H.D. v. D.B. (Appeal from Cullman Juvenile Court: CS-10-98.01).
This text of H.D. v. D.B. (Appeal from Cullman Juvenile Court: CS-10-98.01). (H.D. v. D.B. (Appeal from Cullman Juvenile Court: CS-10-98.01).) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Rel: May 23, 2025
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, 2024-2025 _________________________
CL-2024-0904 _________________________
H.D.
v.
D.B.
Appeal from Cullman Juvenile Court (CS-10-98.01)
PER CURIAM.
H.D. ("the mother") appeals from a judgment of the Cullman
Juvenile Court ("the juvenile court") insofar as it deviated from the child-
support guidelines set out in Rule 32, Ala. R. Jud. Admin., by declining
to award child support, and then failed to provide written findings CL-2024-0904
regarding why it had deviated from those guidelines. For the reasons set
forth herein, the judgment is reversed.
Background
The mother and D.B. ("the father"), who were never married, had a
child in 2010. The juvenile court adjudicated the father's paternity in
August 2012, and, at that time, it awarded the parties joint legal and
joint physical custody of the child and ordered the father to pay the
mother child support in the amount of $500 per month.
On November 10, 2023, the mother filed in the juvenile court a
petition seeking an order holding the father in contempt, alleging, among
other things, that he had not paid child support for more than nine years.
She alleged that his child-support arrearage was more than $50,000. The
mother asked the juvenile court to order the father to pay the arrearage
amount, plus interest, and to pay child support in an amount in
compliance with the child-support guidelines set forth in Rule 32.
Contemporaneously with her petition, the mother submitted a Form CS-
41 Child Support Obligation Income Statement/Affidavit indicating that
she earned $4,603 per month working for the Cullman City Schools.
2 CL-2024-0904
On November 16, 2023, the father answered the mother's petition
and filed a counterclaim seeking sole custody of the child. He also sought
a modification of the child-support award, asking that the child-support
obligation be calculated pursuant to the child-support guidelines in Rule
32.
The juvenile court held a trial over the course of three days in May,
August, and October 2024. On the last day of the trial, the mother
testified that she no longer worked for the Cullman City school system
and that she had become a realtor. She said that she had not yet earned
any income as a realtor in 2024. Her federal Form W-2 Wage and Tax
Statement showed that she had earned $50,650 in 2023, and she testified
that she was capable of earning that amount in the future.
The father testified that he earned $7,583 per month. At trial, he
submitted as exhibits Form CS-42 Child Support Guidelines forms that
calculated his child-support obligation using different incomes for the
mother. On the first CS-42 form, he imputed minimum wage to the
mother, showing her with a monthly income of $1,258. Based on that
amount, the father calculated his monthly child-support obligation to be
$537.67. On the second CS-42 form, the father calculated his child-
3 CL-2024-0904
support obligation to be $166.67, using $4,220 as the mother's monthly
income. The record does not contain a Form CS-41 child-support income
affidavit for the father.
On November 14, 2020, the juvenile court entered a judgment that,
among other things, awarded the parties joint legal and joint physical
custody of the child, with physical custody rotating between the parties
week to week. Regarding child support, the juvenile court found the
father $54,000 in arrears for his child-support obligation, plus an
additional $18,203 in interest, and directed the father to pay the mother
$500 per month until the total arrearage, including interest, was paid in
full. The juvenile court then directed that, "[p]ursuant to the custodial
arrangement ordered in this cause, no current child support shall be
required from either party." The judgment did not contain factual
findings related to the issue of child support, and the record does not
contain a Form CS-42 completed by the juvenile court calculating the
parties' respective child-support obligations.
The mother filed a motion to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment
on November 15, 2024. The juvenile court denied that motion the same
day. The mother timely appealed to this court.
4 CL-2024-0904
Analysis The only issue the mother raises on appeal is whether the juvenile
court failed to comply with the child-support guidelines set forth in Rule
32 when it deviated from the child-support guidelines by declining to
order the father to pay child support but failed to set forth in writing its
reasons for deviating from those guidelines.
This court recently addressed this issue under the same
circumstances as those in this case in Sampson v. Coachman, [Ms. CL-
2023-0856, Sept. 20, 2024] ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2024). In
Sampson, a divorce case, the trial court awarded the husband and the
wife joint legal and joint physical custody of their children and
determined that neither parent was required to pay child support to the
other. After pointing out that the application of the Rule 32 child-support
guidelines is mandatory and that the calculation of a parent's child-
support obligation under the guidelines is presumed to be correct, we held
that that " 'presumption may be rebutted if the trial court makes a finding
of fact that, based upon the evidence presented, the application of the
guidelines would be manifestly unjust or inequitable.' Hutchins v.
5 CL-2024-0904
Hutchins, 637 So. 2d 1371, 1374 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994); Rule 32(A)(ii), Ala.
R. Jud. Admin." Id. at ___.
This court went on to explain that, when a trial court awards
parents joint physical custody, it is not mandatory that one parent pay
child support to the other. However, we continued, " ' "any deviation [from
the Rule 32 child-support guidelines] is improper if it is not justified in
writing." ' R.N.P. v. S.W.W., 389 So. 3d 1215, 1223 (Ala. Civ. App. 2023)
(quoting J.M. v. D.V., 877 So. 2d 623, 630 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003))."
Sampson, ___ So. 3d at ___. When a trial court does not follow the Rule
32 child-support guidelines in awarding -- or not awarding -- child
support and then fails to make a written finding that application of those
guidelines would be unjust or inequitable, this court will reverse the
judgment. Id. at ___.
In Sampson, we determined that the trial court deviated from the
Rule 32 child-support guidelines when it declined to order either parent
to pay child support and that it did not include a written finding
explaining how the application of those guidelines would have been
unjust or inequitable. Therefore, we reversed the judgment and directed
the trial court to comply with Rule 32. Id. at ___.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
H.D. v. D.B. (Appeal from Cullman Juvenile Court: CS-10-98.01)., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hd-v-db-appeal-from-cullman-juvenile-court-cs-10-9801-alacivapp-2025.