Mary Ellen Williams v. Thomas M. Williams, Jr.

── Mary Ellen Williams v. Thomas M. Williams, Jr. ── Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama Date: May 01, 2026 Author: Matt Fridy Category: General Rel: May 1, 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-2025-0567 and CL-2025-0568 _________________________ Mary Ellen Williams v. Thomas M. Williams, Jr. Appeals from Lauderdale Circuit Court (DR-21-900294.01 and DR-21-900294.02) FRIDY, Judge. Mary Ellen Williams ("the mother") appeals from custody- modification judgments of the Lauderdale Circuit Court ("the trial court") that awarded Thomas M. Williams, Jr. ("the father"), sole physical custody and sole legal custody of the parties' children, J.W., E.W., and W.W ("the children"). For the reasons set forth herein, we reverse the CL-2025-0567 and CL-2025-0568 judgments and remand the causes for the trial court to enter new judgments. Background In March 2022, the trial court entered a judgment divorcing the parties. The divorce judgment incorporated an agreement of the parties and awarded them joint legal and joint physical custody of the children. The agreement required the mother to relocate to within a twenty-five- mile radius of the father's residence in Florence on or before April 30, 2022. It provided that, until the mother relocated within that radius, she would have visitation with the children the first and third weekends of each month from Friday at 5:00 p.m. until Sunday at 5:00 p.m., together with holiday visitation as provided in a joint-physical-custody holiday schedule. If the mother relocated within the required twenty-five-mile radius, the agreement provided that the parties would exercise physical custody on a rotating schedule, with the father exercising custody from Sunday at 7:00 a.m. until Wednesday at 6:00 p.m., and the mother exercising custody from Wednesday at 6:00 p.m. until Sunday at 7:00 a.m. The divorce judgment also provided for holiday custody according to an attached holiday schedule and allowed each parent one uninterrupted 2 CL-2025-0567 and CL-2025-0568 summer custodial period of up to ten consecutive days, with notice requirements alternating by year. On December 28, 2023, the mother filed a verified petition for a rule nisi and modification. In her petition, she alleged that the father had willfully refused to confer with her regarding decisions affecting the children, had refused to comply with the divorce judgment by unilaterally enrolling the children in activities affecting her custodial time, had failed to provide her access to school information, and had threatened or intimidated her in attempts to force changes to the custodial arrangement. She asked the court to hold the father in both civil and criminal contempt and to order him to pay her attorney's fees and court costs. The mother also alleged that material changes in circumstances had occurred since the entry of the divorce judgment, and she sought several modifications to the parenting provisions in that judgment. Specifically, she requested defined birthday visitation, more uniform exchange times and locations, limits on direct interaction between the parties, a requirement that the parties communicate through the Our Family Wizard application, clarification of a provision permitting