Sullivan v. Sullivan
| Docket Number: | 2014-CA-00160-COA Linked Case(s): 2014-CT-00160-SCT ; 2014-CA-00160-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-24-2015 Opinion Author: Fair, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce - Child custody - Albright factors - Recommendation of guardian ad litem Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Barnes, Ishee, Carlton, Maxwell and James, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Roberts, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CUSTODY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-20-2013 Appealed from: LAFAYETTE COUNTY CHANCERY COURT Judge: ROBERT Q. WHITWELL Disposition: Granted appellee physical custody of the minor child Case Number: 2012-004(W) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Michael Sullivan |
TIFFANY ALAYNE YATES, JULIA GIVENS WILLIAMS |
||
| Appellee: | Shinobu Tanaka Sullivan | WALTER ALAN DAVIS |
|
|
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 - Recommendation of guardian ad litem |
| Summary of the Facts: | Michael Sullivan filed for divorce from his wife, Shinobu Sullivan, and requested full custody of the couple’s son. The chancellor awarded Michael and Shinobu joint legal custody and Shinobu physical custody. The court gave Michael liberal visitation rights and ordered him to pay monthly child support of $350. Michael appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Michael argues that the chancellor erred in his consideration and application of the Albright factors and that the custody determination was against the weight of the evidence. Of the Albright factors, the chancellor found the following factors favored Shinobu: continuity of care; parenting skills; willingness and capacity to provide the primary child care; physical and mental health of the parents; the home, school, and community record of the child; and stability of the home environment and employment of each parent. The chancellor found that the remaining factors did not favor either party. Michael claims that the chancellor erred in basing his decision on Michael’s unemployment and reliance on his mother for financial support, since Shinobu also relied on Michael’s mother prior to their separation. As the chancellor correctly noted, Shinobu was no longer financially dependent on Michael’s mother. As to physical and mental health, Michael claims that the chancellor ignored testimony regarding Shinobu’s temper and emotional issues. The record shows that Michael saw two different psychiatrists for insomnia and depression. In addition, Dr. Freeman testified that Michael showed signs of past alcohol abuse. Thus, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the chancellor’s finding. Michael claims the chancellor ignored his testimony about Shinobu’s forged financial documents and his claim that Shinobu visited sexually explicit websites. Shinobu denied these allegations. The chancellor was within his discretion to find Shinobu’s testimony more credible than Michael’s testimony. Michael claims the chancellor failed to consider Michael’s extended family in the area. The record shows that Shinobu was primarily responsible for Aiden’s schooling and extracurricular involvement. Given the evidence in the record, the chancellor did not err in application of the Albright factors. Michael also refers to the GAL’s recommendation that he and Shinobu alternate weeks with their son. When a chancellor’s ruling is contrary to the recommendation of a statutorily required guardian ad litem, the reasons for not adopting the guardian ad litem's recommendation shall be stated by the court in the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Here, the chancellor recognized that the GAL’s preferred method was to alternate weeks between Michael and Shinobu. The chancellor instead chose the GAL’s alternative option of liberal visitation. There is no error. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
