Moore v. Cole
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-02290-COA Linked Case(s): 2005-CA-02290-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-03-2007 Opinion Author: GRIFFIS, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Modification of custody - Material change in circumstances Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Chandler, Barnes, Ishee and Roberts, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Carlton, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CUSTODY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-09-2005 Appealed from: Jones County Chancery Court Judge: Franklin C. McKenzie, Jr. Disposition: DENIED MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY. Case Number: 2003-0603 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | SHAWANDA MOORE |
ROSS R. BARNETT, JR. |
||
| Appellee: | GERONDRICK S. COLE | THOMAS T. BUCHANAN |
|
|
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: | Modification of custody - Material change in circumstances |
| Summary of the Facts: | Shawanda Moore brought an action against Gerondrick Cole for modification of child custody. The chancellor denied the modification and found that there was no material change of circumstances that adversely affected the child. Moore appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | In a modification proceeding, the non-custodial party must prove that a substantial change in circumstances has transpired since issuance of the custody decree, that this change adversely affects the child’s welfare, and that the child’s best interests mandate a change of custody. Moore argues that the chancellor ignored evidence of significant changes in the child’s life such as evidence that Cole was married at the time of the original order and presented a stable home life at that time, that Cole had marital difficulties, that the child was sent to live with his paternal grandmother, and that the child was enrolled in another school. However, the evidence presented at the hearing indicates that none of these changes had an adverse impact on the child’s health or welfare. Moore admitted that there has been no adverse impact on his schoolwork. The only evidence of an adverse change was Cole’s new work schedule. However, there is sufficient evidence to support the chancellor’s conclusion that Cole’s work schedule is substantially the same if not better than it was at the time of the initial custody award. Therefore, the chancellor correctly denied Moore’s claim for a modification of custody. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
