Watts v. Watts
| Docket Number: | 2001-CA-01181-COA Linked Case(s): 2001-CT-01181-SCT ; 2001-CT-01181-SCT ; 2001-CT-01181-SCT ; 2001-CA-01181-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-11-2003 Opinion Author: Lee, J. Holding: Affirmed in Part; Reversed and Remanded in Part |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - Custody - Alimony - Recusal of judge - Period of advisement Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Irving and Chandler, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Myers and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-15-2001 Appealed from: Jackson County Chancery Court Judge: William Griffin, Jr. Disposition: SPECIAL JUDGE GRANTED DIVORCE ON GROUND OF IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES, AWARDED CUSTODY OF MINOR CHILDREN TO HUSBAND WITH LIBERAL VISITATION TO WIFE, ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT, AND ORDERED A DIVISION OF THE MARITAL ASSETS AND LIABILITIES. Case Number: 2000-1667 |
|
| Note: | The motion for rehearing on this matter is denied. The original opinion issued in this case is withdrawn, and the following opinion is substituted as the opinion of this Court. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Hollie Jean Watts |
JAMES R. HAYDEN |
||
| Appellee: | Mark Harrison Watts | DEMPSEY M. LEVI |
|
|
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: | Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - Custody - Alimony - Recusal of judge - Period of advisement |
| Summary of the Facts: | The motion for rehearing is denied, and this opinion is substituted for the original opinion. Hollie Watts and Mark Watts were granted a divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. The special judge awarded custody of the couple’s two children to Mark with liberal visitation to Hollie, denied alimony to Hollie, ordered Hollie to pay child support, and ordered the division of marital assets and liabilities. Hollie appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Custody The polestar consideration in custody cases is the best interest of the child. Factors the court should consider with regard to custody are the age, health and sex of the child; determination of the parent that had the continuity of care prior to the separation; which parent has the best parenting skills and the willingness and capacity to provide primary child care; employment of the parent and responsibilities of that employment; 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 at the age sufficient to express a preference by law; stability of home environment and employment of each parent; and other relevant factors. Because the children are females, their age favors Hollie. Hollie has had physical custody of the children since the separation during which time Mark did not pay child support or make an effort to retain custody of the children. Both Hollie and Mark are close to the children. Hollie is a middle school teacher with work hours ideal for raising children while Mark is an attorney with long working hours. Both parents are in good health. There are equally strong emotional ties between each child and each parent. There were subtle references throughout the trial to an improper relationship between Mark and his secretary. Although Mark has an extended family living in the area, Hollie should not be penalized because she does not have a large family nearby. The oldest daughter expressed a preference for living with her mother. Given these factors, the special judge abused his discretion in awarding custody to Mark. Issue 2: Alimony In deciding whether to award alimony, the court should consider the income and expenses of the parties, the health and earning capacities of the parties, the needs of each party, the obligations and assets of each party, the length of the marriage, the presence or absence of minor children in the home, the age of the parties, the standard of living of the parties, the tax consequences of the spousal support order, fault or misconduct, wasteful dissipation of assets by either party, and any other equitable factors. Since reversal is warranted on the custody issue, the holding with regard to alimony is also reversed, since the presence of children was a factor in the chancellor's decision. Issue 3: Recusal Hollie argues that the judge should have voluntarily recused himself. A judge should disqualify himself if his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Because Hollie brought up the issue of recusal only after the case was decided against her, she effectively acquiesced to the judge hearing her case. Hollie also argues that the judge erred by taking the case under advisement from December until May. Although prolonged periods of advisement should be avoided in child custody cases especially if the children are of a tender age, there is no evidence that the judge here abused his discretion. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
