M.R.E. v. M.J.E.

321 So.3d 1259

M.R.E.

v.M.J.E.

2190284

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

September 11, 2020

E. Patrick Hill, Huntsville, for appellant.

Submitted on appellant's brief only.

PER CURIAM.

In August 2019, M.J.E. ("the daughter") filed a petition in the Lauderdale Circuit Court ("the trial court") seeking a protection-from-abuse ("PFA") order restraining her father, M.R.E. ("the father"), from having contact with her. In her petition, the daughter alleged that the father had sexually assaulted her in 2014, that he had told her in 2014 that "I can see you naked whenever I want to," that he had emotionally abused her by "constant stalking," that he had yelled at her at her high-school graduation, and that he had sent her an e-mail message, "saying that ‘I need to fix myself.’ " She further alleged that, despite her telling him to leave her alone, he "will not stop" and that he had contacted the college she was entering as a freshman student "for info about me." The trial court entered an ex parte PFA order on the same day that the daughter filed her petition.

The father was served with the petition and the ex parte order on August 17, 2019. Although the matter was set for trial on August 22, 2019, the father requested and received a continuance. The trial court held the trial on November 7, 2019, after which, on November 22, 2019, the trial court entered a PFA order preventing the father from contacting the daughter and directed that he not be permitted to attend any events hosted at, or participated in by, the college the daughter attends. The PFA order expired by its terms on June 1, 2020.¹

The father filed a timely postjudgment motion directed to the November 22, 2019, PFA order. In that motion, he argued that the daughter had not presented evidence of an act of abuse that would support the entry of a PFA order against him. The father requested a hearing on his motion, but the trial court denied the motion on the same day it was filed, without holding a hearing. The father then timely appealed to this court. He raises two issues on appeal: whether the trial court erred in concluding that the conduct alleged by the daughter amounted to an act of abuse warranting the entry of a PFA order and whether the trial court erred in failing to hold a hearing on his postjudgment motion.

The testimony and exhibits presented at trial reveal the following. The daughter, who was 18 years old and a freshman in college at the time of the trial, testified that she was living in a college dormitory and was a cheerleader. She said that, before attending college, she had lived with her mother and her stepfather because, she said, the father had molested her when she was in the seventh grade. She said that the father had continued to contact her through e-mail messages despite her asking him not to contact her. She also said that he had shown up at her high-school events although she had asked him not to attend those events. She explained that his presence "brings me a lot of anxiety." She expressed concern about how the father knew what dormitory she was living in, but she was presented a copy of an e-mail message sent to the father by her paternal grandmother that contained information, including the name of the daughter's dormitory; the daughter had sent the paternal grandmother an e-mail message containing that information because her paternal grandparents were paying a portion of her college expenses. The daughter stated that she did not want the father to know about her life or to be involved in her "college experience," stating that "I just want to be safe knowing that I can walk down the street without having to see him and freak out." At no point in the daughter's testimony did she state that the father had spoken to her when he had attended events or that he had threatened her in any manner. She admitted that the father had not directed any violence toward her.

The record contains numerous e-mail messages between the father and the daughter.² By and large, most are innocuous messages from the father mentioning an activity he had engaged in or a memory of an activity involving the daughter or others; some messages have photos attached. Several messages involve the daughter's college plans.

In an e-mail exchange in mid-April 2019, the father mentioned that he had become aware that the daughter had received a prescription for birth-control pills from an insurance-benefits statement he had received. The father urged the daughter to discuss with her physician the possible long-term effects of birth-control pills on her health. The daughter responded with the following diatribe:

"Let me tell you something. No one wants to be friends with the big bully who steals all the kids['] lunch money. Taking everything we have is just cruel. Whatever you do towards mom has an affect [sic] on the rest of us. So how in your right mind do you think taking us back to court is suppose to get us back? What is your motative [sic]? The only person that turns us against you is you. Hurting other people doesn't make anyone feel better not even you. And you know why I know that? Because you will always target mom and it will never be enough for you. You will never be happy and you will never get your way if you continue doing the actions you are doing. Maybe if you could care about something else and not try to take someone down just because you can't get your way you would be better off. You can try to knock someone down all day long but that will just push someone farther away. I don't need you to send me an argumentative email about how you are right and I'm wrong and how mom is isolating us from you. I have a car, I can do whatever I want and this is not seeing you. Maybe if you would have listened to us and had given us space and not send [sic] us to court you would be better off but something in your head won't let you do that. Sending me child support money does not make up for all the things you should have been help [sic] paying for during high school. So yes when I have asked for money from you it's because I think I deserve it. All the money you have wasted on this crap is WASTED. You didn't get us then and you won't get me now. I don't want to talk to you but I think you should hear just a piece of my mind. Here is a simple message about how I feel about this situation and hope you rethink the type of person you are."

(Capitalization in original.) In reply, the father thanks the daughter for speaking her mind and asks several questions, including "[h]ow am I taking everything you have" and "[w]hy am I taking you back to court." The record contains no further e-mail messages in response to the father's reply.

In one lengthy e-mail exchange between the father and the daughter on January 7 and 8, 2019, the father provides information about certain dental-assistant programs and suggests that the daughter, who was then considering the pursuit of a dental-assistant certificate, compare information about the different programs before choosing which to attend; he also states that it is respectable to work and to pay for one's own education. In what, based on the documentary evidence contained in the record, appears to be her final response to that series of e-mail messages, the daughter said:

"This is why I'm not including you in anything I do because you won't support it. Talking to you is such a waste of time because you know paying for my own stuff is the best way to go because my ‘father’ won't spend a dime on it. That goes to show how much you care. The research doesn't matter, I'm not touring anymore places that is the one I am going to."

In his reply to the daughter's final message, the father stated that he did support her and that he desired a relationship with her "other than a text message when you need money." He explained that he supported her by attending her events and that he had looked up scholarship opportunities for her as well. He concluded his message by stating that "[t]he problem is the only support you want from me is money and nothing else."

The record contains a third e-mail exchange between the father and the daughter that appears to have begun on July 25, 2019, with a message from the daughter stating: "I am almost certain you didn't even pay for your own education. When I asked you to pay for dental[-assistant] school you wouldn't even do that." The father answered the daughter's message on August 2, 2019, apologizing for the late reply because he had been out of town. In his response, he denies having refused to pay for the daughter's education. He also pointed out that the paternal grandparents had an account specifically intended to pay for, at least in part, the daughter's education.

The daughter immediately responded to the father's message by stating that "if you want to help pay, it would be nice to have money to pay [for] new clothes for school or have spending money for the year. ... You can always send a check to the house." The father replied to the daughter by offering to place money directly in her bank account or to meet her to go shopping; he stated clearly that he did not want to send a check to the house. The daughter responded that she did not want to meet the father and that she did not "see a problem with sending a check to my house," to which the father replied: "What is the problem with transferring it from my account to your account?" Further exchanges regarding the manner of transferring the money continued; during one response, the daughter asked: "So why did you stop sending child support?" She later stated: "There is no reason you can't send me a check to my house. If you were willing to actually give me money and felt sincere about it you wouldn't have to argue about it. There is no difference in that and transferring it into my account." The father replied that there was a difference between the two options and that he was trying to find a solution, adding that he had offered four methods of...