Rolison v. Rolison
| Docket Number: | 2011-CA-00192-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-11-2012 Opinion Author: Fair, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Adultery - Child custody - Family violence - Section 93-5-24(9)(a)(i) - Albright factors - Children's preference - Section 93-11-65 - Reports Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Barnes, Ishee, Maxwell and Russell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Roberts, J. Dissenting Author : Carlton, J. Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CUSTODY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-14-2011 Appealed from: Tippah County Chancery Court Judge: Glenn Alderson Case Number: 2008-226A |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Alisa Gale Rolison |
JASON LEE SHELTON
RICHARD SHANE MCLAUGHLIN |
|
|
| Appellee: | Gary Wayne Rolison, Jr. | JAK MCGEE SMITH | ||
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: Adultery - Child custody - Family violence - Section 93-5-24(9)(a)(i) - Albright factors - Children's preference - Section 93-11-65 - Reports |
| Summary of the Facts: | Gary and Alisa Rolison were divorced on the ground of Alisa’s adultery. The chancellor awarded custody of their four children to Gary. Alisa appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Family violence Section 93-5-24(9)(a)(i) establishes a rebuttable presumption regarding family violence. The statute requires that if a chancellor finds a history of perpetrating family violence, the rebuttable presumption is triggered. The chancellor must then consider six factors to determine whether the presumption has been rebutted and make “written findings.” Alisa argues that the chancellor should have found that Gary had a history of family violence and then should have made written findings. The record contains evidence of both parents’ actions that could be construed as perpetrating family violence. Both parents admitted to behaving aggressively with the children, but the only evidence of any serious injury was inflicted on Alisa by one of the children. Thus, the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in refusing to apply the statutory presumption against either parent. Issue 2: Albright factors Alisa argues that the chancellor failed to follow section 93-11-65 and explain why the two oldest children’s preference was not followed. The oldest daughter expressed conflicting preferences regarding custody, and the chancellor discussed his reasons for not honoring her wishes. The chancellor also discussed a few specific examples of conduct that caused concern, including allowing the teenage son of a friend to sleep with her oldest daughter. A school teacher testified that Alisa drank, smoked marijuana, and acted like a teenager after she and Gary separated. Alisa exposed her teenage daughter to her boyfriend in violation of a temporary court order, and she was arrested for using a credit card taken from a purse she found in a parking lot. Thus, the chancellor appropriately explained his reasons for awarding custody to Gary instead of Alisa. Issue 3: Reports The chancellor noted that the DHS employee made the same recommendation as the GAL—award custody of the oldest child to her mother and custody of the three younger children to their father. However, the chancellor was worried about the oldest daughter. The chancellor properly discussed the recommendation of the GAL and the DHS caseworker and explained his reasons for deviating from their suggestion. Thus, the chancellor’s decision is sufficiently supported. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
