Headrick v. Headrick
2005 WL 1414312, 916 So. 2d 610 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A child custody arrangement requiring a school-aged child to alternate primary physical custody on a yearly basis between parents who live in different communities is contrary to the child's best interests due to the inherent instability and disruption it creates. Such an arrangement is improper, as child custody determinations must prioritize continuity and stability in the child's life.
Facts:
- Christina Headrick and Teddy Headrick married in 1997 and had one son, who was five years old at the time of the legal proceedings.
- During their marriage, discipline of Christina's son from a prior marriage was a frequent source of conflict between the parties.
- After the parties separated, Teddy Headrick continued to live in the marital residence in Marshall County.
- Christina Headrick moved to Hazel Green in Madison County, approximately 40 to 50 miles away from Teddy's residence.
- The trial court found that both parties had committed acts of domestic violence against each other and that neither parent was a better parent than the other.
- The trial court also noted that Christina Headrick had a history of prescription drug abuse for which she was on methadone, and Teddy Headrick had a temper.
Procedural Posture:
- Christina Headrick (the wife) initiated the action by filing a petition for protection from abuse against Teddy Headrick (the husband) in the Marshall Circuit Court (trial court).
- The husband filed an answer and a counterclaim for a divorce.
- The parties reached a pendente lite agreement for joint custody, which was incorporated into a temporary court order.
- After a trial where oral testimony was heard (ore tenus), the trial court entered a final judgment of divorce.
- The judgment awarded the parties joint legal and physical custody, but ordered that once the child started first grade, primary custody would alternate annually between the mother (even years) and the father (odd years).
- Christina Headrick (appellant) appealed the trial court's custody determination to the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a child custody order that requires a child to alternate primary physical custody on a yearly basis between parents who live in different counties and school districts violate the legal principle that custody arrangements must be in the child's best interest by prioritizing stability?
Opinions:
Majority - Murdock, J.
Yes. A child custody order that requires an annual alternation of primary physical custody between parents living in different communities is not in the child's best interest because it creates excessive disruption. The court's primary consideration in custody cases is the welfare and best interests of the child, which includes the need for stability and continuity. Citing the principles from Ex parte McLendon, the court reasoned that frequent disruptions are to be condemned. Because the parents live in different counties and school districts, the arrangement would force the child to change residence, school, church, activities, and friends every year. This recurring, yearly disruption is contrary to the child's need to establish roots and is therefore reversible error.
Concurring - Pittman, J.
Yes. While alternating custody is not inherently improper, it is inappropriate in this case given the distance between the parents' homes and the child's imminent entry into elementary school. The concurrence agrees with the reversal, finding the reasoning in a similar case, Poe v. Capps, to be persuasive. That case held that an alternating annual custody arrangement is unworkable and detrimental once a child is old enough for school and the parents reside in different school districts. The need for academic stability makes the trial court's unique custody arrangement improper under these circumstances.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the paramount importance of stability and continuity in a child's life when making custody determinations. It establishes a strong precedent against custody arrangements that mandate annual changes in a school-aged child's home and school district, especially when parents live a significant distance apart. The decision clarifies that even if parents are deemed equally fit (or unfit), the structure of the custody plan itself must serve the child's best interest, with stability being a key factor. Future courts will be hesitant to approve similar "alternating year" custody plans, instead favoring arrangements that provide a consistent primary home base for a child during the school year.
