Pratt v. Pratt
56 So. 3d 638, 2010 WL 3290976 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court must establish a specific, enforceable visitation schedule for a noncustodial parent and may not delegate its judicial authority to determine the time, place, or conditions of visitation to the custodial parent or a third party.
Facts:
- Susanne M. Pratt (the mother) and John W. Pratt (the father) were married and had three children.
- The mother developed health problems which caused symptoms that sometimes interfered with her ability to properly care for the children.
- To treat these problems, the mother used narcotic medications, which an expert testified had resulted in a substance-abuse problem or an 'iatrogenic addiction.'
- After the parties separated, the mother experienced a seizure-like episode and lost consciousness at home while the children were present.
- Despite medical advice to cease using narcotic medications after the episode, the mother continued to use them as prescribed by a pain-management physician at the time of the trial.
- All expert testimony presented at trial recommended that the mother's visitation with the children should be supervised due to her unresolved health and prescription-drug-use issues.
Procedural Posture:
- John W. Pratt (the father) filed a petition for legal separation against Susanne M. Pratt (the mother) in the Montgomery Circuit Court (the trial court).
- The father later amended his petition to seek a divorce.
- While the case was pending, the trial court awarded temporary custody to the father and supervised visitation to the mother.
- Following a trial, the court entered a final judgment of divorce, awarding primary physical custody to the father and supervised visitation to the mother, with the terms of visitation left to the discretion of the father and third parties.
- The mother filed a post-judgment motion to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment, which was subsequently denied by operation of law.
- The mother (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment 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 visitation order that grants the custodial parent and third parties discretion to determine the time, location, and length of a noncustodial parent's supervised visits constitute an improper delegation of judicial authority?
Opinions:
Majority - Moore, J.
Yes, a visitation order that grants such discretion to the custodial parent and third parties is an improper delegation of judicial authority. While a trial court has broad discretion to restrict visitation to protect a child's best interests, such as ordering supervised visitation for a parent with a substance-abuse problem, this judicial function is nondelegable. A visitation award must be sufficiently specific to provide the noncustodial parent with a guaranteed schedule that is not dependent on the discretion of the custodial parent, who could otherwise effectively deny visitation. By allowing the father and supervisors to determine the time and location of visits, and a counselor to set the guidelines, the trial court improperly abdicated its duty to fashion a definite and enforceable visitation award.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that judicial authority over core family law matters, such as visitation, is non-delegable. It clarifies that while a court can provide for flexibility, it must establish a specific, enforceable 'floor' for visitation to protect the noncustodial parent's rights. The ruling serves as a caution to trial courts against creating vague orders that empower a custodial parent or a third-party professional to unilaterally control or veto visitation. This precedent solidifies the requirement for specificity in visitation orders, ensuring that the court, not the parties or their agents, retains ultimate control over the terms of parent-child access.
Unlock the full brief for Pratt v. Pratt