O'Briant v. O'Briant
| Docket Number: | 2011-CA-00732-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-16-2012 Opinion Author: Maxwell, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce - Child custody - Albright factors - M.R.C.P. 59 - Denial of rehearing - Newly discovered evidence - Material change in circumstances Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Russell and Fair, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CUSTODY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-19-2011 Appealed from: Madison County Chancery Court Judge: Cynthia Brewer Disposition: AWARDED SOLE PHYSICAL CUSTODY OF MINOR CHILD TO APPELLEE; DENIED MOTION FOR REHEARING AND TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT Case Number: 2009-1224 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Jonathan Platt O'Briant |
JEFFREY BIRL RIMES
JENNA LEET BAILEY |
|
|
| Appellee: | Olivia Agnes O'Briant | MELISSA ANN MALOUF WILLIAM EDWARD BALLARD CASEY JONES RODGERS | ||
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 - Child custody - Albright factors - M.R.C.P. 59 - Denial of rehearing - Newly discovered evidence - Material change in circumstances |
| Summary of the Facts: | Jonathan O’Briant filed for divorce from his wife Olivia in Madison County, Mississippi. Jonathan was awarded temporary custody of the couple’s son pending the divorce trial. Olivia and Jonathan later agreed to divorce and submitted the issues of their son’s custody, visitation, and support to the chancellor. In her final judgment of divorce, the chancellor analyzed each Albright factor, and ultimately concluded it was in the son’s best interest that Olivia be awarded sole physical custody. Jonathan filed a motion for rehearing and to alter or amend the judgment. He then filed a supplemental motion for rehearing, followed by a second supplemental motion for rehearing. In all three motions, Jonathan asserted “newly discovered evidence not available at trial” entitled him to a rehearing or an amended award of custody. The chancellor dismissed all three motions. Jonathan appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Child custody Jonathan argues the chancellor misapplied Albright because she miscalculated one of the factors and failed to weigh the evidence properly. The Albright factors provide chancellors guidance and are not a mathematical formula. In this case, the chancellor considered all the relevant facts by applying each Albright factor. Jonathan argues error in the fact that the chancellor addressed the stability of each parent’s employment when considering their employment responsibilities, and then later in her order, assessing the stability of their respective home environments. However, the chancellor did not misapply the Albright factors. Jonathan also argues that the chancellor ignored evidence of his good parenting skills and Olivia’s bad parenting skills in rendering her decision. However, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the chancellor’s finding. Olivia stayed at home with the couple’s son prior to separation, while Jonathan either worked or studied outside the home. And when Jonathan was awarded temporary custody, he relied on his mother to take care of his son rather than developing his own parenting skills. There was also substantial evidence to support the chancellor’s finding that the physical-and-mental-health-of-the-parents factor slightly favored Olivia. The chancellor relied on Jonathan’s psychiatric records as well as his own testimony about his continued treatment. Issue 2: Denial of rehearing Jonathan argues the chancellor abused her discretion when she denied his M.R.C.P. 59 motion, because newly discovered evidence entitled him to a new child-custody hearing. The newly discovered evidence must exist at the time of trial. Here, the evidence Jonathan sought to introduce involves Olivia’s actions since being awarded custody. In order for a change in custody to occur, a non-custodial parent is required to show that a material change in circumstances with an adverse effect on the child has occurred. In this case, Jonathan did not argue that a material change in circumstances adversely affecting his son had occurred, but claimed that an Albright analysis performed just months after the custody award would yield a different result. Thus, there is no error. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
