Victoria Hardin “Mother” and Dirk Hardin “Father” were divorced pursuant to a final judgment and decree entered on February 13, 2006. Mother was granted sole custody of their three children —H. H. H., then age five; E. D., then age two; and H. J. H., then age one —and Father received visitation rights. Shortly thereafter, H. H. H. and E. D. allegedly disclosed to Mother that Father had touched them inappropriately during a visit. Mother filed a petition to modify custody on May 23, 2006, alleging that a substantial change of circumstance had occurred and that Father should not have visitation privileges. The trial court issued an order suspending Father’s visitation until resolution of the abuse allegations. Following a hearing, the trial court found no direct evidence of sexual abuse by Father and concluded that Mother had not established her allegations by a preponderance of the evidence. The court thus denied the petition to modify and reinstated Father’s visitation rights. Before entering its order, the court declined to hear additional evidence proffered by Mother. We granted Mother’s application to review these rulings. Although we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s judgment based on the evidence presented at the hearing, we conclude that the court erred in refusing to consider additional evidence proferred by Mother. Therefore, we reverse the court’s order and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. 1. Mother asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in restoring Father’s visitation privileges in light of the evidence presented at the hearing. “Modification of child visitation rights is a matter of discretion with the trial court.”1 “If the record contains any reasonable evidence to support the trial court’s decision on a petition to modify custody, it will be affirmed on appeal.”2
Properly viewed, the evidence in this case shows that Mother reported the children’s disclosures to the Lowndes County Department of Family and Children Services “DFCS” on May 9, 2006. An extensive investigation ensued. After a preliminary review, DFCS substantiated the allegations of sexual abuse, but following a panel review, the department changed its findings to unsubstantiated and closed its file. Law enforcement agencies determined that child molestation charges were unfounded because Father passed a polygraph test and there was no medical evidence of abuse. Various experts, however, including Janice H. Loeffler, M.D., a pediatrician with extensive training in child sexual abuse, Joseph Driggers, a therapist with the Child Advocacy Center, and Connie Schenk, Ph.D, who performed a psychological examination on both parents, determined that the children’s allegations were “highly credible.” Moreover, the investigation uncovered evidence that Father had an affinity for pornography and had acted inappropriately toward his sixteen-year-old stepdaughter. Noting Father’s “pornographic predilection,” the children’s guardian ad litem recommended that Father’s visitation rights not be restored.
