Blume v. Durrett (1997)

There is no general prohibition against allowing a child to testify, “ ‘even though calling children to testify against one of their parents in a divorce case is distasteful and should be discouraged.’ ” Blume v. Durrett, 703 So.2d 986, 989 (Ala.Civ.App.1997) (quoting Ex parte Harris, 461 So.2d 1332, 1333 (Ala.1984)).

When "the divorce judgment incorporated an agreement of the parties, and there was no testimony at the time of the divorce concerning child custody issues[,] `... facts relating to the parties' predivorce conduct should be considered by the trial court in a modification hearing.'" Blume v. Durrett, 703 So.2d 986, 988 (Ala.Civ.

In his brief on appeal, the father cites one appellate case, Blume v. Durrett, 703 So.2d 986, 988 (Ala.Civ.App.1997), for the proposition that when the trial court does not hear evidence on the issue of custody, but, rather, the parties reach a settlement agreement that is incorporated into a divorce judgment, the court may consider the parties’ predivorce conduct in a custody-modification action.

C.P. v. W.M., 806 So.2d 395, 396-97 (Ala.Civ.App.2001); Blume v. Durrett, 703 So.2d 986, 988-89 (Ala.Civ.App.1997).