K.N.B. v. H.M.F., Jr.

• Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama
• Decided: June 12, 2026
• Docket: CL-2025-0802
• Status: Published

Opinion

Rel: June 12, 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-2025-0802 _________________________

K.N.B.

v.

H.M.F., Jr.

Appeal from Mobile Juvenile Court (CS-20-900539.03)

BOWDEN, Judge.

K.N.B. ("the mother") appeals from a contempt order entered by the

Mobile Juvenile Court ("the juvenile court") in an action commenced by

H.M.F., Jr. ("the father"). The mother argues that there was insufficient

evidence to support the juvenile court's implicit finding that she had CL-2025-0802

willfully failed or refused to comply with an order of the juvenile court.

We agree, and we therefore reverse the contempt order.

Procedural History

In September 2023, the father filed a motion titled "Motion to

modify/motion for Contempt" ("the September 2023 motion"). Based on

allegations in the September 2023 motion, it appears that the juvenile

court entered an order in 2021 that had awarded the mother and the

father joint legal custody of the child and that had awarded the mother

sole physical custody of their child. The 2021 order is not included in the

record on appeal. In the September 2023 motion, the father alleged that

the mother had interfered with his visitation rights, and he requested

makeup visitation times and an order holding the mother in contempt.

In March 2024, the father filed a motion ("the March 2024 motion")

requesting emergency pendente lite custody of the child. In that motion,

the father alleged that the mother was living with the child's maternal

grandfather and that the maternal grandfather had been arrested for a

domestic-violence incident, in which the mother was a victim. The

juvenile court held a hearing on the March 2024 motion, and, on April 1,

2024, entered an order that, among other things, awarded the father

2 CL-2025-0802

physical custody of the child pendente lite, awarded the mother

visitation, and prohibited contact between the child and the maternal

grandfather. The juvenile court's April 1, 2024, order provides, in

pertinent part: "The maternal grandfather is to have no contact with the

minor child."

On July 28, 2025, the juvenile court set the matter for an emergency

hearing to occur on August 12, 2025. The purpose of the hearing was to

consider "the sole issue of whether [the mother] ha[d] allowed contact

between the child and [the] maternal grandfather."

The juvenile court held a hearing to consider that issue on August

12, 2025, and entered the contempt order on August 14, 2025. (C. 117).

In the contempt order, the juvenile court found the mother to be in

contempt of court "for allowing the minor child around the maternal

grandfather." As a sanction for contempt, the juvenile court modified the

mother's visitation.

The mother filed a motion to alter, amend, or vacate directed to the

contempt order on August 27, 2025, and filed a notice of appeal on

September 19, 2025. On September 29, 2025, the mother filed a motion

to stay, which the juvenile court granted on October 2, 2025.

3 CL-2025-0802

The Evidence

The mother testified that, in 2025, the child's maternal

grandmother was providing day care for the child over the summer while

the mother was at work. The father's testimony was consistent with the

mother's testimony on this point; he testified that the mother had told

him that either the maternal grandmother or the child's maternal uncle

watched the child over the summer. The mother testified that the

maternal grandmother would provide day care by coming to the mother's

apartment to watch the child. There was no testimony that the maternal

grandfather lived with the mother. The mother testified that she had

informed the maternal grandmother that the child was not allowed to be

in contact with the maternal grandfather.

The father testified that he had subpoenaed records from Dave and

Buster's, which is a restaurant, for records generated on May 28, 2025.

The mother testified that the request for the subpoena was filed on June

8, 2025. The father testified that the subpoenaed records contained

pictures of the child, the maternal uncle, the maternal grandmother, and

the maternal grandfather together at Dave and Buster's. The father

testified that the mother was not in the pictures subpoenaed from Dave

4 CL-2025-0802

and Buster's, and there was no testimony indicating that the mother was

at Dave and Buster's on May 28, 2025.

The mother testified that she learned about the Dave and Buster's

visit between the child and the maternal grandfather when she received

a notice about the June 8, 2025, subpoena of the records from that

restaurant. The mother testified that she had called the maternal uncle

about the incident and that the maternal uncle had informed her that he

was not aware that the child could not be around the maternal

grandfather. The mother testified that the maternal uncle was in town

visiting on that date and had not been providing day care for the child.

The mother further testified that she had confronted the maternal

grandmother about her having allowed the child to be around the

maternal grandfather at Dave and Buster's and that the maternal

grandmother had expressed regret at having betrayed the mother's trust.

The mother testified that, in light of the incident at Dave and

Buster's, she had enrolled the child in a Montessori school on June 12,

2025, after having received notice about the incident on June 8, 2025.

The father testified that the mother had enrolled the child in day care on

or about June 12, 2025.

5 CL-2025-0802

The mother testified that, after she learned about the incident, the

maternal grandmother had not been allowed to watch the child and that

the maternal grandmother is no longer allowed to provide the child with

day care. The mother testified that she was not aware of any incident

other than the Dave and Buster's incident in which the child was exposed

to the maternal grandfather, and the father did not testify about any

incident in which the child was around the maternal grandfather, other

than the Dave and Buster's incident.

Standard of Review

"The issue whether to hold a party in contempt is solely within the discretion of the trial court, and a trial court's contempt determination will not be reversed on appeal absent a showing that the trial court acted outside its discretion or that its judgment is not supported by the evidence."

Poh v. Poh, 64 So. 3d 49, 61 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010).

Analysis

The mother initially raises the issue whether the juvenile court

found the mother to be in criminal contempt or in civil contempt. Civil

contempt and criminal contempt have different burdens of proof.

Compare Lester v. Lester, 378 So. 3d 555, 564 (Ala. Civ. App.

2022)(holding that the burden of proof in civil-contempt cases is clear and

6 CL-2025-0802

convincing evidence), with Ex parte Ferguson, 819 So. 2d 626, 629 (Ala.

2001)(holding that the burden of proof in criminal-contempt cases is

beyond a reasonable doubt). The clear-and-convincing-evidence burden of

proof is a lesser standard of proof than the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt

burden. See generally Ala. Code 1975, § 25-5-81(d) ("Proof by clear and

convincing evidence requires a level of proof greater than a

preponderance of the evidence or the substantial weight of the evidence,

but less than beyond a reasonable doubt."). Accordingly, the success of an

argument directed at the sufficiency of the evidence to support a trial

court's judgment could turn on the type of contempt -- civil or criminal --

at issue.

Both constructive civil contempt and constructive criminal

contempt, however, require a determination that the person willfully

failed or refused to comply with a court order. See Rule 70A(a)(2)(C)(ii),

Ala. R. Civ. P. (defining constructive criminal contempt, in pertinent

part, as "[w]illful disobedience or resistance" to a court order); Rule

70A(a)(2)(D)(defining constructive civil contempt, in pertinent part, as

"willful, continuing failure or refusal … to comply with a court's …

order"); Carnes v. Carnes, 82 So. 3d 704, 715 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011). And

7 CL-2025-0802

the mother argues that, regardless of whether the contempt order found

her to be in civil or criminal contempt, there was insufficient evidence to

demonstrate her willfulness under either standard. We agree.

Even when applying the clear-and-convincing-evidence burden of

proof, there was insufficient evidence for the juvenile court to have

reasonably found that the mother willfully violated its order prohibiting

contact between the child and the maternal grandfather. "Willful" means:

"1. Done wittingly or on purpose, as opposed to accidentally or casually; voluntary and intentional, but not necessarily malicious • The word connotes blameworthiness. A voluntary act becomes willful, in law, only when it involves conscious wrong or evil purpose on the part of the actor, or at least inexcusable carelessness, whether the act is right or wrong. The term willful is stronger than voluntary or intentional; it is traditionally the equivalent of malicious, evil, or corrupt."

Black's Law Dictionary 1922 (12th ed. 2024).

In this case, there is no evidence indicating that the mother directly

exposed the child to the maternal grandfather or exercised "inexcusable

carelessness" leading to the child's exposure to the maternal grandfather

by the maternal grandmother. With respect to whether the mother

intentionally exposed the child to the maternal grandfather, there is no

evidence indicating that the mother directed or caused the maternal

8 CL-2025-0802

grandmother to bring the child to see the maternal grandfather. The

mother was not pictured at Dave and Busters, and there was no

testimony indicating that the mother was aware that that event would

take place or had allowed it to happen.

With respect to whether the mother exercised inexcusable

carelessness, the mother had the maternal grandmother come to the

mother's apartment to provide day care. There was no evidence

indicating that the maternal grandfather was present or lived at the

mother's apartment. And the mother informed the maternal

grandmother that the child was not allowed to visit with the maternal

grandfather. There is likewise no evidence indicating that the mother

was aware that the maternal grandmother would take the child to visit

with the maternal grandfather or had caused the child to visit with the

maternal grandfather in the past.

Based on the evidence before it, the juvenile court could not have

reasonably found that there was clear and convincing evidence that the

mother had willfully disobeyed or refused to comply with the juvenile

court's order.

Conclusion

9 CL-2025-0802

The evidence does not support the juvenile court's contempt finding.

The contempt order is therefore reversed, and the cause is remanded.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Moore, P.J., and Edwards, Hanson, and Fridy, JJ., concur.