A custody dispute can become more complicated when harassment between former spouses begins affecting their parenting arrangements and children’s welfare. In Alabama, a father who was found to have sent threatening emails to his former wife using a fictitious identity challenged a court order that gave her sole custody of their three children. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals has now upheld the custody decision and a protection order against him, but sent the case back to reconsider how much time he can spend with the children.In a November 13, 2026 opinion, the appeals court affirmed the protection-from-abuse order and most of the lower court’s custody judgment in G.W.G. v. V.M.G., available on Justia. However, it ruled that limiting the father’s supervised visits to six hours every other week went further than necessary and required the trial court to establish a different visitation schedule.
Dispute escalated after divorce
According to the court’s opinion, the former couple divorced in January 2023 and initially shared joint legal and physical custody of their three children. Their agreement also prohibited them from harassing each other or making derogatory comments about one another in front of the children.The mother later alleged that the father had repeatedly harassed her, prompting her to seek a custody modification and a protection-from-abuse order in November and December 2023. She requested sole legal and physical custody, saying their attempts to communicate through a parenting application and attend co-parenting counselling had failed.The dispute also involved emails sent under the name “John Tyler”. The mother testified that the messages attempted to pressure her into recording an explicit video involving the father and threatened to contact her employer and report her to the Department of Human Resources if she did not comply.She said the emails contained personal information about her vehicle, including its identification number and registration details. The father initially denied sending them, but text messages admitted into evidence included his acknowledgement that he was the person behind the “John Tyler” emails. He later disputed that the message amounted to an admission of guilt.
Court finds father responsible for emails
The trial court considered the emails alongside testimony from the mother, a family therapist and a police officer. The therapist described a co-parenting session in which the father allegedly shouted and moved towards the mother, making the therapist concerned for their safety. A police officer also testified about reports concerning the father’s conduct and recorded telephone conversation in which he discussed sending emails to the mother.In its January 2026 judgment, the trial court found that the father had used a fictitious identity to send the harassing messages. It also expressed concern about his fixation on the mother’s relationships and whereabouts, and found that he had used visitation with the children to advance his efforts to control her.The court awarded the mother sole legal and physical custody. It ordered the father to have supervised visits every other Saturday and Sunday, for three hours each day, with supervision provided by the Bridge Center. He was also required to pay the associated costs. The father was further prohibited from going within 300 feet of the mother’s residence and from arranging surveillance of her or the children through another person.
Appeals court upholds protection order
The father challenged the admission of the emails, arguing that they had not been properly authenticated and should not have been considered as evidence. The appeals court rejected this argument, pointing to his text message acknowledging that he had sent them.The judges also upheld the protection-from-abuse order, which prohibited him from contacting, harassing or stalking the mother and required him to stay away from her residence, workplace and the children’s school. The order was set to remain effective until March 6, 2027. The appeals court also left the mother’s sole custody arrangement intact, along with the requirement that the father pay for supervised visitation.
Why judges ordered a new visitation schedule
However, the appeals court found that the lower court had imposed an overly restrictive visitation schedule. It noted that there was no evidence that the father had abused the children or that his conduct towards the mother had harmed their relationship with him. A visitation supervisor had also testified that the children appeared comfortable during a supervised visit and interacted positively with their father.The judges agreed that supervised visits were justified, particularly because the father had threatened to take the children to Louisiana. However, they concluded that limiting him to six hours of supervised contact every other week was not sufficiently tailored to the concerns identified by the trial court.On November 13, 2026, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals reversed that specific visitation restriction and sent the matter back to the lower court to determine an appropriate schedule. The decision leaves the mother’s sole custody and the protection order in place, while requiring the court to reconsider the father’s visitation hours.
Discover more from updatview
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
