Mayfield v. Mayfield
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-01576-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-01-2007 Opinion Author: IRVING, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - Custody - Psychological report - Excited utterance - M.R.E. 803(2) Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-08-2005 Appealed from: Harrison County Chancery Court Judge: Sanford R. Steckler Disposition: FINAL JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE ENTERED. Case Number: 2402-02-171 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | CHRISTINA MAYFIELD |
WALTER WESLEY TEEL |
||
| Appellee: | JOEL MAYFIELD | WENDY C. HOLLINGSWORTH |
|
|
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: Irreconcilable differences - Custody - Psychological report - Excited utterance - M.R.E. 803(2) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Joel and Christina Mayfield agreed to an irreconcilable differences divorce. The court awarded custody of the children and the marital home to Joel. Christina appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Custody Christina argues that the chancellor failed to properly apply the Albright factors, and therefore erred in awarding custody to Joel. The chancellor thoroughly considered all of the Albright factors. The testimony indicates that both Christina and Joel cared for the children while receiving assistance from family members. Joel had maintained stable employment, whereas Christina had worked sporadically, and had not maintained full-time or steady employment. Christina wilfully violated the court’s no-contact order between the children and her boyfriend. The chancellor also addressed several other factors including Christina’s disregard for the court’s orders; Christina’s cohabitation with her boyfriend and her giving birth to his child out-of-wedlock; Christina’s refusal to acknowledge her boyfriend’s past issues with domestic abuse toward his previous wives, children from previous marriages, and Christina herself; and the accusations of child molestation of one of her boyfriend’s children and corporal punishment of Christina’s children, resulting in bruises to the children. When taking all of the Albright factors into consideration, the chancellor did not err in finding that it is in the best interest of the children to have their custody reposing with Joel, rather than with Christina. Issue 2: Psychological report Christina argues that the chancellor erred in allowing into evidence a psychological report which was conducted during her boyfriend’s divorce proceedings from his previous wife. While Christina’s attorney initially objected to admission of the report, the record reveals that she apparently abandoned that position, because her subsequent assent to the admission of the report was not qualified. Issue 3: Excited utterance Christina argues that the chancellor incorrectly admitted into evidence a hearsay statement made to the guardian ad litem by the couple’s son. Because of the context in which this statement was made, it does not qualify as an excited utterance under M.R.E. 803(2). The child made the accusations against Christina’s boyfriend only after being questioned by the guardian ad litem. However, the error was harmless, as there is more than an ample amount of properly-admitted evidence to support each of the findings made by the chancellor. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
