Dep't of Human Services v. Marshall
| Docket Number: | 2001-CA-01845-COA Linked Case(s): 2001-CT-01845-SCT ; 2001-CA-01845-COA ; 2001-CT-01845-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-08-2003 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Child support - Suspension of payments - Arrearage Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-08-2001 Appealed from: Smith County Chancery Court Judge: J. Larry Buffington Disposition: CHANCELLOR ORDERED THAT FUTURE CHILD SUPPORT SHOULD BE SUSPENDED AND SET CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGE AMOUNT Case Number: 14,305 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Department of Human Services, State of Mississippi |
DEBORAH DARDEN KENNEDY |
||
| Appellee: | Ronald Marshall | LYNN HUGHES SOREY STANLEY A. SOREY |
|
|
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 support - Suspension of payments - Arrearage |
| Summary of the Facts: | The State of Mississippi, by and through the Department of Human Services on May 12, 1993, initiated a Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement and Support Act request that California establish a child support order requiring Ron Marshall to provide medical coverage for his son and pay child support for the child. A California court ordered Ron to pay $622 monthly in child support. In 1999, Ron filed, in the Smith County Chancery Court, a motion for modification of child custody and for modification of child support, along with a petition to reconsider child support. After a psychological evaluation was completed of the child, the chancellor determined that a substantial and material change in circumstances had occurred between Ron and his son and as a result, there had been a breakdown in the relationship between them. Because of this breakdown, the chancellor suspended all visitation and all child support obligations of Ron. The Department of Human Services appeals, and Ron cross-appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Suspension of payments DHS argues that suspension is too extreme and should be taken only in the most egregious circumstances and only after less severe remedies have been attempted and proven futile. The amount of money the non-custodial parent is required to pay for the support of his minor child is not determined by the amount of love shown by the child toward the parent but instead by a determination of what is in the best interest of the child. While there may be situations where a child may forfeit his support, those actions must be clear and extreme. The chancellor found that the deteriorated relationship between Ron and his son was extreme enough to extinguish Ron’s financial support obligations. Ron was denied access to his son for over twelve years, and when he was afforded the opportunity to visit with him in Mississippi, those visits did not facilitate a better relationship. Based on the evidence, the chancellor did not manifestly err in suspending Ron's obligation for future child support payments. Issue 2: Child support arrearage Ron argues that the chancellor erred in awarding child support arrearage. Child support is for the benefit of the child, and a child should not be penalized because of the conduct of the parents. Therefore, the chancellor was not manifestly in error in ordering Ron to pay the child support arrearage. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
