## Facts

- Former spouses had three minor children.
- The father filed for legal separation in 2008; the matter proceeded to divorce after amended pleadings.
- Pending final judgment, the trial court awarded the father pendente lite custody and ordered the mother to have supervised visitation.
- The mother experienced post-pregnancy health problems that could leave her lethargic and sometimes unable to care for the children.
- She used narcotic and other prescription medications daily; experts characterized the problem as substance abuse or “iatrogenic addiction.”
- In December 2008, while caring for the children at home, the mother had a late-night seizure-like loss of consciousness (“black-out”) and was hospitalized; the father took custody during that period.
- Physicians suspected the episode may have been linked to an unsupervised attempt to stop medications and recommended ceasing narcotics; evidence showed the mother continued using narcotics and obtained prescriptions from multiple physicians.
- Experts who addressed visitation recommended supervision to protect the children.
- The divorce judgment awarded joint legal custody, primary physical custody to the father, and supervised visitation to the mother, stating she was “guaranteed only” two hours every two weeks, but leaving time and location to the discretion of the father and visitation supervisors and directing the children’s counselor to prepare supervised-visitation guidelines.
- The mother’s postjudgment motion was denied by operation of law; she appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by requiring the mother’s visitation with the children to be supervised.
2. Whether the trial court erred by failing to set a definite minimum visitation schedule and by delegating control over visitation terms (time, place, and expansion) to the father, visitation supervisors, and the children’s counselor.

## Decision

- Affirmed the requirement that the mother’s visitation be supervised.
- Reversed provisions granting the father and visitation supervisors broad discretion over the time and location of visits and the potential increase in visitation.
- Reversed the authorization for the children’s counselor to set visitation “guidelines” that effectively supplied substantive terms.
- Remanded for entry of a visitation order that retains supervision if warranted but provides court-set, definite minimum terms.

## Legal Principles

- Visitation determinations in domestic-relations cases are committed to the trial court’s discretion, and restrictions may be imposed to protect children from unreasonable risks of physical or emotional harm.
- A trial court must itself set the substantive parameters of visitation; it may not delegate core judicial decisions about minimum visitation rights to a custodial parent or third parties.
- Visitation orders should provide a definite minimum schedule; an order that leaves the noncustodial parent without enforceable, court-defined time and place can function as an improper denial of meaningful visitation.

## Conclusion

The appellate court upheld supervised visitation based on evidence of the mother’s unresolved medical and prescription-drug-related risks, but required the trial court to craft an enforceable visitation schedule and conditions itself rather than leaving essential terms to the discretion of the father, supervisors, or a counselor.


Pratt v. Pratt, 56 So. 3d 638 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010)