Davis v. Stevens
| Docket Number: | 2010-CA-01400-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-17-2012 Opinion Author: Maxwell, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Child custody - Albright factors - Guardian ad litem Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Russell and Fair, JJ. Dissenting Author : Carlton, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CUSTODY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-19-2010 Appealed from: Harrison County Chancery Court Judge: Sanford Steckler Disposition: PHYSICAL CUSTODY AWARDED TO THE FATHER Case Number: C2402 06-0110(3) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Sarah Davis |
WENDY C. HOLLINGSWORTH |
||
| Appellee: | Jason Stevens | JENNIFER SEKUL HARRIS |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Child custody - Albright factors - Guardian ad litem |
| Summary of the Facts: | Sarah Davis and Jason Stevens dated for several years but never married. The two had one child together but separated when the child, Amy, was approximately ten months old. Soon after the separation, Davis filed a paternity suit against Stevens. Stevens admitted paternity but counterclaimed for legal and physical custody of Amy. The chancellor awarded primary physical custody to Stevens, with the parties having joint legal custody. The chancellor granted visitation to Davis and ordered her to pay child support based on the child-support guidelines. Davis appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Albright findings In all cases involving child custody, the polestar consideration is the best interest and welfare of the child. The Albright factors are a guide for chancellors in weighing the facts to determine the child’s best interest. Here, the chancellor made findings of fact and conclusions of law on each Albright factor, finding four of the factors favored Stevens, three favored Davis, and two favored neither party. With regard to the age, health, and sex of the child, the chancellor focused in part on the fact that since a young age Amy has suffered from allergies and other respiratory ailments. He found these health issues were “caused by her exposure to second hand smoke of primarily her mother and[,] now, also her step-father.” Amy has also suffered from acid reflux and constipation. The chancellor noted Stevens’s testimony that these symptoms subside when she is provided a healthy diet while in his care. The chancellor noted that Davis has cared for Amy “the vast majority of the time” since the parties’ relationship ended when Amy was about ten months old. The chancellor found that the employment factor favored Davis in part because Stevens’s income is “sporadic and his work is usually out of town,” although Stevens is home each night. The chancellor found that the age and health of the parent factor slightly favored Stevens. He noted Stevens does not smoke and is in good health. With regard to emotional ties, the chancellor found that both parents have a bond with the child. The chancellor found that Davis had “wrongfully” and “deliberately” accused Stevens of sexually abusing their child. The chancellor found that despite Davis’s actions, Stevens has developed a “very strong bond” with his daughter since the court-ordered visitation. The chancellor found that stability of home factor favored Davis in part because she “has a longer history of both marriage and a home.” Davis argues that the chancellor erroneously found Davis initiated baseless claims of sexual abuse against Stevens and gave this consideration excessive weight. The record shows Davis had taken Amy to several physicians to be examined. It is undisputed that no physical evidence corroborated her allegations of sexual abuse. Davis acknowledged that since the DHS investigation, Amy has not mentioned the alleged abuse. And the record shows Davis’s attorney abandoned the abuse allegation at trial. There is support for the chancellor’s finding that Davis perpetuated the allegations of sexual abuse despite having essentially no evidence that any abuse had occurred. The chancellor considered the unsubstantiated allegations of sexual abuse from the proper standpoint of the impact on the child. And the chancellor remained within his discretion in concluding Davis’s perpetuation of false allegations of sexual abuse weighed heavily against her under certain Albright factors—including the “moral fitness” and “catch all” factors. Davis claims the chancellor should have addressed the separation of Amy from her half sibling in his consideration of other relevant equitable considerations. There is no dispute that Amy is close to her half sister, who is Davis’s approximately three-year-old daughter from her current marriage. However, there is no rule that requires chancellors to keep siblings together. Issue 2: Guardian ad litem Davis argues that the chancellor rejected the opinions of the guardian ad litem and, in so doing, made insufficient findings. She particularly complains that based on the GAL’s report, the chancellor should have given her bond with her daughter considerable weight, especially under the “emotional ties of the parent and child” factor. In any case where a GAL is appointed to represent a child, the chancellor’s role as fact-finder requires the evidence presented by the GAL, as well as all other relevant evidence, to be considered and given such weight as the chancellor determines it deserves. Here, it is apparent that the chancellor considered the GAL’s opinions and indeed incorporated several of her findings and recommendations into his judgment. However, the chancellor disagreed with the GAL’s belief that custody should remain with the mother. The chancellor remained within his discretion in determining Davis’s perpetuation of false allegations of sexual abuse and her apparent disregard for the overall health and well being of the child—among other behavior harming the child—tipped the balance in favor of Stevens having custody. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
