Shawn Barnett v. Brooklyn Barnett

── Shawn Barnett v. Brooklyn Barnett ── Case No.: CL-2025-0748 Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama Date: March 20, 2026 Author: Christy Edwards Category: General Rel: March 20, 2026 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published in Southern Reporter. ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2025-2026 _________________________ CL-2025-0748 _________________________ Shawn Barnett v. Brooklyn Barnett Appeal from Winston Circuit Court (DR-25-14) EDWARDS, Judge. In June 2025, Brooklyn Barnett filed in the Winston Circuit Court ("the trial court") a petition pursuant to Ala. Code 1975, § 30-5-1 et seq. ("the PFA statute"), seeking a protection-from-abuse ("PFA") order against her father, Shawn Barnett. In her petition, Brooklyn alleged that CL-2025-0748 Shawn had charged at her from more than 50 yards away, had threatened to beat her to death, and had threatened to burn down her house. She further alleged that Shawn had kept "showing up" and threatening to kick her out. She described him as a "substance abuser that is very aggressive." Brooklyn also checked boxes on the form petition indicating that Shawn had "recklessly engaged in conduct which risked serious injury to the plaintiff" and that he had "made [her] afraid that [she] would be seriously injured." She also checked the box on the form petition indicating that he had trespassed on her property; however, she also checked a box on the form petition indicating that she and Shawn were joint owners of the property. Brooklyn indicated that Shawn's behavior had begun in November 2024, over six months before she filed the PFA petition. In addition to seeking a PFA order restraining Shawn from harassing her, she indicated that Theresa Haynes also required protection from Shawn. The trial court entered an ex parte PFA order on June 26, 2025.1 Shawn was served with the ex parte PFA order and petition on June 29, 2025. On July 7, 2025, Shawn, appearing through his attorney, 1That order did not include Haynes as a protected person. 2 CL-2025-0748 requested a hearing on the PFA petition. The trial court set a trial to be held on July 18, 2025. After the conclusion of the trial, the trial court, on July 22, 2025, entered an order concluding that Brooklyn was entitled to a PFA order against Shawn and made that order effective for one year. The trial court found that Shawn had committed an act of domestic violence against Brooklyn but did not elaborate on the details of the domestic violence. The July 22, 2025, order incorporated the terms of the ex parte PFA order, which the trial court modified to include the following restraining order: "Shawn … is restrained, prohibited and enforced from committing or attempting to commit any act of abuse against Brooklyn …." The provisions of the ex parte PFA order prohibited "physical or violent contact" between Shawn and Brooklyn and excluded Shawn from Brooklyn's residence, regardless of his partial ownership of that residence. Shawn filed a postjudgment motion directed at the PFA order. In that postjudgment motion, Shawn challenged the order based on what he claimed were due-process violations committed by the trial-court judge during the trial on the PFA action. Specifically, Shawn complained that 3 CL-2025-0748 the trial-court judge had admitted at the trial to having had ex part