G.W.G. v. V.M.G.

Rel: November 13, 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, 2026-2027 _________________________ CL-2026-0219 and CL-2026-0295 _________________________ G.W.G. v. V.M.G. Appeals from Autauga Circuit Court (DR-22-900205.01 and CV-23-66) PER CURIAM. In appeal number CL-2026-0219, G.W.G. ("the father") appeals from a judgment entered by the Autauga Circuit Court ("the trial court") that modified the custody of B.W.G., S.M.G., and C.W.G. ("the children"), modified the father's child-support obligation, restrained the father from going within 300 feet of the residence of V.W.G. ("the mother"), restrained the father from surveilling the mother and the children, limited the CL-2026-0219 and CL-2026-0295 father to supervised visitation with the children, and ordered the father to be solely responsible for the costs associated with the supervised visitation. In appeal number CL-2026-0295, the father appeals from a final protection-from-abuse ("PFA") order also entered by the trial court. Procedural Background On January 3, 2023, the trial court entered a judgment divorcing the parties ("the divorce judgment"). The divorce judgment incorporated a settlement agreement entered between the parties, pursuant to which the mother and the father were awarded joint legal and joint physical custody of the children on an alternating weekly custodial schedule and were restrained from harassing each other or speaking derogatorily about the other in the presence of the children. On November 9, 2023, the mother filed in the trial court a petition seeking to hold the father in contempt because he had allegedly violated the provisions of the divorce judgment that prohibited him from harassing the mother; that action ("the contempt action") was assigned case number DR-22-900205.01. The mother also sought a modification of custody to award her sole legal and sole physical custody of the children. 2 CL-2026-0219 and CL-2026-0295 On December 22, 2023, the trial court appointed Nancy Kirby as the guardian ad litem for the children. On December 15, 2023, the mother, pursuant to the Protection from Abuse Act ("the Act"), Ala. Code 1975, § 30-5-1 et seq., commenced in the trial court an action seeking a PFA order against the father; that action ("the PFA action") was assigned case number CV-23-66. On December 18, 2023, the trial court, ex mero motu, consolidated the PFA action with the contempt action (referred to collectively as "the consolidated actions"). On December 22, 2023, the father filed in the trial court a motion seeking injunctive relief. According to his motion, the father was arrested on December 19, 2023, on a charge of third-degree domestic violence, harassing communications, with the mother as the victim. As a condition of the father's release, the Prattville Municipal Court ("the municipal court") had ordered that he could communicate with the children telephonically but that he was to have no physical contact with the children. Those conditions of release were to be reevaluated upon the father's undergoing a mental evaluation. In his motion filed in the trial court, the father requested that, pending a scheduled pendente lite 3 CL-2026-0219 and CL-2026-0295 hearing, the parties be ordered to continue the "two, two, three" custodial schedule that they had been exercising by agreement. A pendente lite hearing was conducted on January 9, 2024, by a special master who had been appointed by the trial court. On January 12, 2024, the trial court ratified the special master's recommendations that the father exercise four hours of daytime visitation with the children, twice per week, with the visits being supervised by the father's aunt, unless conditions of release from the father's pending criminal charges prohibited that agreement, and that the father have telephone/videoconferencing calls with the children nightly between 5:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. The trial court also ratified the special master's recommendations that the mother and the father attend coparenting counseling with Thea Langley, a marriage and family therapist employed by Fountain City Counseling; that neither party remove the children from the jurisdiction of the trial court without prior court approval; that neither party discuss the pending legal actions with the children or speak disparagingly of the other parent in the presence of the children; and that the father continue with his mental-health treatment. 4 CL-2026-0219 and CL-2026-0295 On February 26, 2024, the father filed a motion seeking a stay of the consolidated actions; he filed a similar motion on April 23, 2024. According to the February 2024 motion, the father had been arrested on February 23, 2024, and was being held at the Autauga County Jail. The father's April 2024 motion expanded on his February 2024 motion and explained that the father had four criminal charges pending against him and that, because those charges stemmed from the same common nucleus of operative facts as those underlying the consolidated actions, he would be required to waive his Fifth Amendment privilege against self- incrimination, see U.S. Const., amend. V, to defend against the consolidated actions. The trial court denied the father's February 2024 motion to stay on February 27, 2024. The trial court ordered that a hearing be conducted on the father's April 2024 motion to stay. Following that hearing, the trial court, on May 13, 2024, entered an order staying the consolidated actions for so long as the father's criminal charges remained pending. Despite the consolidated actions being stayed and despite his being represented by counsel, on July 8, 2024, the father, acting pro se, filed a handwritten motion in the trial court. In his pro se motion, the father 5 CL-2026-0219 and CL-2026-0295 denied that he had ever been violent toward the mother or that he had ever threatened violence toward her. The father further alleged that the mother had engaged in behavior with the intent to alienate the father and his family from the children. The father requested that the trial court ensure that his family had equal access to the children. A hearing on the father's pro se motion was scheduled to occur on September 16, 2024. On September 9, 2024, the mother filed a motion seeking to temporarily suspend the father's visitation with the children. According to the mother, the father had been arrested on April 19, 2024, for second- degree aggravated stalking. The mother's motion further alleged that, on August 17, 2024, the father had pleaded guilty in the municipal court to violating a "CV Protection Order," that he had been sentenced to serve 90 days in the Autauga Metro Jail, and that the father was scheduled to be released from jail on or about September 15, 2024. The mother alleged that, during his incarceration, the father had begun sending cards addressed to the family to her home, which, she said, purported to be messages to the children. The mother further alleged that the content of those messages had not been appropriate for the children. On September 6 CL-2026-0219 and CL-2026-0295 6, 2024, the trial court granted the mother's motion, temporarily suspending the father's visitation with the children and ordering the father to submit to a mental-health evaluation and to begin "prescribed treatment prior to reinstatement of any visitation." The trial court also canceled the September 16, 2024, hearing on the father's pro se motion until the trial court was "notified [the father] ha[d] complied" with its September 6, 2024, order. A status conference was scheduled to occur on November 14, 2024. Before that conference, the parties and the guardian ad litem filed a joint status report in the trial court. According to that joint report, on October 11, 2024, the father had undergone a mental-health evaluation and had received a prescribed treatment plan. The joint report requested that the trial court continue the November 14, 2024, status conference to a later date to allow the father time to begin mental-health treatment. On November 13, 2024, the trial court canceled the November 14, 2024, status conference. On January 17, 2025, the trial court, ex mero motu, entered an order assigning the consolidated actions to Judge Deanne Calhoun. On February 19, 2025, the trial court entered an order scheduling a status 7 CL-2026-0219 and CL-2026-0295 conference to occur on March 13, 2025. That order also required the father to provide an update on his mental-health treatment and on whether the consolidated actions were ready for trial. On February 25, 2025, the father filed a motion informing the trial court that his criminal charges remained pending and requesting that the status conference be either continued or canceled. The father's motion was granted on March 3, 2025, when the trial court entered an order directing that the status conference be removed from the docket. That order also required the father to file a status report on June 3, 2025. On May 28, 2025, the father filed a status report indicating that, because of outstanding discovery, the consolidated actions were not ripe for trial. The father's status report further informed the trial court that he had completed a psychological evaluation and that all but one of his criminal charges had been dismissed.1 Despite the remaining criminal 1An order of dismissal with prejudice appended to the father's status report indicated that, on May 12, 2025, the trial court had granted the City of Prattville's oral motion to dismiss a charge of third-degree domestic violence against the father. That exhibit also indicated that a charge of third-degree domestic violence, harassing communications, would be proceeding to trial. A second document appended to the father's status report indicated that, on May 13, 2025, a trial had been conducted on the remaining domestic-violence charge and that the jury had found the father not guilty. 8 CL-2026-0219 and CL-2026-0295 charge, the father requested that the trial court vacate the pendente lite orders that limited his contact with the children and order the parties to return to exercising the joint-physical-custody award set forth in the divorce judgment. The father also requested that a pendente lite hearing be scheduled and that the trial court enter a scheduling order establishing discovery deadlines and a trial date. On June 4, 2025, the trial court entered a scheduling order that provided for certain discovery deadlines and scheduled a trial to occur on September 10, 2025, which date was subsequently continued to October 21, 2025. The trial court entered an order on October 21, 2025, indicating that the trial had been commenced on that date but had not been concluded. The trial was scheduled to resume on November 4, 2025. Pending the conclusion of the trial, the trial court awarded the father 3 hours of supervised visitation on certain days, allowed the father to have monitored telephone calls with the children, restrained the father from going within 300 feet of the mother's residence and her place of employment, and ordered the parties to download a parenting application to use as their exclusive means of communication. 9 CL-2026-0219 and CL-2026-0295 The second day of the trial was conducted on November 4, 2025. On November 5, 2025, the mother filed a motion to show cause, which she later supplemented. In her supplemented motion, the mother alleged that the father had a history of communicating with her under the pseudonym "John Tyler" and that, following the first day of the trial, the mother had begun receiving e-mails from "John Tyler" that contained confidential information regarding her boyfriend, which, she asserted, only the father could have known. The mother appended copies of the newly received e-mails to her motion. One of those e-mails described the exterior of the mother's house and where her boyfriend's automobile was parked in her driveway. The mother's motion alleged that the father had violated those portions of the October 21, 2025, order that required that all communication between the parties go through the parenting application and prohibited the father from going within 300 feet of the mother's residence. The mother requested, among other things, that the trial court suspend the father's visitation with the children and direct the father to appear and show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court. 10 CL-2026-0219 and CL-2026-0295 In his November 11, 2025, response to the mother's motion, the father denied that he had committed the acts the mother alleged. His response further argued that the mother and her boyfriend had had the motive and opportunity to send the e-mail messages in question to sabotage the father's case with false allegations. The father appended to his response text messages that he had received from the mother's boyfriend that he said supported his assertion that the mother and her boyfriend were the source of the e-mail messages that the mother had received from "John Tyler." The father requested that the trial court deny the mother's motion to show cause and that the mother's motion and accompanying exhibits be struck from the record as hearsay. Alternatively, the father requested that the trial court schedule the matter for a third day of trial so that the mother's boyfriend could be called as a witness. In the mother's reply to the father's response, she refuted the father's assertion that he was not the source of the harassing e-mails and disputed that the e-mails that were appended to her motion were inadmissible hearsay because, she said, those e-mails constituted an admission by a party opponent and were therefore not hearsay. The 11 CL-2026-0219 and CL-2026-0295 mother requested that the trial court deny the father's request to strike her motion to show cause. On January 12, 2026, the trial court entered a judgment that contained the following findings of fact: "1. The parties were previously married and divorced. The parties have three minor children together.... The parties share joint legal, joint physical custody of the minor children…. "2. The [f]ather's visitation was suspended by [o]rder of the [c]ourt on September 8, 2024[,] and he was [o]rdered to submit to a psychological assessment prior to reinstatement of visitation. At the time of the first day of trial, the [father] had exercised one 1-hour supervised visit with the minor children which took place at the Autauga County Courthouse, a 3-hour supervised visit at the Millbrook Boo Festival, and a 3-hour supervised visit at Pratt Park. The visits were supervised by Lauren Calloway with the Bridge Center. The [father] had also been having monitored phone and/or video calls with the minor children. Prior to day two of [f]inal [h]earing[,] the [c]ourt ordered additional supervised visitation for the [father]. "3. The [father] has a pending felony charge for aggravated stalking related to the [mother]. Father plead[ed] guilty to violation of the [PFA] Order and was sentenced to serve 90 days in jail. While in jail, the [f]ather sent letters to the [mother's] home addressed to [the family] dated August 22, 2024[,] and August 28, 2024. "4. The [father] had paid $600 in support since December 2023. The [father] testified that he believed 12 CL-2026-0219 and CL-2026-0295 sending a check to support the children would have been in violation of the [PFA] Order. Father made no efforts to send money through the guardian ad litem. … "5. The [father] suffers from social anxiety and depression. He reportedly takes medication for mental[-]health symptoms. The [father] was unemployed at the time of trial[] but is employable. His testimony about employment was inconsistent with his reports to his mental[- ]health professional. The [father] is trained law enforcement. "6. The [mother] lives in Prattville. The [m]aternal [g]randmother lives with the [mother]. [The m]aternal [g]randmother assists with transport and pickup of the minor children. … "7. [The p]aternal [g]randmother lives in Louisiana. Throughout this case [the p]aternal [g]randmother has been aggressive in her communication with attorneys and [g]uardian ad litem. [The p]aternal [g]randmother works in law enforcement. [The p]aternal [g]randmother used her resources to track down the [mother] and children after she relocated without notice. Due to inappropriate [c]ourt conduct, the [p]aternal [g]randmother was ordered to leave the [c]ourtroom during day 1 of [f]inal [h]earing. [The p]aternal [g]randmother is not a suitable supervisor for the [father's] visitation. "8. The [mother] received numerous harassing e[-]mails which she testified [had] been sent by the [f]ather under a fictitious identity. Based upon the evidence before the [c]ourt, the [c]ourt is convinced the e[-]mails were in fact generated at the hands of the [father], even though he denies any responsibility. This [c]ourt is concerned that the [father] has an unhealthy fixation with the [mother], her 13 CL-2026-0219 and CL-2026-0295 relationships, and her whereabouts. The [father's] testimony was not credible as to his knowledge of the e[-]mails received by the [mother]. "9. The [father] has threatened to remove the minor children from the jurisdiction of this [c]ourt. This [c]ourt finds the [father] is obsessed with control of the [mother], even to the degree of using visitation with his children to advance his agenda. [The father] does not shield the children from adult conflict." Based on the above findings of fact, the trial court ordered: "1. A material change in circumstances has occurred since entry of the prior judgment of custody which warrants a change of custody. "2. The [c]ourt finds it to be in the … children's best interest and hereby GRANTS the [mother's] Complaint for Modification and AWARDS the [mother] sole legal, sole physical custody of the … children subject to the [father's] supervised visitation. "3. The [father] shall not go within 300 feet of the [mother's] residence. Further, the [father] shall not cause a third person to act on his behalf to cause surveillance of the [mother] or [the] children. "4. The parties shall communicate exclusively via Our Family Wizard app[lication]. Communication shall only be about the ... children. The [father] is restrained from having any contact with the [mother] outside of the Our Family Wizard app[lication]. "5. Beginning January 17, 2026, the [father] shall have supervised visitation every other Saturday and Sunday 14 CL-2026-0219 and CL-2026-0295 for three (3) hours each day supervised by the Bridge Center. In the event the supervisor is unavailable, the [father] shall coordinate makeup dates through the Our Family Wizard parenting app[lication]. The [father] shall be responsible for payment of visitation expenses. "6. The [father] shall have phone calls with the ... children between the hours of 6:00 p.m.-7:00 p.m. on Tuesday and Thursdays. "7. The [f]ather shall not remove the ... children from the State of Alabama without [c]ourt [o]rder. "8. The [father] has earning capacity of $3,607 per month. The [mother] reports gross wages of $6,522 per month. [The mother] reports $190 per month for childcare and $578 for health insurance. The [father] is ORDERED to pay child support in the amount of $995.00 per month beginning January 2026, which payment shall be paid by the end of each month in which it comes due. "9. The [mother] is awarded retroactive child support for October 2025, November 2025, and December 2025 in the total amount of $2,985 which shall be paid on or before February 1, 2026. "10. Any outstanding [g]uardian ad litem fees shall be paid in full within thirty (30) days of the entry date of this [o]rder. The [c]ourt reserves jurisdiction for collection of [g]uardian ad litem fees. "11. [The mother's] Complaint for Contempt and attorney fees is DENIED. All pending [m]otions are hereby DENIED. This is a [f]inal [o]rder. All other requests for relief are denied." (Capitalization in original.) 15 CL-2026-0219 and CL-2026-0295 On February 4, 2026, the father filed, pursuant to Rule 59, Ala. R. Civ. P., a postjudgment motion seeking to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment entered in the contempt action or, alternatively, for a new trial. At a hearing conducted on the father's postjudgment motion, the parties' respective counsel agreed that no final judgment had been entered in the PFA action, and counsel requested that the trial court enter a judgment in that action. On March 6, 2026, the trial court entered a postjudgment order in the contempt action that granted in part and denied in part the father's requested relief. The father filed a notice of appeal from the judgment entered in the contempt action on March 20, 2026. (C. 342). Also, on March 6, 2026, the trial court entered in the PFA action a final PFA order enjoining the father from threatening to commit or committing acts of abuse as defined in the Act. Specifically, the final PFA order restrained the father from contacting the mother; from harassing, stalking, threatening, or engaging in conduct that would place the mother in reasonable fear of bodily injury; from having physical or violent contact with the mother or her property, residence, and place of employment; and from going within 300 feet of the mother's residence, school, or place of employment. The trial court further ordered the father 16 CL-2026-0219 and CL-2026-0295 to immediately surrender all firearms to the Autauga County Sheriff's Office. The final PFA order also provided that the terms of that order would be effective until March 6, 2027. The father appealed from the final PFA order on March 20, 2026. On May 26, 2026, this court consolidated the appeals from the contempt action and the PFA action. The Evidence Langley, a marriage and family therapist, testified that she had first met with the mother and the father in a joint session in February 2024. According to Langley, before that session, the mother had been apprehensive about joining the father and Langley in the counseling room. Langley said that, when she conducts coparenting sessions, she typically has the parents sit very close to one another, but, she said, because it had been evident that the mother was uncomfortable, she had modified her normal procedure and had allowed the mother to sit on a couch that was situated across the room from the father. Langley testified that, despite her efforts, the coparenting session had not been successful. She testified that she had had to de-escalate the session several times and that she had eventually ended the session when she had felt that it was no longer safe to continue the session because of 17 CL-2026-0219 and CL-2026-0295 the father's behavior. Langley said that, at some point during the session, the father had begun to yell and had walked toward the mother. Langley testified that the father's behavior had caused her to fear for her safety and for the safety of the mother, and she described her response when the father had walked toward the mother: "At that point, I stood up and basically started yelling, this is not going to happen. We are not going to do this. You need to leave and you need to leave now. And that is not a tone of voice that very many people hear from me and certainly not in my office. I think that that really is probably the only time that I have had to do that. "I was very aware of my surroundings. I was very aware of where my purse was with my phone in it, in order to call the police because it was that bad." Brandon Goldwire, an officer with the Prattville Police Department, testified that, on the first day of the trial, the father had an outstanding charge for stalking, with the mother as the victim. According to Goldwire, that charge had been initiated after the father allegedly violated a no-contact order, which prohibited him from contacting the mother, by sending the mother e-mails and text messages. Goldwire said that he had personally executed the arrest warrant and had taken the father into custody at the Veterans Affairs hospital in 18 CL-2026-0219 and CL-2026-0295 Tuscaloosa. Thereafter, he said, he had transported the father to the Autauga County jail. Goldwire said that, when the father was incarcerated at the Autauga County jail, his telephone calls were recorded and that, as part of his investigation, Goldwire had reviewed those recordings. According to Goldwire, in a recorded telephone call with his mother, the father had stated that he did not see what the big deal was because he had only been sending e-mails to the mother. Goldwire said that he had received approximately 14 police reports from the mother regarding the father's behavior toward her. Goldwire had also received at least one report from the father alleging that the mother's boyfriend had harassed him. Because that incident was not a domestic-violence event, and because Goldwire's job was to accept and process complaints regarding domestic- violence allegations, Goldwire said that he had referred the father to the magistrate to address that issue. Calloway testified that she had supervised one visit between the father and the children at the Autauga County courthouse. That visit had lasted one hour and had occurred without incident. According to Calloway, the children had appeared to be comfortable and had had a 19 CL-2026-0219 and CL-2026-0295 positive interaction with the father, and, she said, the father also had interacted with the children in an appropriate manner. Calloway said that, following that supervised visit, she had recommended that more visits occur away from the courthouse. In the event that the trial court ordered the father's visitation to be supervised, Calloway said that she would have no concerns providing supervision services in the future. The mother testified that, pursuant to the divorce judgment, she and the father had exercised "50/50 custody" of the children on an alternating weekly basis. Despite the trial court's having ordered alternating weekly custodial periods, the mother said that she and the father had agreed that his custodial time would follow his work schedule so that, when the father was working, the children would be in the mother's custody and, when he was off, the children would be in his custody. Regarding her contempt petition, the mother said that, following their divorce, the father had begun harassing her. To minimize the father's behavior, the mother said that she and the father had been required to communicate through a coparenting application and that 20 CL-2026-0219 and CL-2026-0295 they had attended coparenting counseling with Langley. According to the mother, those efforts had been unsuccessful. In 2023, the mother began receiving harassing e-mails, which, she said, were intended to blackmail her into recording a video of her having sex with the father and forwarding that video to the sender of the e-mail. According to the mother, the e-mails had threatened that, if she did not comply with the directives, the sender would contact the mother's employer and report the mother to the Department of Human Resources. The e-mails originated from Proton, which, the mother said, is an e-mail service that requires a password in order to view the content of e-mails originating from a Proton e-mail address. According to the mother, e- mails that originate from Proton expire and are no longer accessible after a period that is set by the sender. According to the mother, the Proton e- mails that she received had originated from a "John Tyler" as well as from a second pseudonym;2 however, the mother opined that the father was the individual responsible for sending the Proton e-mails that she had received. 2The second Proton e-mail address is not listed because this appeal has been designated confidential and because that e-mail address includes the father's surname. 21 CL-2026-0219 and CL-2026-0295 In subsequent text messages between the mother and the father, which were admitted into evidence over a hearsay objection interjected by the father, the father admitted to being the source of the e-mails from "John Tyler." According to the mother, after the text exchange in which the father admitted to being "John Tyler," the father had telephoned her and recanted his earlier admission. The mother, however, maintained her assertion that the father was the source of the e-mails from "John Tyler," despite the father's subsequent denial. According to the mother, the fact that the e-mails from "John Tyler" had ceased when the father had been arrested and jailed and had resumed when he was released from incarceration had further convinced her that the father had used "John Tyler" as a pseudonym to harass and to attempt to blackmail her. According to the mother, she had continued to receive e-mails from "John Tyler" that included information that she believed was intended to scare or threaten her, such as her vehicle-identification number, her license-plate number, and the date her automobile was registered and to whom it was registered. The mother reported those e-mails to the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency, which, according to the mother, had opened an investigation to determine if someone had misused their 22 CL-2026-0219 and CL-2026-0295 authority to search her vehicle-identification number. The trial court admitted into evidence, over the father's objection, the mother's composite exhibit that contained the e-mails that she had received from "John Tyler" ("the mother's exhibit 13"); the father's objection was based on his assertion that the e-mails were unauthenticated and, therefore, inadmissible hearsay. The mother confirmed earlier testimony indicating that she had filed reports with the Prattville Police Department regarding the father's actions. When the mother first began filing those reports, she said, she had not wanted to pursue warrants for the father's arrest. Instead, the mother said, she had filed those reports to document the occurrences of harassment and the escalation of the father's behavior toward her, including his threatening to abscond with the children to Louisiana. After the father was arrested for his behavior toward the mother, the mother said that the father had sent her a text message while he was incarcerated in which he had apologized for having sent her the harassing e-mails. Based on her history with the father, the mother testified that it was impossible for her to have a coparenting relationship with him. 23 CL-2026-0219 and CL-2026-0295 Despite her stated fears of the father's knowing where she lived and having her contact information, the mother conceded that she and the father needed to communicate for the benefit of the children. She requested that the trial court limit all communications between the parties to a coparenting application, which, she said, would alleviate the need for the father to have her personal contact information. The mother also requested that she not be required to inform the father of the location of her residence. Regarding the father's visitation with the children, the mother said that he had spoken with the children on the telephone on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday of each week and had exercised a supervised visit a few weeks before the trial began. The mother did not object to the father's maintaining his telephone contact with the children, but she did express concern about the frequency of the telephone calls considering the ages of the children. The mother requested that the father's visitation with the children remain supervised and that those supervised visits be scheduled in advance. Lastly, the mother requested that she be awarded sole legal and sole physical custody of the children. 24 CL-2026-0219 and CL-2026-0295 The paternal grandmother testified that she resides in Thibodaux, Louisiana, which, she said, is approximately 375 miles from Prattville. Until the mother and the father moved to Alabama in January 2022, they, too, had resided in Thibodaux. The paternal grandmother said that she had last seen the children in February 2024, after which, she said, the mother had "blocked" the paternal grandmother's ability to communicate with her. According to the paternal grandmother, the mother had stated to her that, because the mother did not like the way that the father had spoken to her, the mother intended to use the father's post-traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD") and allegations of domestic violence against him to gain custody of the children. The paternal grandmother, who herself was a 20-year veteran law-enforcement officer, denied that she had ever witnessed the father commit acts of domestic violence directed at the mother or at the children. The paternal grandmother said, however, that she had witnessed the mother commit domestic violence against the father when they lived in Thibodaux. On cross-examination, the paternal grandmother initially admitted that she had contacted the Elmore County Sheriff's office on "six or 25 CL-2026-0219 and CL-2026-0295 sevenish" occasions to have law-enforcement officers conduct a welfare check at the mother's residence. Because of the frequency of her requests, she said, she had made a compromise with a night supervisor at the sheriff's office to limit her welfare-check requests to once per month. The Elmore County Sheriff's office records, which were admitted as a trial exhibit, contradicted the paternal grandmother's testimony. Those records indicated that the paternal grandmother had requested 15 welfare checks at the mother's residence and that the paternal grandmother had been advised that the sheriff's office would no longer conduct welfare checks at the mother's residence because that process had been used to harass the mother. The records further indicated that the paternal grandmother had been instructed to contact the Department of Human Resources with any future requests to have a welfare check performed at the mother's residence. The father admitted that he and the mother had informally modified their custodial periods from the alternating weekly schedule included in the divorce judgment to a "two, two, two, two, three" schedule 26 CL-2026-0219 and CL-2026-0295 that accommodated his work schedule.3 The father testified that the agreed-upon modified schedule had worked well for him and for the children. He said, however, that he understood that the agreed-upon modified schedule had been a burden on the mother, which, he said, had caused her to insist that the parties resume the alternating weekly custodial periods established in the divorce judgment. The father testified that he had been employed with the Millbrook Police Department, but, he said, he no longer maintained that employment. The father had not located new employment at the time of the trial, but he had a commercial driver's license ("CDL") that could provide him with local employment opportunities. Because of his unemployment, the father suggested that he could provide childcare for the children. The father said that he was residing with his stepfather in a house in Prattville. The father had his own bedroom in that house, but, he said, 3In the agreed-upon modified schedule, the father would have the children for two days followed by the mother's having the children for two days. The parties would alternate that schedule such that both exercised two custodial periods that were two days in length. The agreed-upon schedule would conclude with each parent exercising a three-day period. Thereafter, the parties would start the schedule over. 27 CL-2026-0219 and CL-2026-0295 the children would share bunk beds in a single bedroom. He acknowledged that his stepfather's house was a short-term living solution that he anticipated would change upon his obtaining employment. The father admitted having stated to the mother that, if she continued playing games, he would take the children to Louisiana. The father denied that that statement had been a threat to abscond with the children. Instead, the father said, he had meant to convey that he was going to take the children to an area where he was more comfortable with the legal system. The father acknowledged that his statement to the mother had been made out of stupidity and anger. He denied that he had intended to convey that he would keep the children from the mother. Because of time constraints, the father was unable to complete his testimony on the first day of the trial. The trial court adjourned the trial and indicated that testimony would resume on November 4, 2025. The trial court also indicated that a pendente lite order would be entered that