Callahan v. Davis, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-00144-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-30-2004 Opinion Author: McMillin, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Modification of child custody - Visitation Judge(s) Concurring: King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CUSTODY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-20-2002 Appealed from: Harrison County Chancery Court Judge: Jim Persons Disposition: PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY DENIED; PETITIONER GRANTED VISITATION. Case Number: C2402-99-202 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Trina Marie Davis Callahan (Fallon) |
WILLIAM E. TISDALE |
||
| Appellee: | Michael R. Davis, Janet Diane Ledingham and Jeffery Ledingham | MICHAEL R. DAVIS (PRO SE) JAMES (JAY) R. FOSTER |
|
|
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: | Modification of child custody - Visitation |
| Summary of the Facts: | At the time that Trina Davis Callahan and Michael Davis were divorced, they provided by written agreement that they would retain joint legal custody of their child but that paramount physical custody would be awarded to Davis’s mother, Janet Diane Ledingham and her husband, Jeffery Ledingham. Trina subsequently filed a petition seeking to modify custody. The chancellor concluded that Trina had failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that a modification in the custodial arrangement was appropriate but substantially expanded her opportunities to visit with the child. Trina appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | A natural parent who voluntarily relinquishes custody of a minor child, through a court of competent jurisdiction, may reclaim custody of the child only upon showing by clear and convincing evidence that the change in custody is in the best interest of the child. Here, the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in finding that Trina did not show by clear and convincing evidence that a change in custody to her was in the child’s best interest, considering the fact that the custodial grandparents had provided the child a stable, secure and nurturing environment in which the child appeared to be thriving. Trina also argues that the chancellor abused his discretion in setting up a revised visitation schedule since it did not provide for more frequent weekend visits, a longer period during the summer, and extended weekend visitation during Mardi Gras. The best interest of the child must be the primary focus in determining an appropriate visitation schedule. The visitation arrangements ordered by the chancellor in this case appear to fall within the range of discretion afforded the chancellor in fashioning a schedule that is in the best interest of the child. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
