author: BRYAN, Judge.

text:
    M.S.M. v. M.W.M.
    2090949.
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 11, 2011.
    Rehearing Denied May 13, 2011.

      Kelli F. McDaniel, Montgomery, for appellant.
    Jacob A. Dubin, Montgomery, for appel-lee.
   BRYAN, Judge.

M.S.M. (“the wife”) appeals from a judgment entered by the Montgomery Circuit Court (“the circuit court”) that divorced her from M.W.M. (“the husband”).

Procedural History

The husband filed a complaint for a divorce in the circuit court on April 14, 2009, and the wife subsequently filed an answer and a counterclaim for a divorce. The divorce action was docketed in the circuit court as case no. DR-09-347. The husband filed a motion to appoint a guardian ad litem on behalf of the parties’ daughter, the only child born of the parties’ marriage (“the child”), who was born in September 1996. The circuit court appointed a guardian ad litem on behalf of the child on May 4, 2009.

On May 21, 2009, the guardian ad litem, in case no. DR-09-347, filed a motion styled “Motion for Finding of Dependency” in the circuit court. The guardian ad litem alleged that the child was dependent because she was being emotionally abused by the husband and the wife and because the husband and the wife had not exercised proper parental care and control necessary for the child’s well-being. The guardian ad litem requested that a finding of dependency be made based on testimony presented at a pendente lite hearing that had been conducted before a special master of the circuit court on May 19, 2009, and that the circuit court “bifurcate the dependency action from the divorce action.”

On June 23, 2009, a special master of the circuit court filed a report of reference based on testimony presented before the special master at the May 19, 2009, pen-dente lite hearing. For pendente lite purposes, the special master recommended, among other things: (1) that the child be declared dependent based on alleged mental and emotional abuse inflicted by the husband and the wife; (2) that the parties share legal custody of the child and that the wife exercise primary physical custody of the child; (3) that the parties and the child be required to submit to psychological evaluations; (4) that the wife be allowed temporary exclusive use and possession of the parties’ marital residence; (5) that the husband pay $669 a month in child support to the wife and $1,500 a month in alimony to the wife; and (6) that the wife be required to pay all expenses associated with the marital residence. On the same day, the circuit court entered an order approving and confirming the report of reference, and it entered a separate order requiring the husband, the wife, and the child to submit to psychological examination by Dr. Warren Brantley.

The circuit court, also on June 23, 2009, entered an order purporting to transfer the issues related to the child’s custody to the Montgomery Juvenile Court (“the juvenile court”). In that order, the circuit court purported to find the child dependent based on the recommendation of the special master and the guardian ad litem’s motion seeking to find the child dependent. The purported juvenile action was assigned case no. JU-08-509.01. The same circuit-court judge presided over the divorce action in the circuit court and the purported juvenile action in the juvenile court.

After conducting a hearing on September 17 and September 22, 2009, the special master entered a second order of reference on October 2, 2009, that recommended, among other things, that the parties continue to share legal custody of the child but that physical custody of the child should be transferred to the husband, subject to the wife’s visitation with the child. The special master also recommended that the husband pay the mortgage and utility bills for the marital residence and pay the wife $200 a month in alimony. The circuit court entered an order approving and confirming the special master’s report of reference.

In October 2009, the guardian ad litem filed a motion recommending that the wife and the husband submit to evaluation by a board-certified psychiatrist. On December 16, 2009, the circuit-court judge, purporting to act as a juvenile-court judge, issued an order, based on “extensive argument from counsel,” that suspended the wife’s visitation with the child until further notice, that ordered that any communication between the wife and the child be recorded, and that ordered the wife and the husband to submit to psychiatric evaluation.

On December 24, 2009, the wife filed a petition in the juvenile court alleging that the child was dependent; that petition was assigned case no. JU-09-509.02. The wife alleged that the child was in immediate danger of physical and/or emotional harm because the husband was isolating the child from the wife. In her dependency petition, the wife stated that she should be awarded sole physical custody of the child and that the husband should be awarded supervised visitation. On January 12, 2010, the guardian ad litem filed a motion to allow the wife supervised visitation with the child and to allow the wife to communicate with the child using the speakerphone function of a telephone.

On January 7, 2010, January 25, 2010, and February 1, 2010, a final ore tenus hearing was conducted on the divorce action and the juvenile actions. The circuit court entered a divorce judgment on March 11, 2010, in case no. DR-00-347 that purported to consolidate case nos. JU-09-509.01 and JU-09-509.02 for the purpose of issuing one judgment, and, in that judgment, case nos. JU-09-509.01 and JU-09-509.02 were “closed.” Pursuant to the divorce judgment, the circuit court awarded the husband sole legal and physical custody of the child and awarded the wife supervised visitation with the child every other Saturday from 10:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. The wife’s supervised visitation with the child was to continue until the child’s counselor and the husband agreed that the wife should have unsupervised visitation. At that point, the wife would be awarded “standard visitation,” as specifically set forth in the divorce judgment. The wife was ordered to pay child support in the amount of $100 per month, but that obligation was suspended by the circuit court due to the wife’s unemployment. The parties were ordered to equally share responsibility for any of the child’s noncov-ered medical expenses.

The husband was awarded all title to and interest in the parties’ marital residence, and the wife was ordered to immediately vacate the marital residence. However, pursuant to the judgment, the husband could either (1) immediately place the marital residence for sale and, upon sale of the marital residence, equally divide the net proceeds of the sale with the wife or (2) reside in the marital residence and purchase the wife’s one-half interest in the net equity of the marital residence. The wife was awarded 30% of the husband’s vested retirement benefits, an amount equal to $36,655. Additionally, the wife was awarded rehabilitative alimony in the amount of $200 a month for approximately 9 months. The parties were each awarded a vehicle, the bank accounts in their respective names, and certain specific pieces of personal property. The wife was permitted to retain the parties’ income-tax refund from 2008 in order to offset certain expenses incurred by the husband while the parties had been separated. Each party was ordered to pay all debts incurred in his or her individual name.

The wife subsequently filed a motion to stay enforcement of the divorce judgment and a motion for postjudgment relief pursuant to Rule 59, Ala. R. Civ. P. In her postjudgment motion, the wife argued, among other things, that the divorce judgment was nonfinal. The husband filed a response to the wife’s request for post-judgment relief in which he argued, among other things, that the judgment was final and left nothing more for the circuit court to adjudicate. The wife’s motion to stay enforcement of the divorce judgment was denied, and, after a hearing on her post-judgment motion, the wife’s request for postjudgment relief was denied. The wife subsequently filed a timely notice of appeal.

Issues

On appeal, the wife presents several issues for this court’s review: (1) whether the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction over her dependency petition and the guardian ad litem’s purported dependency petition; (2) whether the circuit court erred in awarding custody of the child to the husband; (3) whether the circuit court erred in requiring the wife to have supervised visitation with the child; (4) whether the circuit court’s visitation order was erroneous even if supervised visitation is required; (5) whether the circuit court erred by requiring the wife to pay child support and one-half of any noncovered medical expenses of the child; (6) whether the circuit court erred in its award of alimony to the wife; and (7) whether the circuit court erred by failing to require the husband to pay the wife’s attorney’s fees.

Facts

The parties were married in 1990, and, as noted above, the child was born in 1996. It was undisputed that the husband had been the sole financial provider for the family throughout the parties’ marriage. At the time of trial, the husband was employed as a professor by a university and he earned $5,778.30 a month, 10 months out of the year. His salary was not guaranteed for two months out of the year, but he could earn income if there was demand for his classes during the summer. The wife had a college degree in botany, but the evidence indicated that the wife had worked during the marriage only for a short time as a substitute teacher and as a pharmacy technician. At the time of trial, she had not worked in more than 13 years. According to the wife, during the parties’ marriage she had acted, at times, as the husband’s secretary, and she stated that she had homeschooled the child until August 2009, when the child started attending a public school.

According to the wife, it took her several months to obtain employment after the parties separated in April 2009. The wife began working part-time as a substitute teacher in late September 2009. The wife’s 2009 W-2 tax form indicated that she had earned $1,537 that year. The wife stated that she had been living in the marital residence since the husband moved out in April 2009 and that the husband had been paying the mortgage and the utility bills on the marital residence. The wife alleged that the husband had never paid her $1,500 a month in alimony, as initially ordered by the circuit court, but that he had paid the mortgage and the utility bills for the marital residence during that time instead. As a result, the wife alleged that she had incurred credit-card debt because .she had been unemployed during that time. The wife testified that she had purchased blinds for the marital residence, a computer, and a bed for the child using a credit card.

The parties moved from Georgia to Alabama in January 2007, and the parties purchased the marital residence in October 2008 for $152,500. At the time of trial, the unpaid principal on the parties’ mortgage was $120,372.89. The husband stated that he had paid the monthly mortgage, which was $854 a month, and that his monthly expenses totaled approximately $2,900 a month. The husband stated that his parents had provided him financial assistance since the parties separated and that he had only $400 in his checking account at the time of trial. The parties owned two vehicles debt-free, but the record does not disclose the value of those vehicles. The husband had individual credit-card debt, incurred during the marriage, which totaled approximately $800 at the time of trial.

The wife stated that she needed temporary financial assistance of approximately $850 a month, i.e., the amount of the monthly mortgage payment, from the husband until she was able to pay the mortgage on her own. The wife estimated that six months would be a sufficient amount of time to receive financial assistance from the husband to give her time to get on her feet because her brother was helping her start a business and she would continue substitute teaching. At the time of trial, the wife was receiving $65 a month in food stamps, but, during the pendency of the divorce action, she had been receiving as much as $200 a month in food stamps.

According to the husband, his retirement with his current employer had not vested, but he had vested retirement from a former employer. As of June 2009, the husband’s vested retirement benefits totaled approximately $122,183. It was undisputed that this amount had accumulated during the parties’ marriage. The husband stated that he had been a tenured professor at his former employer, also a university, and that he had resigned his position at that university because one of his supervisors had made his life miserable. However, the wife testified that the husband had resigned from his tenured position with his former employer because his former employer had required that he submit to a psychological evaluation in order to remain employed. The husband stated that his annual income had declined by approximately $30,000 due to his resignation because his new employer did not initially pay as much as his former employer had.

The child, who was 13 years old at the time of trial, testified during the trial with the husband and the wife present in the courtroom, despite the fact that the child stated that she preferred that the husband and the wife were not present and despite the fact that the child stated that having the wife present in the courtroom made her afraid to answer questions because she did not know how the wife would react to her testimony. The child testified that she liked going to public school and that she had made friends at school. The child stated that she did not enjoy visiting her paternal grandparents because the wife had told her that they were bad people. However, she stated that she really enjoyed visiting the husband’s other relatives in Mississippi. The child had never met any of the wife’s relatives. The child stated that, before she had visited her paternal grandparents, the wife had told her to do things during her visit to embarrass or aggravate her paternal grandparents and that she thought that the wife had told her to act that way so that her paternal grandparents would not want her to come visit them again.

The child also stated that the wife had called the husband a “lousy human being” but that the husband had never said anything negative about the wife to her. According to the child, if she made a bad grade in school, the husband would tell her to do better next time, but the wife would scream at her “for a pretty long time” until her ears hurt and would tell the child that her grades were unacceptable. The child stated that she wanted to live with the husband and visit the wife. The child acknowledged that she had testified at a pendente lite hearing in September 2009 that she wanted to live with the wife; however, she also stated that she was glad when the husband was awarded pendente lite custody approximately one week later.

Lori Parsons, the child’s counselor, testified that she began counseling the child in May 2009 and that, at that time, the child was shy, withdrawn, and very unsure of what to say. Parsons stated that she had counseled the child on a weekly basis and that sometime around October 2009 she noticed a change in the child’s behavior. According to Parsons, the child had blossomed and her emotional state had improved in that she was happy, she felt less pressured, and she was able to communicate better. The child indicated to Parsons that she wanted to live with the husband, and, according to Parsons, the child had told her things during counseling sessions, such as that the wife had told the child to do things that she should not do, which caused Parsons to be concerned about the child’s safety while in the care of the wife.

Brenda Lampley, the wife’s counselor, testified that she began counseling the wife in May 2009. According to Lampley, the wife had indicated to her that she felt that she had raised the child to the best of her ability and that she would be “ok” with the husband receiving custody of the child. Lampley noted that, on one occasion in June 2009, the wife arrived for her appointment with the child, and Lampley described the wife’s interaction with the child as age-inappropriate because the wife sat the child on her lap and told Lampley about her relationship with the child and how she would like the child to be. Lamp-ley testified that the child appeared to be uncomfortable with the wife’s behavior. Also, Lampley stated that the child was very aware of right and wrong and that she would characterize the wife’s behavior, regarding inducing the child to do wrong, as manipulative. Lampley recommended that the wife remain in counseling for her emotional stability.

Dr. Don Hill, the husband’s counselor, testified that he first began counseling the husband on April 21, 2009. Dr. Hill stated that his purpose was to help the husband make clear decisions regarding what was best for the child and to assist in reconciliation with the wife, if possible. Dr. Hill indicated that the husband had shown improvement throughout his counseling sessions. The wife attempted to submit the husband’s counseling records with Dr. Hill into evidence, but an objection made by the guardian ad litem and the husband was sustained and the records were not admitted.

Dr. Brantley, a psychologist and the senior court therapist for Montgomery County, testified that he had performed psychological evaluations on the husband, the wife, and the child. Dr. Brantley administered the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (“MMPI”) on the husband and the wife. According to Dr. Brantley, the husband had the most unique MMPI results that he had ever seen in light of the fact that his interview with the husband was normal. Dr. Brant-ley testified that the husband’s answers indicated a “fake good,” meaning that the husband had put his best foot forward during the examination, but that his test scores were not consistent with a typical “fake good” MMPI score. Dr. Brantley stated that the husband’s unusual test scores indicated only that he was a person with a lot of idiosyncrasies in his personality. He stated that there was no indication of mental illness, of an inability to parent, or of a propensity to develop a mood disorder or mental illness. Dr. Brantley did not believe that the husband’s test scores warranted further evaluation by a psychiatrist, but he stated that re-administration of the MMPI could be done to perhaps obtain more valid results. Dr. Brantley did not find any indication of a significant dysfunction with either the husband or the wife.

The wife submitted to the court-ordered psychiatric evaluation in December 2009, and the record indicates that no psychiatric symptoms were found. The husband stated that he had also submitted to the court-ordered psychiatric evaluation but that, as of the date of trial, he had not received any results of his evaluation.

The wife’s testimony indicated that the husband had a violent temperament, and she alleged that the husband had thrown “every object,” including the parties’ dog, and that he had slammed his cellular telephone against a wall. Further, the wife testified regarding an incident before the parties separated in which the husband went into a rage and stated that he would commit suicide if the parties did not divorce. According to the wife, during the husband’s rage, the child had scratched herself on her arms with sewing needles. The wife also testified that the husband had previously threatened to commit suicide in order to make his former employer feel bad.

The husband testified that the wife had been the primary caregiver of the child and that the wife had not allowed anyone, including the husband, to have a close relationship with the child. The husband testified that the wife was controlling, especially regarding the child’s relationships, but that he was willing to encourage a relationship between the child and the wife if he was awarded custody of the child. The husband stated the he thought that the wife’s visitation with the child should be supervised, and he stated that he was willing to work on a solution to choose a third party to supervise the wife’s visits with the child.

Discussion

I. Jurisdiction

Before we address the wife’s arguments on appeal, we must first address a jurisdictional argument presented by the husband in his brief on appeal. Despite his assertion in his response to the wife’s postjudgment motion, the husband now argues on appeal that the divorce judgment is nonfinal because, he says, it does not completely adjudicate the issues regarding the wife’s visitation or the wife’s child-support obligation. We must address the husband’s arguments because, “[a]s a general rule, this court’s appellate jurisdiction extends only to final judgments.” Campbell v. Taylor, [Ms. 2091072, January 21, 2011] — So.3d -, (Ala.Civ.App.2011).

“ ‘It is a well established rule that, with limited exceptions, an appeal will lie only from a final judgment which determines the issues before the court and ascertains and declares the rights of the parties involved.’ Taylor v. Taylor, 398 So.2d 267, 269 (Ala.1981). A ruling that, determines fewer than all the claims is ordinarily not final as to any of the parties or as to any of the claims.”

Kelley v. Thomas, 878 So.2d 1168, 1171 (Ala.Civ.App.2003).

The provision in the judgment regarding the wife’s visitation gives a specific time and day for the wife to exercise supervised visitation, and, once agreed upon by the child’s counselor and the husband, the judgment gives specific times and days for the wife to exercise unsupervised visitation. The judgment allows the parties to choose a third party to supervise visitation, and it permits the parties to reach an alternative agreement regarding standard visitation. The husband argues that those provisions do not conclusively determine the rights and liabilities of the parties, and he further argues that the provision allowing the counselor to assist in choosing when to implement unsupervised visitation “leaves matters to be sorted by the parties without the benefit of the finality of a court order.” Although certain aspects of the visitation award may be improper, we cannot conclude that those provisions render the divorce judgment nonfinal. See Kelley v. Thomas, supra (dismissing an appeal as being from a nonfinal judgment when the trial court failed to rule on a request for visitation). Compare, e.g., Pratt v. Pratt, 56 So.3d 638 (Ala.Civ.App.2010) (reversing the award of visitation because it was not sufficiently specific and left too much discretion regarding the noncustodial parent’s visitation to the custodial parent and a third party).

The husband also argues that the divorce judgment is nonfinal because it suspends the wife’s child-support obligation pending further orders from the circuit court due to the wife’s unemployment. This court has held that a lower court’s reservation of the issue of child support pending the occurrence of a specific event, such as submission of the appropriate child-support forms, renders a judgment nonfinal, see Naylor v. Naylor, 981 So.2d 440, 441 (Ala.Civ.App.2007), and that a lower court’s failure to actually determine an amount of child support owed by a party also renders a judgment nonfinal, see Turner v. Turner, 883 So.2d 233, 234 (Ala.Civ.App.2003). However, in Parker v. Parker, 946 So.2d 480, 486 (Ala.Civ.App.2006), this court determined that a divorce judgment that reserved ruling on the issue of child support due to the noncustodial parent’s “apparent lack of income” was “as final as any child-support judgment can be.” We believe that the circuit court’s judgment in this case is analogous to the judgment discussed in Parker, in which the non-custodial parent’s child-support obligation was indefinitely suspended because of her lack of income. Accordingly, we conclude that the divorce judgment entered by the circuit court was a final judgment.

We now turn to the wife’s argument on appeal that the dependency petitions did not invoke the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and that, therefore, the juvenile court did not have jurisdiction to make a custody determination as to the child. In M.P. v. C.P., 8 So.3d 316, 318 (Ala.Civ.App.2008), this court stated that,

“ ‘[w]hen a circuit court acquires jurisdiction over the issue of child custody pursuant to a divorce action, it thereafter retains jurisdiction over that issue to the exclusion of the juvenile court.’ Ex parte K.S.G., 645 So.2d 297, 299 (Ala.Civ.App.1992). There are but two exceptions to the rule that the juvenile court cannot exercise jurisdiction over a child once the circuit court has acquired jurisdiction: ‘when there are emergency circumstances which threaten the immediate welfare of the child’ or when a separate dependency action is instituted. Ex parte K.S.G., 645 So.2d at 299-300.”

Our review of the record reveals several jurisdictional deficiencies related to the circuit court’s attempt to adjudicate the child dependent in case no. JU-09-509.01, as set for in notes 1 and 2, supra. Because the guardian ad litem failed to file the dependency petition in juvenile court, in conformance with § 12-15-114(a) and § 12-15-120, Ala.Code 1975, the juvenile court was never vested with jurisdiction in case no. JU-09-509.01. Moreover, the juvenile court was not vested with jurisdiction when the circuit court purported to transfer the matter to juvenile court after it found the child dependent. See § 12-15 — 114(a); and C.D.S. v. K.S.S., 963 So.2d at 130 n. 5 (recognizing that the circuit court could not confer jurisdiction on a juvenile court by transferring a custody action to the juvenile court when the circuit court had jurisdiction over matters of custody pursuant to its continuing jurisdiction conferred by the parties divorce action). Therefore, any purported order in case no. JU-09-509.01 is void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See C.D.S. v. K.S.S., 963 So.2d at 129 n. 4.

Regarding case no. JU-09-509.02, the wife’s dependency petition indicated that it had been received as a verified complaint by an intake officer with the juvenile court. Assuming that the wife’s dependency petition properly invoked either the emergency jurisdiction of the juvenile court or the dependency jurisdiction of the juvenile court, the circuit-court judge, acting as the juvenile-court judge, “closed” case no. JU-09-509.02 after conducting a hearing on the wife’s petition, without entering an emergency order for protection or restraint on behalf of the child, see § 12-15-138, Ala.Code 1975, and without finding the child to be dependent, see § 12 — 15—310(b), Ala.Code 1975 (when a child’s dependency has not been proven by clear and convincing evidence, the dependency petition must be dismissed).

We address the jurisdictional issues presented by the wife on appeal because the wife indicates in her brief that any custody determination made in the underlying action is void because the judgment did not contain a finding of dependency. We agree that a juvenile court does not have jurisdiction to make a custody determination in a dependency action if the child is not adjudicated dependent by the juvenile court. See § 12 — 15—310(b); and L.B. v. R.L.B., 53 So.3d 969 (Ala.Civ.App.2010) (quoting K.C.G. v. S.J.R., 46 So.3d 499, 501-02 (Ala.Civ.App.2010)) (“ ‘If a juvenile court determines that the child is not dependent, the court must dismiss the dependency action.’ ”). However, because the juvenile court did not obtain jurisdiction in case no. JU-09-509.01, and because the juvenile court did not act on the jurisdiction it may have acquired in case no. JU-09-509.02, the issue of the child’s custody remained within the jurisdiction of the circuit court as part of its jurisdiction to decide issues collateral to the divorce action. Thus, the circuit court retained jurisdiction to decide the issue of custody based on the best interest of the child, which was the standard used in the divorce judgment. See M.P. v. C.P., supra.

II. Custody

On appeal, the wife argues that the circuit court erred in awarding the husband custody of the child because the evidence regarding the husband’s mental state and his commission of acts of domestic violence demonstrated that he was unfit to have custody of the child. The wife argues that the circuit court erred by excluding evidence related to the husband’s mental state, such as the husband’s counseling records with Dr. Hill and testimony related to a prescription the husband obtained in 2007.

During the trial, the guardian ad litem objected to the wife’s attempt to submit the husband’s counseling records with Dr. Hill into evidence because, the guardian ad litem asserted, the records were protected by the psychologist-patient privilege found in § 34-26-2, Ala.Code 1975. The husband did not waive that privilege during trial. The circuit-court judge concluded that the counseling records were privileged and, thus, inadmissible; however, the circuit-court judge allowed Dr. Hill to testify regarding non-privileged information.

In Black v. Black, 625 So.2d 450 (Ala.Civ.App.1993), the wife in that case appealed from a judgment of divorce that awarded custody of the parties’ three children to her husband. On appeal, the wife alleged that the trial court had erroneously allowed her psychological records to be admitted into evidence. Id. at 451. In affirming the admission of her psychological records, this court stated:

“In Matter of Von Goyt, 461 So.2d 821 (Ala.Civ.App.1984), this Court determined that where the question of one party’s mental state is clearly in controversy, and a proper resolution of a custody issue requires disclosure, the privileged medical records and the psychologist-patient privilege must yield. In the instant case, the wife’s mental state was relevant to the issue of her fitness to parent the children and in determining the best interests of the children, and, therefore, was clearly in controversy. A trial court has wide latitude in the evidence it may consider in a child custody determination. Von Goyt, supra. The best interests of the children in a custody matter are the paramount consideration, and a party’s physical, financial, and mental ability to care for the children must be considered. Von Goyt, supra. The resolution of the custody issue in the instant case required disclosure of privileged information to determine the best interests of the children.”

625 So.2d at 451-52.

The record reveals that the mental states of both the husband and the wife in this case were clearly in controversy. During the pendency of the divorce action, the circuit court had ordered the husband and the wife to submit to psychological evaluation and psychiatric evaluation. Thus, the issue of the husband’s mental state was relevant in determining his fitness to parent the child. We conclude, as we did in Black, supra, that the proper resolution of the issue of the child’s custody required disclosure of the husband’s privileged records so that the best interest of the child could be determined. The circuit court’s failure to consider the husband’s counseling records is especially troubling in light of the fact that the husband’s psychiatric evaluation was not prepared in time for trial.

The wife also argues that the circuit court refused to hear other evidence concerning the husband’s mental state. The record reflects that the husband testified that he had gone to a doctor in Louisiana to discuss the child’s health issues with that doctor; however, he testified that he had left that appointment with prescribed medication for himself. The wife’s attorney asked the husband what kind of prescription he had obtained from the doctor, and other questions regarding that doctor visit, but the circuit court sustained objections made by the husband based on relevancy and the husband was not required to answer the questions. As we stated above, the mental and physical condition of a parent is relevant in a custody proceeding to determine the parent’s fitness to care for the child. Thus, we conclude that the circuit court erred in excluding evidence of the husband’s fitness to parent the child.

Accordingly, we conclude that the circuit court erred by failing to consider evidence regarding the husband’s mental state in resolving the issue of custody based on the best interests of the child. Therefore, we reverse the custody determination made in the divorce judgment, and we remand the cause with instructions for the circuit court to reconsider its custody determination after conducting a hearing to consider evidence of the husband’s fitness that was improperly excluded during trial, as set forth above.

Because we have reversed the circuit court’s custody determination based on its failure to consider evidence related to the husband’s fitness to parent the child, we pretermit discussion of the wife’s alternative argument for reversal of the custody determination based on the husband’s alleged domestic violence. Furthermore, because the circuit court has been instructed to reconsider its custody determination, we also pretermit discussion of the issues raised by the wife on appeal that relate to her award of supervised visitation, the requirement that she pay child support to the husband, and the requirement that she pay one-half of the child’s noncovered medical expenses.

III. Alimony and Property Division

Next, the wife contends that the circuit court erred by failing to award her periodic alimony or to reserve jurisdiction to award her periodic alimony in the future. The wife also challenges the amount and length of her award of rehabilitative alimony.

“A trial court’s determination regarding a property division and an award of alimony is entitled to a presumption of correctness. Parrish v. Parrish, 617 So.2d 1036 (Ala.Civ.App.1993). That presumption of correctness is based upon the trial court’s unique position of being able to observe the witnesses and evaluate their demeanor and credibility. Robinson v. Robinson, 795 So.2d 729 (Ala.Civ.App.2001). The issues of property division and alimony are interrelated, and they must be considered together. Albertson v. Albertson, 678 So.2d 118 (Ala.Civ.App.199[5]). A property division is not required to be equal, but it must be equitable. Golden v. Golden, 681 So.2d 605 (Ala.Civ.App.1996). In fashioning a property division and an award of alimony, the trial court must consider factors such as the earning capacities of the parties; their future prospects; their ages and health; the length of the parties’ marriage; and the source, value, and type of marital property. Robinson v. Robinson, supra; Lutz v. Lutz, 485 So.2d 1174 (Ala.Civ.App.1986). In addition, the trial court may also consider the conduct of the parties with regard to the breakdown of the marriage, even where the parties are divorced on the basis of incompatibility, or, as here, where the trial court failed to specify the grounds upon which it based its divorce judgment. Ex parte Drummond, 785 So.2d 358 (Ala.2000); Myrick v. Myrick, 714 So.2d 311 (Ala.Civ.App.1998); Lutz v. Lutz, supra.

Pate v. Pate, 849 So.2d 972, 976 (Ala.Civ.App.2002).

In its judgment, the circuit court awarded the wife rehabilitative alimony in the amount of $200 a month for approximately 9 months. “This court has defined rehabilitative alimony as ‘a sub-class of periodic alimony’ that allows a spouse ‘time to reestablish a self-supporting status.’ ” Giardina v. Giardina, 987 So.2d 606, 620 (Ala.Civ.App.2008) (quoting Jeffcoat v. Jeffcoat, 628 So.2d 741, 743 (Ala.Civ.App.1993)). Because rehabilitative alimony is a sub-class of periodic alimony, the wife’s argument that the circuit court erred by failing to award her periodic alimony is erroneous. However, we will consider the wife’s argument that her rehabilitative-alimony award was inadequate and her argument that the circuit court failed to reserve the right to award permanent periodic alimony to the wife in the future.

The evidence reflected that the wife had been a homemaker throughout the parties’ 19-year marriage, except for 2 minor incidences of employment more than 13 years before trial, that the wife had been the child’s primary caregiver, and that the wife had homeschooled the child until the child started public school in August 2009. The evidence also indicated that the wife has a degree in botany. There is no evidence indicating that the wife intended to use her degree in botany to obtain employment, but there is also no evidence indicating that she could not use her degree to obtain more lucrative employment. Although there was an indication at trial that the wife had not made a sincere effort to obtain employment during the pendency of the divorce action, the evidence was undisputed that the wife had earned only $1,537 in 2009 (over a three-month period) working as a substitute teacher, while the husband had earned approximately $5,700 a month working as a professor at a university. The record also clearly indicated that the wife was required to obtain food stamps and to incur credit-card debt during the pendency of the divorce action because she was unable to survive off the support provided by the husband, who had paid the mortgage on the marital residence, the utility bills for the marital residence, and other various expenses on behalf of the wife during the pendency of the divorce action. Furthermore, although the record indicated that the husband had needed the financial assistance of the child’s paternal grandparents to maintain two households during the pendency of the divorce action, according to the husband, his income exceeded his expenses at the time of trial.

Pursuant to the divorce judgment, the wife was awarded $36,655 as her portion (30%) of the husband’s vested retirement benefits, one-half of the equity of the marital residence (approximately $16,000), and some specific items of personal property with an unknown value. The wife was also allowed to keep the parties’ 2008 state and federal income-tax refunds in the amount of $1,571; however, she was also ordered to pay her individual credit-card debt (approximately $4,563). Although the wife was confident that she would be able to support herself after receiving six months of support from the husband, it was clear from the wife’s testimony that she believed that she could be self-supporting in that amount of time if she was living in the marital residence and the husband was paying the mortgage on the marital residence as a form of support. However, pursuant to the divorce judgment, the wife was ordered to immediately vacate the marital residence.

In Kelly v. Kelly, 892 So.2d 426 (Ala.Civ.App.2004), this court reversed a division of property and an award of alimony made in a divorce judgment because it was inequitable. In doing so, we noted that “the wife’s earning potential [did] not approach the husband’s earning potential” and “that the divorce judgment [did] not provide the wife with a home or the means of obtaining a home.” Id. at 431. In this case, although the wife could rent a home using the money she was due to receive from the equity on the marital residence and from her portion of the husband’s retirement benefits, in light of the provision in the divorce judgment that required the wife to immediately vacate the marital residence, the divorce judgment provided the wife no means to realistically obtain housing after she vacated the marital residence.

Therefore, we conclude that, under the particular circumstances of this case, the circuit court’s award of alimony, in light of its division of the marital property, was inequitable. Accordingly, we reverse those parts of the divorce judgment regarding the division of property and the award of rehabilitative alimony to the wife, and we remand the cause with instructions to the circuit court to adjust the award of alimony and the division of property in light of the concerns addressed in this opinion. Because we are reversing the award of alimony and the division of property in the divorce judgment, we pretermit discussion of whether the circuit court’s failure to reserve jurisdiction to award the wife permanent periodic alimony was error.

IV. Attorney’s Fees

Finally, the wife argues that the circuit court erred by failing to require the husband to pay a portion of her attorney’s fees. According to the wife, at the time of trial, she had paid her attorney $4,200 and she had paid $750 toward the guardian ad litem’s fees. This court has held that “[t]he award of attorney’s fees in a divorce action is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court, which should consider such factors as the conduct of the parties, the financial circumstances of the parties, and the outcome of the litigation.” Murphree v. Murphree, 579 So.2d 684, 637 (Ala.Civ.App.1991). Because we are reversing certain aspects of the divorce judgment and remanding the cause with instructions to the circuit court, the outcome of the divorce action is still pending at this time and is subject to change. Accordingly, we pretermit discussion of whether the circuit court exceeded its discretion by failing to award the wife an attorney’s fee in the divorce action. See Rhyne-Morris v. Morris, 671 So.2d 748, 750 (Ala.Civ.App.1995) (pretermitting discussion of the wife’s argument that the trial court erred in failing to award her attorney’s fees in a divorce action because the divorce judgment was reversed and the cause was remanded); and In re Conservatorship of V.A.H., 802 So.2d 1099, 1101 (Ala.Civ.App.2001) (when judgment was reversed and the cause was remanded, this court pretermitted consideration of the appropriateness of an award of attorney’s fees “[bjecause the substantive outcome of the case may change on remand”).

Conclusion

The judgment of the circuit court is reversed insofar as it made a determination of the child’s custody, divided the parties’ property, and awarded the wife rehabilitative alimony in the amount of $200 for 9 months. The cause is remanded with instructions to the circuit court to conduct a hearing to consider evidence of the husband’s fitness that was improperly excluded during trial, as set forth in this opinion. The circuit court is further instructed to adjust its award of alimony and its division of property in light of this opinion.

The wife is awarded an attorney fee on appeal in the amount of $1,500.

REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

PITTMAN, J., concurs.

THOMPSON, P.J., and THOMAS and MOORE, JJ., concur in the result, without writings.

      . The record reveals that the guardian ad litem’s "Motion for Finding of Dependency" did not comply with § 12 — 15—120(a), Ala. Code 1975, which provides that "dependency cases ... before the juvenile court shall be initiated by the filing of a petition by the juvenile court intake officer who shall receive verified complaints...." (Emphasis added.) See also § 12-15-114(a), Ala.Code 1975 ("A juvenile court shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction of juvenile court proceedings in which a child is alleged to ... be dependent. ... Juvenile cases before the juvenile court shall be initiated through the juvenile court intake officer pursuant to this chapter.”).

      . The trial judge, acting as a circuit-court judge in a divorce action, did not have jurisdiction to enter a finding of dependency. See § 12-15-114(a), Ala.Code 1975 (“A juvenile court shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction of juvenile court proceedings in which a child is alleged ... to be dependent....”). It does not matter that the trial judge was designated as a circuit-court judge and a juvenile-court judge. See C.D.S. v. K.S.S., 963 So.2d 125, 127 n. 1 and n. 2 (Ala.Civ.App.2007) (citing former § 12 — 15—30(a), Ala.Code 1975, which was repealed by the Alabama Juvenile Justice Act, § 12-15-101 et seq., Ala.Code 1975, and replaced by § 12-15-114(a), Ala. Code 1975) (noting that a circuit-court judge, who was also designated as a juvenile-court judge, did not have subject-matter jurisdiction to enter a finding of dependency in an action filed in circuit court).

      . The record on appeal contains approximately 800 pages of testimony. This opinion does not contain a full recitation of the facts set forth in the record; however, we have provided the facts necessary for context and for resolution of the wife’s appeal.

      . The husband agreed to leave the courtroom during the child's testimony. The wife initially agreed to leave the courtroom during the child's testimony, but her attorney argued that he needed the wife present in the courtroom to adequately cross-examine the child. The record reflects that the guardian ad litem positioned herself between the child and the wife during the child's testimony so that the child could not see the wife.

      . The wife's counsel argued during trial that the results of the husband's psychiatric evaluation were needed. The record indicates that the trial judge conducted an off-the-record discussion following the wife’s counsel’s argument. The husband's psychiatric evaluation is not in the record on appeal.

      . Because we determine that the circuit court’s custody determination must be reconsidered in light of additional evidence, see discussion infra, we do not address the propriety of the circuit court’s visitation award in this opinion.

      . Nothing in the guardian ad litem’s dependency petition could be construed as an attempt to invoke the emergency jurisdiction of the juvenile court. See § 12-15-138, Ala. Code 1975. However, even if we could construe anything in the guardian ad litem's dependency petition as an attempt to invoke the emergency jurisdiction of the juvenile court, the petition was not filed in the juvenile court, and the juvenile court did not purport to exercise its emergency jurisdiction by entering an "order of protection or restraint to protect the health or safety of [the] child....” § 12-15-138, Ala.Code 1975. The juvenile court was apparently content, at that time, to allow the child to remain in the custody of the wife and to allow the husband visitation with the child.

      . Because we have determined that the juvenile court never obtained subject-matter jurisdiction in case no. JU-09-509.01, and because we have determined that the juvenile court "closed” case no. JU-09-509.02 without finding the child to be dependent, a future proceeding concerning the child may not be initiated in the juvenile court on the basis that the juvenile court has continuing jurisdiction pursuant to § 12-15-117(a), Ala.Code 1975. The juvenile court could properly exercise jurisdiction of the child in the future only if the jurisdiction of the juvenile court was properly invoked pursuant to the juvenile court's original jurisdiction, see §§ 12-15-114 and -115, Ala.Code 1975 (original jurisdiction), subject to all other applicable jurisdictional provisions of the Alabama Juvenile Justice Act.

      . Because the circuit court retained subject-matter jurisdiction to decide the issue of custody, the fact that circuit-court judge purported to act under juvenile-court jurisdiction throughout this proceeding was harmless error.

      . Section 34-26-2 provides:
      "For the purpose of this chapter [Title 34, Chapter 26], the confidential relations and communications between licensed psychologists, licensed psychiatrists, or licensed psychological technicians and their clients are placed upon the same basis as those provided by law between attorney and client, and nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require any such privileged communication to be disclosed.”

      . The wife, in her brief on appeal, also cites the circuit court’s refusal to admit records from the husband’s former employer. The record reflects that the circuit court sustained an objection to the admission of those records based on hearsay. The wife has presented this court with no authority to support her implicit argument that the circuit court’s refusal to accept the husband's employment records into evidence was error because the testimony concerned the husband’s mental state. See Rule 28(a)(10), Ala. R.App. P. (requiring an appellant to cite relevant legal authority to support arguments made on appeal). Accordingly, we will not consider that argument on appeal. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Motley, 909 So.2d 806, 822 (Ala.2005).

      . The wife argues on appeal that the circuit court should have determined the value of the husband’s vested retirement benefits based on the value of the benefits at the time of trial in early 2010. However, this court has held that a trial judge may divide the value of any retirement benefits that are vested on the date the divorce action is filed. See Smith v. Smith, 836 So.2d 893, 899 (Ala.Civ.App.2002).

      . The exact amount of the wife’s credit-card debt is unclear in the record. She testified that she had opened a credit-card account at Wachovia Bank, that she had purchased a bed for the child with a Sear’s department store credit card, that she had purchased blinds at a Lowe's home-improvement store, and that she had purchased a computer using a Dell credit card. The only evidence of the amount of the wife's credit-card debt was a statement from Wachovia Bank that indicated that the wife’s balance as of May 2009 (almost one year before the trial) was $4,563.

      .The record does not reflect whether the husband decided to sell the marital residence or to purchase the wife’s equity in the marital residence, and there is no indication that the wife had obtained her share of the equity in the marital residence or her share of the husband’s retirement benefits at the time she was ordered to vacate the marital residence.

      . But see Edwards v. Edwards, 26 So.3d 1254, 1262 (Ala.Civ.App.2009) (revérsing a divorce judgment that awarded the wife rehabilitative alimony because it failed to reserve the right to award the wife permanent periodic alimony).


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: THOMPSON, Presiding Judge.

license: Public Domain

text:
    R.J.R. v. C.J.S.
    2100136.
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 6, 2011.

      S. Phillip Bahakel of S. Phillip Bahakel & Associates, Pelham, for appellant.
    David W. Langston of Harris, Caddell & Shanks, P.C., Decatur, for appellee.
   THOMPSON, Presiding Judge.

R.J.R. (“the father”) appeals from a judgment of the Morgan Circuit Court (“the circuit court”) purporting to modify the judgment of a Tennessee court relating to, among other things, his visitation with D.J.R. (“the child”) and child support. For the reasons set forth herein, we dismiss the appeal with instructions to the circuit court to vacate its judgment and dismiss the action.

On January 25, 2010, C.J.S. (“the mother”) filed a petition in the Morgan Juvenile Court (“the juvenile court”) to modify a judgment (“the Tennessee judgment”) that had been entered by the Davidson County, Tennessee, Juvenile Court (“the Tennessee court”) on May 7, 2008. She attached to her petition a certified copy of the Tennessee judgment. The Tennessee judgment included the following factual background:

“[The father] is a resident of Ohio. [The mother] is a resident of Alabama. Both parties are physicians who were in medical school at the time of their dating relationship. Both parties resided in Ohio until their separation in or around May of 2005 at which time [the mother] relocated to Nashville, Tennessee. [The child] was born in Nashville, Tennessee, on June 28, 2005.
“In or around October 2005 [the mother] sought to move from Nashville, Tennessee, to Huntsville, Alabama with the minor child to continue her residency, at which time [the father] filed his Petition to Establish Paternity. [The father] also sought to restrain [the mother] from moving from Tennessee to Alabama. [The mother] filed a Counter Petition for Custody and to dissolve the Temporary Restraining Order.
“On October 20, 2005, the parties had a hearing at which time the Special Referee allowed [the mother] to relocate to Alabama with the minor child, declared [the father] to be the father [of the child], set child support, and established a visitation schedule for [the father] that consisted of the third week of each month.
“The pending Petitions were tried before [the referee] on December 20, 2006. After a lengthy hearing [the referee] designated [the mother] primary residential parent with sole decision making authority. The [referee] placed the parties on a schedule of six-week periods whereby the child would reside with [the mother] for four weeks and visit with [the father] for two weeks of each six-week period.
“[The father] appealed the Referee’s decision [to the Tennessee court], seeking, among other things, an equal division of the child’s time via a three week/ three week schedule.
“The parties followed the Referee’s ordered schedule from December 20, 2006, until the time of the new hearing in this cause which concluded on March 28, 2008.”

The Tennessee judgment ordered, among other things, that the mother continue to serve as the child’s “primary residential parent”; that the visitation schedule established by the referee remain in force; that the mother exercise sole decision-making authority regarding the child; that the father maintain health insurance for the child’s benefit; that the father travel to pick up the child at the beginning of his visitation period with the child; that the mother retrieve the child from the father at the end of the father’s visitation with the child; that each party bear his or her own cost of travel and the cost of the child’s travel when the child was with him or her; and that, because the mother’s income greatly exceeded the father’s income at that time, the mother pay the father monthly child support of $92. The Tennessee judgment indicated that, because the parties and the child did not reside in Tennessee at that time and because Alabama was the child’s home state, the Tennessee court had “no desire to litigate any future issues between these parties and [would] defer to the appropriate Alabama court.”

In her January 25, 2010, petition to the juvenile court seeking to modify the Tennessee judgment, the mother asserted that the father was now a resident of Madison County, although he continued to travel back and forth between Alabama and Ohio. She alleged that, although the father had established a residence in Madison County, he had required her to continue paying the cost of travel between Alabama and Ohio for the father’s visitation with the child. The mother also alleged that the health insurance the father provided for the child had a high deductible and that comparable health insurance for the child with a lower deductible could be obtained. She sought a judgment requiring the father to pay child support, modifying the provision in the Tennessee judgment pertaining to health insurance for the child, and modifying the provision in the Tennessee judgment pertaining to travel costs for the father’s visitation with the child.

On June 25, 2010, the father filed an answer to the mother’s petition in which he denied that he resided in Alabama. He also filed a counterpetition to modify the Tennessee judgment in which he sought, among other things, custody of the child or, failing that, an increase in the amount of his visitation with the child.

On July 27, 2010, the juvenile court, believing that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims at issue in the action, transferred the action to the circuit court.

After holding a trial of the action, the circuit court purported to enter a judgment in which it terminated the mother’s child-support obligation, ordered the father to pay child support, denied the other relief the mother had requested, denied the father’s request for custody of the child, and modified the father’s visitation schedule based on his testimony at trial that he would begin residing in Alabama on October 4, 2010. The father filed a timely appeal.

On appeal, the father contends for the first time in his reply brief that the circuit court was without jurisdiction over the action because the Tennessee judgment was not registered for modification or enforcement with an Alabama court in accordance with the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, § 30-3A-101 et seq., Ala.Code 1975 (“the UIFSA”), or the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, § 30-3B-101 et seq., Ala. Code 1975 (“the UCCJEA”). Although this court normally will not consider arguments raised for the first time in an appellant’s reply brief, see Byrd v. Lamar, 846 So.2d 334, 341 (Ala.2002), arguments related to a court’s subject-matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time, see Ex parte V.S., 918 So.2d 908, 912 (Ala.2005). Because we find the issue of jurisdiction dis-positive of this appeal, we will not address the father’s other contentions.

The UIFSA governs “support orders” entered by a court of another state. § 30-3A-301; Lattimore v. Lattimore, 991 So.2d 239, 241 (Ala.Civ.App.2008). It defines a “support order” as “a judgment, decree, or order, whether temporary, final, or subject to modification, for the benefit of a child, a spouse, or a former spouse, which provides for monetary support, health care, arrearages, or reimbursement, and may include related costs and fees, interest, income withholding, attorney’s fees, and other relief.” § 30-3A-101(22). The UIFSA provides that, under certain circumstances, a court of this state can modify a child-support order issued by a court of another state. § 30-3A-609.

Plainly, two of the aspects of the Tennessee judgment of which the mother sought a modification, child support and health insurance for the child, are governed by the UIFSA. See § 30-3A-101(22); Lattimore, 991 So.2d at 241. We conclude that, under the facts of this case, the third aspect of the Tennessee judgment of which the mother sought a modification, travel expenses for visitation, is also governed by the UIFSA. This court has held that “ ‘ “[visitation is the joint right of both the noncustodial parent and the child” ’ ” and that “ ‘ “[t]he best interests of the child are furthered by the child being nurtured and guided by both of his or her natural parents.” ’ ” M.R.J. v. D.R.B., 34 So.3d 1287, 1292 (Ala.Civ.App.2009) (quoting Jackson v. Jackson, 999 So.2d 488, 494 (Ala.Civ.App.2007), quoting in turn Johnita M.D. v. David D.D., 191 Misc.2d 301, 303, 740 N.Y.S.2d 811, 813 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.2002)). See also § 30-3-160 (recognizing “the general philosophy in this state that children need both parents, even after a divorce”). Because we recognize that a child has a right to visitation with a noncustodial parent and that a child’s best interest is furthered by such visitation, we conclude that the cost of transporting a child for visitation with a noncustodial parent constitutes a form of support for the child. See Drakulich v. Drakulich, 705 So.2d 665, 667 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1998) (“The expense of transporting the minor child for visitation is a childrear-ing expense like any other.”); Rapp v. Russell, 965 S.W.2d 897, 899 (Mo.Ct.App.1998) (treating father’s request to have mother share in the cost of transporting the child for visitation as a child-support matter rather than a custody matter); Viggiano v. Rippeteau, (No. C8-90-1141, Dec. 24, 1990) n. 4 (Minn.Ct.App.1990) (unpublished opinion) (stating that the expenses of visitation are “a form of support” for a child). Thus, we conclude that, like the other requests contained in the mother’s petition to modify the Tennessee judgment, the mother’s request to modify her obligation to pay a portion of the visitation costs under the Tennessee judgment is governed by the UIFSA as seeking the modification of a support order.

The UIFSA provides that a party seeking to modify a child-support order issued by another state “shall register that order in this state.” § 30-3A-609 (emphasis added). This court has held that a trial court does not obtain subject-matter jurisdiction over a petition to modify a foreign support order if it is not registered properly under the UIFSA. See S.A.T. v. E.D., 972 So.2d 804, 807 (Ala.Civ.App.2007). See also Mattes v. Mattes, 60 So.3d 887, 891 (Ala.Civ.App.2010) (holding that “the trial court never obtained subject-matter jurisdiction over the foreign child-support order” when it was not properly registered as required by the UIFSA). The UIFSA provides the following method for registering a child-support order in a court of this state:

“(a) A support order or income-withholding order of another state may be registered in this state by sending the following documents and information to the appropriate court in this state:
“(1) a letter of transmittal to the court requesting registration and enforcement;
“(2) two copies, including one certified copy, of all orders to be registered, including any modification of an order;
“(3) a sworn statement by the party seeking registration or a certified statement by the tribunal or collection agency showing the amount of any arrearage;
“(4) the name of the obligor and, if known:
“(i) the obligor’s address and social security number;
“(ii) the name and address of the obligor’s employer and any other source of income of the obligor; and
“(iii) a description and the location of property of the obligor in this state not exempt from execution; and
“(5) the name and address of the obligee and, if applicable, the agency or person to whom support payments are to be remitted.
“(b) On receipt of a request for registration, the registering court shall cause the order to be filed as a foreign judgment, together with one copy of the documents and information, regardless of their form.”

§ 30-3A-602. Section 30-3A-605 of the UIFSA provides for certain notice to the nonregistering party:

“(a) When a support order or income-withholding order issued in another state is registered, the registering court shall notify the nonregistering party as provided under the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure. The notice must be accompanied by a copy of the registered order and the documents and relevant information accompanying the order.
“(b) The notice must inform the non-registering party:
“(1) that a registered order is enforceable as of the date of registration in the same manner as an order issued by a court of this state;
“(2) that a hearing to contest the validity or enforcement of the registered order must be requested within 30 days after the date of service obtained under the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure;
“(3) that failure to contest the validity or enforcement of the registered order in a timely manner will result in confirmation of the order and enforcement of the order and the alleged arrearages and precludes further contest of that order with respect to any matter that could have been asserted; and
“(4) of the amount of any alleged arrearages.”

In the present case, the Tennessee judgment was not registered as required by the UIFSA. Although the mother attached to her motion to modify the Tennessee judgment a certified copy of that judgment, the mother did not request that the juvenile court register that judgment as required by § 30-3A-602(a)(l). Moreover, the record does not reflect that either the juvenile court or the circuit court caused the Tennessee judgment “to be filed as a foreign judgment,” as required by § 30-3A-602(b), or that the notice required by § 30-3A-605 was provided to the father.

Because the Tennessee judgment was not properly registered pursuant to the UIFSA, the juvenile court, and, subsequently, the circuit court, never obtained subject-matter, jurisdiction over the mother’s petition seeking modification of that judgment, S.A.T., 972 So.2d at 807, and, as a result, the mother’s action against the father was void ab initio. See Ex parte Owens, 65 So.3d 953, 956 (Ala.Civ.App.2010) (Mother’s rule nisi petition did not invoke jurisdiction of trial court because she failed to properly register foreign support order pursuant to the UIFSA.). Moreover, because the mother’s petition did not invoke the juvenile court’s and the circuit court’s jurisdiction, those courts likewise could not have obtained jurisdiction over the father’s counterpetition, filed in the same action. Ex parte Owens, 65 So.3d at 956-57 (Mother’s rule nisi petition was a nullity because of her failure to properly register foreign support order pursuant to the UIFSA, and, therefore, her subsequent attempt to comply with the UIFSA was likewise a nullity.); Blevins v. Hillwood Office Ctr. Owners’ Ass’n, 51 So.3d 317, 321-23 (Ala.2010) (Because plaintiff lacked standing, complaint failed to invoke trial court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, and action was due to be dismissed in toto, including defendant’s counterclaims.).

Because we conclude that the mother’s petition to modify the Tennessee judgment did not invoke the juvenile court’s or the circuit court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, the mother’s petition was a nullity and her action should have been dismissed. “A judgment entered by a court lacking subject-matter jurisdiction is absolutely void and will not support an appeal.” Vann v. Cook, 989 So.2d 556, 559 (Ala.Civ.App.2008). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal with instructions to the circuit court to vacate its judgment and dismiss the mother’s action.

APPEAL DISMISSED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

PITTMAN, THOMAS, and MOORE, JJ., concur.

BRYAN, J., concurs in the result, without writing.

      . As the mother's attorney made clear at the trial of this action, the mother did not seek a change with regard to the child's visitation with the father other than a reallocation of the travel costs associated with that visitation.

      . The other potential basis for the exercise of jurisdiction to modify a foreign judgment involving domestic matters is the UCCJEA, which applies to "child custody determinations." § 30-3B-203 (permitting a court of this state to modify a "child custody determination” of another state under certain circumstances). However, the UCCJEA does not apply to the mother’s request to modify the requirement in the Tennessee judgment that she pay a portion of the transportation expenses for visitation with the father because, although the UCCJEA defines a "child custody determination” as a judgment "providing for the legal custody, physical custody, or visitation with respect to a child,” it specifically excludes from that definition any "order relating to child support or other monetary obligation of an individual.” § 30-3B-102(3) (emphasis added). See In re S.A.V., 837 S.W.2d 80, 83-84 (Tex.1992) (holding that an adjudication regarding visitation expenses does not constitute a "custody determination” as that term was defined by the former Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act ("the UC-CJA”), which contained a definition of "custody determination” that was materially similar to the definition provided in the UCCJEA). But see McCaffery v. Green, 931 P.2d 407, 409 n. 4 (Alaska 1997) (concluding that an issue regarding visitation expenses was governed by the UCCJA despite the UCCJA's exclusion of decisions "relating to child support or other monetary obligation of any person” from the definition of a "custody determination”).


author: THOMAS, Judge.

text:
    Carol MAHONEY v. LOMA ALTA PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
    2100104.
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 6, 2011.

      Richard L. Watters, Mobile, for appellant.
    James B. Pittman, Jr., and Jennifer L. Evans of James B. Pittman, Jr., P.C., Daphne, for appellee.
   THOMAS, Judge.

Carol Mahoney appeals from a judgment of the Baldwin Circuit Court awarding her $500 as an attorney fee and costs pursuant to the Alabama Litigation Accountability Act, § 12-19-270 et seq., Ala.Code 1975 (“ALAA”). We reverse and remand.

This is the third time these parties have been before this court. In Mahoney v. Loma Alta Property Owners Ass’n, 4 So.3d 1130 (Ala.Civ.App.2008) (“Mahoney /”), we set out the facts and procedural history of the case as follows:

“Loma Alta Property Owners Association, Inc. (‘LAPOA’), sued Carol Maho-ney in the Baldwin District Court, claiming breach of contract, account stated, and a property-owners-association lien on real estate occupied by Mahoney. LAPOA alleged that Ms. Mahoney was the owner of unit C-l in Loma Alta Townhomes; that Ms. Mahoney was, therefore, bound by an agreement contained within the condominium declaration for the Loma Alta subdivision to pay property-owners-association fees, assessments, and late charges; and that Ms. Mahoney had failed to pay those fees, assessments, and charges. LA-POA asserted that it was entitled to recover from Ms. Mahoney damages, including late fees, interest, costs, and an attorney fee, and to have a lien on the real estate occupied by Ms. Mahoney.
“Ms. Mahoney answered the complaint, admitted that she We[d] some money, but not the total amount claimed by [LAPOA],’ and asserted that she was entitled to a setoff because LAPOA had failed to make needed repairs on the unit. On April 11, 2006, the district court entered a judgment in favor of LAPOA in the amount of $5,390, plus costs and an attorney fee of $500. Ms. Mahoney appealed that judgment to the Baldwin Circuit Court on April 25, 2006, for a trial de novo.
“On May 19, 2006, Ms. Mahoney filed an amended answer in the circuit court, generally denying the allegations of LA-POA’s complaint and asserting, among other things, that she did not have a contract with LAPOA. In addition, Ms. Mahoney asserted a claim under the Alabama Litigation Accountability Act (‘ALAA’), § 12-19-270 et seq., Ala.Code 1975. On December 21, 2006, LAPOA amended its complaint, naming Ms. Ma-honey’s former husband, Joseph Maho-ney, as a defendant. LAPOA alleged that Mr. Mahoney was the ‘owner’ of unit C-l in Loma Alta Townhomes and that Ms. Mahoney was a ‘resident’ of the unit. LAPOA also added a claim alleging that, by virtue of the foreclosure of its property-owners-association lien, it was entitled to have Ms. Mahoney ‘evicted’ from unit C-l.
“The circuit court conducted a bench trial on January 26, 2007, at which only one witness — Mary Garey, the secretary/treasurer of LAPOA — testified. Garey explained that the property-owners-association fees and assessments represent the unit owners’ proportionate share of the cost of maintaining and preserving the common areas of the condominium. Garey testified that Ms. Ma-honey had resided in unit C-l of the condominium since March 2000 and that she had paid some of the fees and assessments but that she had stopped paying, contending that she was entitled to set off against the balance the cost of needed repairs that LAPOA had failed to make on the unit Ms. Mahoney was occupying. Garey stated that, according to the condominium declaration, repairs to a unit are the responsibility of the individual unit owner, not LAPOA. Garey identified a document showing the past-due fees and assessments that, LA-POA claimed, were owed by Ms. Maho-ney. Garey testified that Ms. Mahoney had never returned the invoices for fees and assessments to Garey with a request that the invoices be forwarded to someone else. Nor, according to Garey, had Ms. Mahoney ever informed LA-POA that she was not the owner of the unit in which she resided. Garey testified that LAPOA, by virtue of its contract with the owner of each unit, has a lien on any unit for which there are unpaid fees and assessments. Garey said that LAPOA had foreclosed its lien on unit C-l.
“On cross-examination, Garey acknowledged that the owner of each unit is solely responsible for payment of the property-owners-association fees and assessments. Garey admitted that LA-POA had no deed showing that Ms. Ma-honey was the owner of the unit in which she resided, that LAPOA had no contract with Ms. Mahoney, and that LAPOA had no document stating that someone other than the owner of the unit was responsible for payment of the fees and assessments on the unit that Ms. Mahoney occupied. On redirect examination, Garey affirmed the truth of the following inquiry by LAPOA’s counsel: ‘We’re simply asking [the circuit court] to confirm that we’ve got a judgment on this unit, whether it’s owned [by] Ms. Mahoney or whoever it is, because that unit has not paid any dues and assessments, is that right?’
“The circuit court admitted the following documentary evidence offered by LAPOA: (1) the condominium declaration for the Loma Alta subdivision; (2) a statement of fees, assessments, and late charges sent by LAPOA to Ms. Maho-ney on January 24, 2007, indicating a balance due of $6,150; and (3) a ‘Statement of Lien’ filed in the Baldwin Probate Court on October 4, 2004, naming Carol Mahoney as the owner of ‘Lot CI, Loma Alta, as recorded in Map Book II, Page 176, in the Office of the Judge of Probate, Baldwin County, Alabama.’
“At the conclusion of Garey’s testimony, LAPOA rested and Ms. Mahoney’s counsel moved for a ‘directed verdict,’ arguing:
“ ‘[T]here’s been no proof of ownership [by] my client, Carol Mahoney, ... or that she’s bound by any contract that they have failed to present in court showing that she’s responsible for anything....
“ ‘[LAPOA has] gone against the wrong person, and that’s why we move for a directed verdict and ask for award of reasonable attorney’s fees for having to fight this.’
“The circuit court denied the motion. On April 13, 2007, the court entered a judgment in favor of LAPOA and against Ms. Mahoney in the amount of $6,279.10 and awarded LAPOA an attorney’s fee of $5,000. The court did not rule on Ms. Mahoney’s ALAA counterclaim, but we conclude that it was implicitly denied. See Harris v. Cook, 944 So.2d 977, 981 (Ala.Civ.App.2006). On the same day, the circuit court entered a default judgment for the same amount in favor of LAPOA and against Joseph Mahoney. Ms. Mahoney filed a timely notice of appeal to this court on May 15, 2007.

Mahoney I, 4 So.3d at 1131-33. In Mahoney v. Loma Alta Property Owners Ass’n, 52 So.3d 510 (Ala.Civ.App.2009) (“Mahoney II”), this court further set out the facts and procedural history of the case as follows:

“[In Mahoney /,] [t]his court reversed the judgment in favor of Loma Alta Property Owners Association, Inc. (‘LA-POA’), holding that LAPOA had wholly failed to prove that Ms. Mahoney was bound to pay the fees, assessments, and late charges claimed by LAPOA because LAPOA’s contract obligated the owner of the condominium unit to pay those charges and the evidence conclusively established that Ms. Mahoney was not the owner of the unit. This court remanded the cause to the circuit court with instructions to adjudicate Ms. Ma-honey’s ALAA claim.
“On remand, the circuit court vacated its judgment in favor of LAPOA, entered a judgment in favor of Ms. Maho-ney, and summarily denied Ms. Maho-ney’s ALAA claim on September 17, 2008. Ms. Mahoney filed a post-judgment motion on October 2, 2008, complaining that the circuit court had, ‘without evidence or testimony entered a verdict for [LAPOA] as to the ALAA claim.’ She attached to her motion a foreclosure deed executed by LAPOA’s attorney on October 10, 2006, and filed in the Baldwin Probate Court on October 16, 2006, averring that Joseph Ma-honey had been the record title owner of the subject property since May 10, 2005.
“Ms. Mahoney specifically requested a hearing on her postjudgment motion. The circuit court set the motion for a hearing on October 21, 2008. The record before us contains no transcript of the hearing. The parties agree, however, that Ms. Mahoney did not appear, that no evidence was presented, and that counsel for both parties presented oral argument to the trial court at the hearing. On October 28, 2008, the circuit court denied Ms. Mahoney’s post-judgment motion. Ms. Mahoney timely appealed on November 13, 2008.”

Mahoney II, 52 So.3d at 513-14.

In Mahoney II, we held that,

“[i]n the present case, as in Sanderson Group[, Inc. v. Smith, 809 So.2d 823 (Ala.Civ.App.2001) ], the record shows indisputably that LAPOA’s action against Ms. Mahoney was groundless in law. All four of LAPOA’s claims against Ms. Mahoney — breach of contract, account stated, property owner’s lien, and eviction — hinged upon its proving that Ms. Mahoney was the owner of the property. LAPOA not only failed to prove that Ms. Mahoney was the owner, but it also presented as its only witness at the circuit-court trial someone who acknowledged ‘that LAPOA had no deed showing that Ms. Mahoney was the owner’ of the property. Mahoney [I], 4 So.3d at 1132. LAPOA had access to its own condominium declaration, which
“ ‘makes it clear that LAPOA’s remedy is strictly against the owner. As Article VII, Section 7, of the declaration, entitled “Effect of Nonpayment of Assessments: Remedies of the Association,” states: “No owner may waive or otherwise escape liability for the assessments provided for herein by non-use of the Common Area or abandonment of his lot.” ’
“Mahoney [I ], 4 So.3d at 1134. In addition, the record conclusively demonstrates that LAPOA knew, before December 21, 2006, when it amended its complaint in the circuit court, that Ms. Mahoney’s former husband, Joseph Ma-honey, was the owner of the property because LAPOA’s attorney had, on October 16, 2006, filed in the Baldwin Probate Court a foreclosure deed averring that Joseph Mahoney had been the record title owner of the subject property since May 10, 2005.”

Mahoney II, 52 So.3d at 517. We reversed the trial court’s judgment denying Mahoney’s ALAA claim and remanded the cause to the trial court to make an appropriate award pursuant to the ALAA. Id. at 517-18.

LAPOA petitioned the Aabama Supreme Court for the writ of certiorari, which that court granted. Our supreme court affirmed our conclusion that the trial court had erred in denying Mahoney’s claim for an award under the ALAA, noting that

“the determination that the claims asserted by LAPOA against Mahoney in the amended complaint were groundless results from recognition that ownership of the property was a required legal element of each claim and that, at the time LAPOA amended the complaint, LAPOA alleged that Mahoney’s former husband, and not Mahoney herself, was the owner of the property.”

Ex parte Loma Alta Prop. Owners Ass’n, 52 So.3d 518, 524 (Ala.2010).

Justice Woodall and Justice Murdock dissented from the majority opinion in Ex parte Loma Alta. Both Justice Woodall and Justice Murdock opined in their respective dissents that they would have held that the trial court did not err in determining that LAPOA’s lawsuit against Mahoney was not groundless in law or fact, vexatious, or interposed for any improper purpose; therefore, they opined, the trial court did not err in declining to award Mahoney an attorney fee and costs under the ALAA.

On remand, the trial court held a hearing, at which Mahoney presented testimony and evidence regarding the costs incurred by Mahoney as a result of LA-POA’s lawsuit, the reasonableness of those costs, and other relevant factors that would support an award under the ALAA. LAPOA presented testimony and evidence regarding the reasonableness of Mahoney’s counsel’s charges and other factors that it felt would support only a minimal award.

Following the hearing, the trial court entered an order awarding Mahoney an attorney fee of $500. The trial court stated in its judgment that its award was based on “the reasons set forth in the [Aabama] Supreme Court’s dissents and [LAPOA’s] recent submissions, [and] which is in line with the amount awarded [as an attorney fee on appeal] by the Court of Civil Appeals.” Mahoney filed a post-judgment motion, which the trial court denied. Mahoney subsequently appealed to this court.

On appeal, Mahoney argues that the trial court erred because, Mahoney says, it failed to make specific findings stating the reasons for the award in its judgment and because the award was insufficient.

The ALAA requires a trial court to specifically set forth the reasons for its award and to consider certain enumerated, but nonexclusive factors. Section 12-19-273 provides:

“In determining the amount of an award of costs or attorneys’ fees, the court shall exercise its sound discretion. When granting an award of costs and attorneys’ fees, the court shall specifically set forth the reasons for such award and shall consider the following factors, among others, in determining whether to assess attorneys’ fees and costs and the amount to be assessed:
“(1) The extent to which any effort was made to determine the validity of any action, claim or defense before it was asserted;
“(2) The extent of any effort made after the commencement of an action to reduce the number of claims being asserted or to dismiss claims that have been found not to be valid;
“(3) The availability of facts to assist in determining the validity of an action, claim or defense;
“(4) The relative financial position of the parties involved;
“(5) Whether or not the action was prosecuted or defended, in whole or in part, in bad faith or for improper purpose;
“(6) Whether or not issues of fact, determinative of the validity of a parties’ claim or defense, were reasonably in conflict;
“(7) The extent to which the party prevailed with respect to the amount of and number of claims or defenses in controversy;
“(8) The extent to which any action, claim or defense was asserted by an attorney or party in a good faith attempt to establish a new theory of law in the state, which purpose was made known to the court at the time of filing;
“(9) The amount or conditions of any offer of judgment or settlement in relation to the amount or conditions of the ultimate relief granted by the court;
“(10) The extent to which a reasonable effort was made to determine prior to the time of filing of an action or claim that all parties sued or joined were proper parties owing a legally defined duty to any party or parties asserting the claim or action;
“(11) The extent of any effort made after the commencement of an action to reduce the number of parties in the action; and
“(12) The period of time available to the attorney for the party asserting any defense before such defense was interposed.”

(Emphasis added.)

In this case, the trial court did not set forth any reasons for its award relating to the 12 factors listed in § 12-19-273. A trial court’s failure to specifically set forth reasons for the amount of its award under the ALAA is reversible error. See Schweiger v. Town of Hurtsboro, 68 So.3d 181, 187 (Ala.Civ.App.2011) (reversing a trial court’s award under the ALAA and remanding the cause “for the trial court to make the necessary findings on the record or by separate order” to support its award); Belcourt v. Belcourt, 911 So.2d 735, 738 (Ala.Civ.App.2005) (reversing an award of an attorney fee under the ALAA and remanding the cause because the trial court failed to set forth its reasoning in support of its award); and Williams v. Capps Trailer Sales, Inc., 607 So.2d 1272, 1276 (Ala.Civ.App.1992) (reversing an award under the ALAA and remanding the cause for the trial court “to reconsider the amount of attorney fees ... and to issue a statement of the reasons for the amount in compliance with § 12 — 19—273”).

The trial court did state in its judgment that it had awarded Mahoney $500 “for the reasons set forth in the supreme court’s dissents,” because this had court awarded Mahoney $500 as an attorney fee on appeal in Mahoney II, and based on LAPOA’s “recent submissions.” However, none of these reasons are sufficient to support the trial court’s determination of the amount of its award under the ALAA. First, the dissents authored by Justice Woodall and Justice Murdock do not represent the view of the majority of the Alabama Supreme Court. In fact, the majority of the court expressly rejected their views. It is axiomatic that a dissent carries no precedential value or authority. Therefore, the views expressed by Justice Woodall and Justice Murdock in their dissents cannot be used by the trial court as justification for awarding Maho-ney what appears to be a nominal amount. We also remind the trial court that the facts and law as set forth by the opinions of this court in Mahoney I and Mahoney II, together with the majority opinion of the Alabama Supreme Court in Ex parte Loma Alta, represent the law of the case and that the trial court is not allowed to disregard the holdings of the appellate courts on remand.

“ ‘ “The issues decided by an appellate court become the law of the case on remand to the trial court, and the trial court is not free to reconsider those issues.” Ex parte S.T.S., 806 So.2d 336, 341 (Ala.2001) (citing Murphree v. Murphree, 600 So.2d 301 (Ala.Civ.App.1992)). Moreover, on remand, “ ‘the trial court’s duty is to comply with the appellate mandate “according to its true intent and meaning, as determined by the directions given by the reviewing court.” ’ ” Ex parte Jones, 774, So.2d 607, 608 (Ala.Civ.App.2000) (quoting Walker v. Carolina Mills Lumber Co., 441 So.2d 980, 982 (Ala.Civ.App.1983), quoting in turn Ex parte Alabama Power Co., 431 So.2d 151, 155 (Ala.1983)).’ ”

Giardina v. Giardina, 39 So.3d 204, 208 (Ala.Civ.App.2009) (quoting Brown v. Brown, 20 So.3d 139, 141 (Ala.Civ.App.2009)).

The second reason offered by the trial court in support of its judgment was this court’s award of $500 as an attorney fee on appeal in Mahoney II. This reason is also not a valid consideration in determining an award under the ALAA. Our decision to exercise our discretion to award Mahoney an attorney fee on appeal is unrelated to the factors contained in § 12-19-273 or the purposes of the ALAA. Furthermore, an award of an attorney fee on appeal by this court takes into account only a party’s expenditures for appeal, unlike an award under the ALAA, which requires consideration of the costs related to the entire legal proceeding. Moreover, unlike an award of an attorney fee on appeal, an award under the ALAA is designed as a sanction to discourage lawsuits that are groundless in law, such as this case — a legal conclusion that this court and our supreme court have previously determined. See Plus Int’l, Inc. v. Pace, 689 So.2d 160, 162 (Ala.Civ.App.1996) (“The ALAA simply provides a tool to be used by the court to sanction parties who bring frivolous litigation.”).

The final reason offered by the trial court in support of its award — the recent submissions of LAPOA — lacks the specificity required by § 12-19-273. Therefore, it also is insufficient to provide justification for the amount of its award to Mahoney. See Schweiger, 68 So.3d at 185; Belcourt, 911 So.2d at 738.

Because the trial court did not make any findings in compliance with the requirements of § 12-19-273, and because the reasons listed in the trial court’s judgment are not proper factors to be considered in awarding an attorney fee and costs under the ALAA, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the cause to that court for it to make a determination of an award pursuant to the ALAA.

Mahoney’s request for an attorney fee on appeal is denied.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

THOMPSON, P.J., and PITTMAN, BRYAN, and MOORE, JJ., concur.

      "1 Section 35-8-17(4), Ala.Code 1975, a part of a chapter entitled 'Condominium Ownership,’ provides that ‘[Ijiens for unpaid assessments may be foreclosed by an action brought in the name of the [property owners’] association in the same manner as a foreclosure of a mortgage on real property.’

      " 2 In actions tried without a jury, the proper motion is one for a judgment on partial findings, pursuant to Rule 52(c), Ala. R. Civ. P."