Daniels v. Bains
| Docket Number: | 2006-CA-01608-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-23-2007 Opinion Author: ROBERTS, J. Holding: Affirmed in Part, Reversed and Remanded in Part |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Paternity - Child support - Section 93-11-65(8) - Attorney’s fees - Medical expenses - Life insurance - College expenses Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, AND CARLTON,. JJ. Concurs in Result Only: IRVING, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-02-2006 Appealed from: JACKSON COUNTY COUNTY COURT Judge: T. Larry Wilson Disposition: DEFENDANT ORDERED TO MAINTAIN A LIFE INSURANCE POLICY, PAY CHILD SUPPORT, ALL MEDICAL EXPENSES NOT COVERED BY HEALTH INSURANCE, COLLEGE EXPENSES, AND PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY’S FEES Case Number: 2004-21539 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | ANTHONY DANIELS, M.D. |
MARTY CRAIG ROBERTSON
ALICIA CLIFTON BALADI |
||
| Appellee: | EMMA C. BAINS | JACKYE C. BERTUCCI |
|
|
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: | Paternity - Child support - Section 93-11-65(8) - Attorney’s fees - Medical expenses - Life insurance - College expenses |
| Summary of the Facts: | Emma Bains sued Anthony Daniels, M.D. and sought to have Daniels declared the father of her daughter. A paternity test confirmed that he was the father, and the county court ordered Daniels to pay child support, any of the child’s medical bills beyond that covered by insurance, the child’s college expenses, and Bains’ attorney’s fees, and to maintain a life insurance policy on himself for the child. Daniels appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Child support Daniels argues that the court erred in requiring him to maintain a life insurance policy and pay for certain educational expenses of the child after the child reaches the age of majority. Bains concedes that the county court erred. Section 93-11-65(8) provides that the duty of support of a child terminates upon the emancipation of the child. Thus, the county court erred when it obligated Daniels beyond the point at which the child becomes emancipated. Issue 2: Attorney’s fees Daniels argues that the court erred because it did not conduct an analysis of certain factors on the record when granting attorney’s fees. Daniels raises this argument for the first time on appeal. Failure to raise an issue in a trial court causes the operation of a procedural bar on appeal. In the context of a paternity action, where it has been demonstrated that a man is the biological father of a child, and a trial court orders the father to pay the mother’s attorney’s fees, the only qualifier incident to that award is that the attorney’s fees must be reasonable. However, Daniels never argued that Bains’ attorney’s fees were unreasonable. Accordingly, the court did not err. Issue 3: Medical expenses Daniels argues that requiring him to pay all medical and dental expenses for the child is an abuse of discretion when analyzed in the totality of support required. The evidence indicated that Daniels had a monthly income roughly ten times that of Bains. Further, it is not inherently erroneous to order one parent to pay all medical expenses not covered by health insurance. Issue 4: Life insurance Daniels argues that the court committed reversible error in requiring him to maintain a $500,000 life insurance policy with the child as the beneficiary. Daniels’ argument is barred for lack of relevant authority. Further, as Daniels notes, a father’s support is not fully appreciable in a simple financial cost benefit analysis. It bears mentioning that Daniels maintains a life insurance policy in the names of his two children from a previous marriage. The death benefit incident to that policy is $1,000,000. Viewed in that light, the county court’s order is equitable and is in no way an abuse of discretion. Issue 5: College expenses Daniels argues that the county court’s order requiring him to pay all of the child’s college expenses is premature. The parental duty to send a child to college is not absolute, however, but is dependent upon the proof and the circumstances of each case. In the context of a paternity action, a child may or may not have a prior relationship with his or her father. Placing a condition based upon the child’s behavior towards his or her biological father is unwarranted because the biological father may not have any interaction with the child at all. It is noteworthy that Daniels did not request any visitation with the child. In that sense, the county court did not err. While it may be premature to say that the child has an aptitude for college, it is likewise premature to say that she does not. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
