E. J. M. v. A. J. M.
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-00045-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-06-2003 Opinion Author: Thomas, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Child custody - Subject matter jurisdiction - Unfit for custody - Issuance of temporary order - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 803(25) - Sanctions - M.R.C.P. 11(b) Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Lee, Irving, Myers and Griffis, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Chandler, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CUSTODY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-16-2001 Appealed from: Hinds County Chancery Court Judge: Denise Owens Disposition: CHANCERY COURT AWARDED CUSTODY OF MINOR CHILD TO PATERNAL GRANDMOTHER. Case Number: G-94-155/0/3 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | E. J. M. |
JOHN R. REEVES
CHRISTOPHER PAUL PALMER |
||
| Appellee: | A. J. M., A Minor, by and Through Her Grandmother and Next Friend, I. V. C. | KATE S. EIDT |
|
|
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 - Subject matter jurisdiction - Unfit for custody - Issuance of temporary order - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 803(25) - Sanctions - M.R.C.P. 11(b) |
| Summary of the Facts: | I.V.C., the paternal grandmother of A.J.M., was awarded custody of A.J.M. through an ex parte proceeding alleging sexual abuse of the minor child by a third party, the attorney of E.J.M., the minor's mother. E.J.M. appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Subject matter jurisdiction E.J.M. argues that jurisdiction was only proper in Hinds County Youth Court. A chancery court may not exercise jurisdiction over any abused or neglected child or any proceeding pertaining thereto over which the youth court may exercise jurisdiction if there has been a prior proceeding in the youth court concerning that same child. In this case, the matter was brought before the Hinds County Chancery Court as a custody action based upon child abuse. The court had issued a temporary order regarding the custody and visitation of the child and properly retained jurisdiction as the temporary order could be construed as pending and jurisdiction regarding child custody, which is exclusive to chancery court, was never relinquished to the youth court. Issue 2: Unfit for custody E.J.M. argues that the court erred in denying her motion in limine, barring any testimony regarding her being unfit for custody. In matters regarding child custody, the best interest of the child is of paramount importance. The factors the court must consider in determining the child's best interests include age, health and sex of the child; a determination of the parent that has had the continuity of care prior to the separation; which has the best parenting skills and the willingness and capacity to provide primary child care; employment of the parent; physical and mental health and age of the parents; emotional ties of parent and child; moral fitness of the parents; home, school and community record of the child; preference of the child; stability of home environment; and other relevant factors. In order for the judge to determine custody of the minor child all testimony regarding factors of the child's best interest must be allowed. Issue 3: Due process E.J.M.. Argues that I.V.C. violated M.R.C.P. 65 which in turn violated E.J.M.’s due process rights. The chancery court, as guardian of all minor children in its district, is vested with authority to temporarily grant custody pending an investigation by a court appointed guardian ad litem, or the Hinds County Welfare Department, or Hinds County Youth Court when circumstances such as here exist. Issue 4: Custody E.J.M. argues that the court erred on the issue of custody, because parents have a paramount right to custody of their children to the exclusion of any other person. In a custody dispute between a natural parent and third parties, it is presumed that the best interests of the child will be preserved by custody remaining with the parent unless the parent has abandoned the child, or the conduct of the parent is so immoral as to be detrimental to the child, or the parent is unfit mentally or otherwise to have the custody of his or her child. Here, the chancellor determined that the child's being molested was a material change that was detrimental to the best interest of the child and that the immoral behavior of E.J.M. adversely affected the safety and well-being of the child. Issue 5: Expert testimony E.J.M. argues that the court erred in allowing expert testimony regarding the credibility of the child, because the testimony violated M.R.E. 803(25). M.R.E. 803(25) allows a judge to determine, using outside factors, the credibility of the child. Here, the child was available to testify and did. The expert testimony was used to provide the chancellor with knowledge regarding the factors that must be examined pursuant to Rule 803(25). The chancellor sitting as fact finder must determine the credibility of the testimony and both sides were afforded experts to testify to such. Issue 6: Sanctions E.J.M. argues that the chancellor should have imposed sanctions against I.V.C. and her counsel for filing a frivolous claim. M.R.C.P. 11(b) allows the court to award reasonable expenses and attorney's fees against a party or his attorney, or both, whose pleading or motion is frivolous or is filed for the purpose of harassment or delay. Here, the court did not abuse its discretion in failing to impose sanctions. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
