorce. 2 CL-2025-0941
Edward Crum ("the paternal grandfather") and Robert Crum ("the
paternal uncle") filed a petition in the Tallapoosa Probate Court ("the
probate court") seeking to be appointed joint guardians of the father's
person and joint conservators of the father's estate. The record suggests
that the paternal grandfather and the paternal uncle believed that the
father had serious mental-health issues that impaired his judgment and
prevented him from managing his own affairs. In May 2021, the probate
court granted the paternal grandfather and the paternal uncle's petition
and named them as joint guardians and conservators. The father was
permitted to seek to have the guardianship and conservatorship removed
after submitting to a medical examination and a psychological
examination and providing results of those examinations demonstrating
that the father would be capable of managing his own affairs.
Despite the probate court's judgment, in August 2021 the father
relocated to Little Torch Key, Florida, and gained access to many of his
bank accounts.2 He did not inform the mother of his relocation. The
2The father did not visit the child between approximately May 2020,
which was six months after the parties' divorce, and August 2021, when the father moved to Florida.
3 CL-2025-0941
record reveals that the father completed a psychological evaluation in
Florida in October 2021and that the father submitted the results of that
evaluation to the probate court. The guardianship and conservatorship
were removed in June 2022.3
In December 2021, the father contacted the mother through e-mail
requesting visitation with the child at his new Florida residence. The
father stated that the child could meet two of the father's adult children,
the child's half siblings, at the Atlanta airport and fly to Florida with
them. The mother responded to the father's e-mail, stating that she
wanted the child to visit the father but that she was not comfortable with
the child's traveling that distance without her or the father
accompanying him. She also informed the father that she did not have
the father's current address or telephone number. The father made
similar requests in February 2022 and July 2022, which the mother also
denied.
3It appears that the paternal grandfather and the paternal uncle
initially contested the removal of the guardianship and the conservatorship. It is unclear whether they eventually conceded to the removal of the guardianship and the conservatorship. 4 CL-2025-0941
In September 2022, the father filed a verified petition in the trial
court seeking to modify the visitation schedule set out in the November
2019 divorce judgment and requesting a rule nisi, claiming that the
mother had violated the terms of the November 2019 divorce judgment
by preventing him from visiting the child. In November 2022, the mother
filed an answer to the father's petition and asserted a counterclaim for a
rule nisi based on her assertion that the father had failed to reimburse
her for certain child-related expenses and had failed to maintain the child
on his health insurance as required by the November 2019 divorce
judgment.
In November 2023, the trial court entered an order finding that the
father had failed to exercise his visitation rights for "an extended period
of time" and that "a period of reunification" between the child and the
father was required. To that end, the trial court ordered that the father
would have visitation with the child in Lee County between 9:00 a.m. and
8:00 p.m. and that the father's visitation would be required to occur "in
the presence of a third party of the father's family."4 In December 2023,
4The trial court did not specify in its order on what dates the father
was to exercise visitation. We presume that the trial court intended, at 5 CL-2025-0941
the father filed a motion in the trial court requesting that the trial court
permit expanded visitation during the Christmas holidays and that the
trial court lift the requirement that a paternal relative be present during
his visits.5 The mother filed an objection to that motion.
On February 2, 2024, before the trial court held a hearing or ruled
on the father's motion, the father filed another motion asserting that the
mother had attempted to prevent the father from reestablishing a
relationship with the child by failing to respond to his inquiries regarding
visitation dates. The father also requested that he be permitted
unsupervised visitation with the child on specific dates in February,
including the weekend that the father was to be in Lee County for a
February 23, 2024, hearing before the trial court, and that, thereafter, he
be permitted to resume his "normal" visitation schedule. The trial court
held a status hearing on February 23, 2024, at which the trial court heard
arguments concerning the father's request for visitation. During that
a minimum, for the father to exercise his visitation on those dates that he would have had pursuant to the divorce judgment.
5The father explained that he did not have a harmonious relationship with the paternal grandfather or the paternal uncle. It appears that the father was engaged in litigation against the paternal grandfather and the paternal uncle throughout these proceedings. 6 CL-2025-0941
hearing, the trial court reemphasized the need for the father to visit the
child and for a third party to be present during the visits to alleviate any
anxiety that the child might experience as he resumed visits with the
father.6 Following the hearing, the trial court entered an order directing
the parties to "arrange visitation amongst themselves" before the father
returned to Florida and when the father returned for another hearing
scheduled for March 8, 2024.
The trial court conducted another status hearing on March 27,
2024, concerning, among other things, the father's request for specific
visitation dates. The mother's attorney reported that the father's first
visit with the child following the February 23, 2023, hearing "went
relatively well" and that, after experiencing "scheduling issues," the
parties had managed to "work[] together without the necessity of
attorneys" to ensure that the father was able to continue visiting the
child. The father's attorney echoed the parties' positive conduct and
requested that the father be permitted to visit the child without
supervision and in Florida for specific periods, including the month of
6The mother stated that the child was "anxious" and took Adderall
"for his anxiety." It does not appear that the child has been formally diagnosed with any anxiety-related disorders. 7 CL-2025-0941
July. The mother, through her counsel, continued to express her
hesitation about permitting the child to travel to Florida for an entire
month. She also maintained her concerns that the father might have
continued mental-health issues despite the probate court's removal of the
father's guardianship and conservatorship. The trial court stated that it
did not intend to permit the child to travel to Florida at that time and
that it would like the father to visit the child more before it would permit
the child to travel to Florida.
On May 3, 2024, the trial court entered an order specifying seven
visitation periods in Lee County between April 2024 and June 2024, four
of which were to be supervised "by an adult child of [the father] or any
other person approved by [the mother]," with the remaining visits to be
unsupervised. The order specifically noted that the parties could modify
the order to provide additional visitation for the father, including
overnight visitation. The father was also permitted "unfettered contact
via telephone, text, e-mail, or social media" with the child and was
required to initiate telephone or videoconferencing contact with the child
at least once each week. In addition, the trial court ordered the father to
8 CL-2025-0941
submit to a psychological evaluation by a psychiatrist or licensed
psychologist in Lee County.
In June 2024, the father filed a motion, again requesting
unsupervised visitation with the child or, in the alternative, permitting
Bart Casey, a friend of the father who lived in Opelika, to serve as a
supervisor. In his motion, the father noted that he had been unable to
complete one of his scheduled visits because his adult children were
unable to serve as supervisors and that the mother had refused to agree
to Casey's serving as a supervisor. The mother objected to the father's
motion, asserting that the father had not notified her of his desire to have
Casey, with whom she claimed the child was not familiar, supervise a
visit until the father and Casey had arrived at the scheduled visit.7 On
September 24, 2024, the trial court held a hearing on the father's motion.
At that hearing, the mother asserted that the father had belatedly
scheduled his psychological evaluation, that the father had failed to
initiate telephone or videoconferencing contact with the child once per
week as required by the trial court's May 3, 2024, order, and that the
7She also asserted that the father had not completed his psychological evaluation. 9 CL-2025-0941
father had not attended the child's various activities when the father was
in Lee County outside of his set visitation periods. The father claimed
that he had been unable to schedule a psychological evaluation until
August and that he and the child primarily communicated through a
messaging app, but that the child "rarely respond[ed]." It appears that
the trial court orally authorized Casey to serve as a supervisor but did
not enter a written order to that effect.
On November 6, 2024, the father filed a motion requesting that the
mother be held in contempt for failing to permit the father to carry out a
scheduled visitation on October 26, 2024. In his motion, the father noted
that he and Casey, who was to act as a supervisor for the visit, had
arrived at "the drop-off location" but that the mother had "failed or
refused to appear" with the child. The mother filed a response to the
father's motion, claiming that the father had initially refused to confirm
who would be supervising the father's visit but had eventually confirmed
that Casey would attend the visit as the supervisor.8 The mother again
noted her objection to Casey because, she asserted, the child was not
familiar with Casey and the child had expressed his concern to the
8The mother also attached documents in support of that assertion.
10 CL-2025-0941
mother about Casey's supervising the visit.9 In an affidavit attached to
her motion, the mother acknowledged the trial court's oral acceptance of
Casey but stated that she was "uncomfortable" with Casey's acting as a
supervisor absent a written order from the trial court.
On December 20, 2024, the trial court held a hearing on the father's
contempt motion, which the father was unable to attend due to travel
delays.10 The parties largely reiterated their positions regarding Casey's
ability to act as a supervisor; the record indicates that the child had
expressed to the father in a text message that he was uncomfortable with
Casey or any nonfamily member supervising the father's visitation.11
The trial court orally reissued its authorization that Casey could serve as
a visitation supervisor and subsequently entered a written order to that
effect. The trial court also noted that there had been no allegations that
9It appears that the child had previously met Casey during another
visit.
10At that hearing, the trial court also considered various other motions not relevant to this appeal.
11The child specifically requested that the paternal grandfather, the
paternal uncle, or one of the child's half siblings supervise the father's visits. The mother e-mailed the father on a separate occasion stating that the child had requested that a relative serve as a supervisor. 11 CL-2025-0941
the child would be unsafe with the father and that it had ordered
supervised visitation because it had been informed that the child had not
seen his father in several years. The child was also appointed a guardian
ad litem.
A trial on the father's modification petition was held on June 4,
2025. The testimony of both parties largely recounted the history set out
above. In addition, the father testified that he had visited the child in
January 2025 and February 2025 but that the parties had been unable
to agree on visitation dates for March, April, and May 2025. The father
specifically requested to have visitation with the child for one week
during the Christmas holiday, "a week" during the child's spring break,
and occasionally throughout the year. He also requested that the child
visit him for the month of July in Florida. The father stated that he
would be willing to fly to Lee County for weekend or short-term visitation
periods but that he would prefer the child to come to Florida for longer
visits.12 The father acknowledged that he would likely be able to
financially afford to fly to Atlanta for weekend visits with the child in Lee
12The father indicated that he was willing to fly to Atlanta, pick up
the child, and fly back to Florida for longer visits. 12 CL-2025-0941
County five or six times each year. The father also admitted that he "was
not in a real good spot in [his] life" after the parties' divorce and that he
had "started doing a lot better" after moving to Florida.
The father conceded that he did not know the last time that he had
called the child on the telephone.13 The father's testimony generally
indicates that he had requested various dates for visitation and had
repeatedly attempted to secure overnight or weekend-long visitation,
that the mother had not accepted those requests, and that the parties
had failed to reach a consensus regarding visitation or to adequately
communicate. The father testified that Casey's residence, in which he
stayed when he was in Lee County, had an available bedroom for the
child to use, provided that Casey's adult children were not visiting at the
same time. The father also testified that he believed that his visits with
the child had been positive and that he had tried to engage in activities
that the child enjoyed. It also appears that the father had been able to
exercise unsupervised visitation with the child pursuant to the trial
court's May 3, 2024, order.
13The record indicates that the father's last text message to the child was sent on May 27, 2025. 13 CL-2025-0941
The mother's testimony indicates that the parties had difficulties
communicating and reaching an agreement regarding the father's visits.
The mother stated that she believed that it would be helpful for the trial
court to order a specific visitation schedule. She also stated that she
believed that it would be "a very bad idea right now" for the child to visit
the father in Florida based on the mother's perception of the child's
relationship with the father and "the amount of time [that] [the father
and the child] have spent here in Lee County." She also stated that she
would not feel comfortable sending the child to Florida until the father
had "more successful visits [in Lee County] so [the child] feels
comfortable going." The mother opined that she would want between 5
and 10 more successful visits before she would consider sending the child
to Florida. According to the mother, the child had indicated that he did
not want to have overnight visitation with the father and that he did not
want to travel to Florida.
The mother testified that the child had maintained a relationship
with the paternal grandfather and the paternal uncle. She also stated
that she did not have an issue with the child's being around his half
siblings. Regarding Casey, the mother testified that she knew Casey and
14 CL-2025-0941
that he was "someone that [she] would speak to if [she] saw him in
public," but she asserted that she did not consider him to be a friend; she
also said that Casey's role as a visitation supervisor "created another
level of anxiety" for the child. The mother's testimony also indicates that
the father had had two-day, unsupervised visits with the child in January
and February 2025. The mother explained that, during the February
2025 visit, the child had called her from Baumhower's Victory Grill, a
restaurant, and had asked her to pick him up. According to the mother,
the child was upset at being "unsupervised for an extended period of
time."14
After the parties had testified, the guardian ad litem recommended
that the father exercise a minimum of four visits per year in Lee County
for "an extended period of time" before exercising overnight visitation or
visits to Florida. The trial court noted that the father had not made as
much progress toward "reunification" with the child as it had hoped and
that he had failed to take full advantage of the opportunities the trial
court had provided him. The trial court also stated that the parties had
14It appears that the child was upset that the father had brought
the child to Baumhower's so that the father could watch sports with his friends during his visit with the child. 15 CL-2025-0941
difficulties communicating and coming to an agreement on visitation
matters.
The trial court concluded the trial by issuing its judgment
regarding the modifications to the father's visitation from the bench.
Notably, the trial court awarded the father six specific three-day
weekend visits each year to be exercised in Lee County. The trial court
restricted those visits to between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. because, the
trial court explained, it did not want the child to stay at a house owned
by a friend of the father or in a hotel. The trial court entered its written
judgment on June 10, 2025, modifying certain provisions of the
November 2019 divorce judgment pertaining, in relevant part, to the
child's visitation. As discussed above, the father was awarded six specific
three-day weekend visits each year. The trial court specifically stated
that "th[ose] visits will not include overnights" and would take place
between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on each day of each weekend visit. The
trial court maintained the father's Christmas holiday and "spring break"
holiday visitations from the divorce judgment.15 The father was awarded
15The father was encouraged but not required to have one of the
child's half siblings present for the Christmas holiday visit if that visit took place in Florida. 16 CL-2025-0941
summer visitation with the child between July 2 and July 7, 2025; one of
the child's half siblings was required to be present during that visit. The
trial court ordered that all subsequent summer visits occur between June
29 and July 12; no requirement was made for any of the child's half
siblings to be present for summer visitations after 2025.
On July 10, 2025, the father filed a postjudgment motion
challenging, in relevant part, the trial court's prohibition on overnight
visitation with the child during his weekend visits as an unnecessary
burden on his visitation rights. The trial court scheduled a hearing on
the father's postjudgment motion for September 30, 2025. No transcript
of that hearing appears in the record, and the father's postjudgment
motion was denied by operation of law on October 8, 2025. See Rule 59.1,
Ala. R. Civ. P. The father timely appealed.
On appeal, the father challenges the trial court's modification
judgment insofar as it prohibits him from exercising overnight visitation
with the child during his weekend visits.16
" 'This court has held that a noncustodial parent's visitation rights may be restricted " 'in order to protect children from conduct, conditions,
16The mother did not file an appellee's brief responding to the father's argument. 17 CL-2025-0941
or circumstances surrounding their noncustodial parent that endanger the children's health, safety, or well-being.' " B.F.G. v. C.N.L., 204 So. 3d 399, 404 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016) (quoting Pratt v. Pratt, 56 So. 3d 638, 641 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010)). However, a restriction on a noncustodial parent's visitation must not " 'do[] more than necessary to protect the children.' " Id. See also Norrell v. Norrell, 473 So. 2d 523, 525 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985) ("When justified and supported by the evidence or reasonable inferences therefrom, a trial court cannot be faulted in visitation matters for being reasonably careful in establishing restrictions upon the visitation rights of a parent so as to attempt to assure a young child's safety and welfare.").'
"Wells v. Tankersley, 244 So. 3d 975, 984 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017). Although a trial court has broad discretion over the issue of visitation, a noncustodial parent should be given the opportunity to maintain a meaningful relationship with his or her child. Carr v. Broyles, 652 So. 2d 299, 303, 304 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994)."
Lester v. Lester, 378 So. 3d 555, 567 (Ala. Civ. App. 2022).
The father relies heavily on our decision in Lester to support his
argument on appeal. In Lester, which was also an appeal from a
judgment of the Lee Circuit Court, the trial court modified a father's
visitation to preclude overnight visitation and extended summer or
holiday visitation despite the lack of evidence in the record indicating
that overnight visitation posed a peculiar danger to the children in that
case. We explained that
18 CL-2025-0941
" 'if a … judgment is modified to limit a parent's visitation based on misconduct, the limitation ordered must be supported by evidence that the misconduct of the parent is detrimental to the child.' Carr [v. Broyles], 652 So. 2d [299,] 304 [(Ala. Civ. App. 1994)]. Although we do not hold that a trial court cannot place limits on a parent's visitation unless the children involved have first suffered harm a result of the parent's misconduct, the record must disclose that the limitations imposed on a parent's visitation are to protect the children from anticipated harm resulting from the noncustodial parent's behavior."
378 So. 3d at 568. We concluded that, because the record in Lester
demonstrated that the children in that case did not have a fear of that
father and desired to resume normal visitation with him, and because no
evidence indicated that the father's misconduct had been directed at or
occurred in the presence of the children, the trial court's visitation
restriction was not supported by the evidence. The father argues that
the record in the present case lacks any evidence indicating that
overnight visitation posed a peculiar danger to the child and that,
because the trial court also awarded him unsupervised, multiple-day
visits with the child in Florida, the trial court's judgment is internally
inconsistent. We agree.
Nothing in the record suggests that the father posed a danger to the
child or would suggest that the prohibition on overnight visits during the
19 CL-2025-0941
weekend visits is warranted. Although the mother testified that the child
was "anxious" about visits with the father and the potential of staying
with the father overnight, the trial court's judgment clearly indicates
that the trial court did not give that testimony much weight. The trial
court explicitly awarded the father unsupervised visits in Florida for
periods exceeding a week, and those visits necessarily require the child
to stay with the father overnight. Although the trial court expressed
reservations about the child's staying in a house owned by a friend of the
father or in a hotel during the weekend visits, nothing in the record
supports a conclusion that the father's exercising his visits by staying in
a house owned by a friend or in a hotel with the child overnight would
place the child's well being at risk. Because the record does not contain
evidence indicating that the exercise of overnight visitation by the father
during weekend visits in Lee County would present any risk to the child,
the trial court's restriction on the father's weekend visits does not serve
to ameliorate any potential danger to the child.17 Thus, the trial court's
prohibition on overnight visitation during the father's weekend visits in
17We note that the trial court did not prohibit the father from having his friends present when the child was in his care. 20 CL-2025-0941
Lee County exceeded the trial court's authority and cannot be affirmed.
See Pratt v. Pratt, 56 So. 3d 638, 641 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010).
We conclude that the trial court's prohibition on overnight
visitation during the weekend visits in Lee County is overly broad and
an abuse of the trial court's discretion. Accordingly, we reverse that part
of the trial court's judgment, and we remand the case for the entry of a
judgment consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Moore, P.J., and Hanson, Fridy, and Bowden, JJ., concur.