BY: Kallie B. - Title: Alabama: Court of Civil Appeals Holds that the Father Will Remain Primary Caregiver over the Children

Link for opinion: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17843428460024397880&q=irions+v.+holt&hl=en &as_sdt=4,1 Title: Alabama: Court of Civil Appeals Holds that the Father Will Remain Primary Caregiver over the Children The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals held in Irions v. Holt, No. 2130002, 2014 WL 2535274 (Ala. Civ. App. June 6, 2014) that the father’s military enrollment after the divorce did not change the original judgment awarding him sole physical custody; that giving the mother sole custody, due to the father’s relocation, would not be in the best interests of the children; that the deviation in the child support guidelines regarding travel expense did not apply. The original order in the divorce case Holt v. Holt (No. 2060172, July 2, 2007), 13 So. 3d 454 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007)(table), ordered the Petitioner (Autumn Holt n/k/a Irions) to pay child support to the Respondent (Matthew Holt), awarded the Petitioner joint legal custody of the children and standard visitation. Awarded the Respondent sole physical custody of the children. The Petitioner appealed the divorce judgment in August 2007, which the court affirmed without an opinion. The judgment was modified in August 2012, ordering the Petitioner to pay additional child support and the Respondent to provide health care for the children. The Petitioner filed in December 2012 to modify the judgment yet again. This action is what started the Irions v. Holt case. Irions petition alledged that Holt let the children’s health care laps and that she was now providing it, thus her child support payments be recalculated. She filed an amended petition in January 2013 seeking sole physical custody of the children because Holt notified her that he was being relocated due to his enrolment in the Army, and will be moving the children with him to New York. The court entered judgment on the case in June 2013, stating that there will be no modification to the child custody; that the children could be moved to New York with their father; that due to the burden of travel expenses the Petitioner no longer needed to pay child support to the Respondent. Both parties entered a motion to alter, amend, or vacate in July 2013. Petitioner seeking 24 hour notification of deployment. Respondent seeking a change in visitation and asked that the Petitioner pay child support. The Appeals court affirmed the trial court’s judgment on custody, which the children’s best interest is to stay with their father. They reversed the trial court’s judgment on child support,sending it back to the trial court to recalculate a fair amount because both parents need to support their children.