Collins v. Collins
| Docket Number: | 2007-CA-00717-COA Linked Case(s): 2007-CA-00717-SCT ; 2007-CA-00717-COA ; 2007-CT-00717-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-09-2008 Opinion Author: CHANDLER, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - Custody - Guardian ad litem Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, and Carlton, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CUSTODY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-01-2007 Appealed from: DeSoto County Chancery Court Judge: Mitchell M. Lundy, Jr. Disposition: DIVORCE DECREE ENTERED AND JOINT CUSTODY OF MINOR CHILD AWARDED Case Number: 05-03-0436 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | STEVEN W. COLLINS |
MALENDA HARRIS MEACHAM |
||
| Appellee: | MELANNIE BLAYLOCK COLLINS | JAMES P. VANCE |
|
|
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 - Guardian ad litem |
| Summary of the Facts: | Steven and Melannie Collins were granted a divorce on the ground of irreconcilable differences. The chancellor approved the proposed property division between the parties. The chancellor awarded joint physical and legal custody of the couple’s son to both parents, with the child to reside with Melannie during the school year and to reside with Steve during the summer. Steve appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Custody Steve argues that the chancellor erred by finding that four of the Albright factors favored Melannie and that two of the factors were neutral. Melannie introduced testimony about Steve’s temper and his inconsistent discipline; there was no error in the chancellor's reliance on that evidence about Steve. The chancellor's decision that Melannie had the best parenting skills was supported by substantial evidence. The chancellor properly took into account the fact that extended family members live very close to Melannie and Jake in Pope. The proximity of extended family members is especially relevant in this case because both parents relied extensively on childcare provided by others during their twenty-four-hour work shifts. The chancellor also correctly took into account the testimony that Steve generally worked two more twenty-four-hour shifts per month than Melannie, and that Melannie worked a more flexible schedule that allowed her to switch shifts whenever necessary. Both Steve and Melannie were employed in similar careers with fairly similar time requirements. There was no error in the chancellor's determination that, based solely on their employment, this factor favored neither parent. The chancellor concluded from the testimony that there was a strong relationship between the couple’s son and his half-sister and that any great reduction in his time with her would adversely impact the son. There was no error in the chancellor’s decision that this factor favored Melannie. Given this evidence, the chancellor's custody decision was supported by substantial, credible evidence, and it was not clearly erroneous, manifestly wrong, or the result of the application of an erroneous legal standard. Steve also argues that his custodial periods were too limited to fulfill the statutory requirement of "significant periods of physical custody." Joint physical custody does not require equal time with each parent, but only requires that the parents have significant periods of physical custody to assure a child of frequent and continuing contact with both parents. The amount of custodial time awarded to Steve, while not generous, still afforded Steve significant periods of physical custody and assured the son frequent and continuing contact with both Steve and Melannie. Issue 2: Guardian ad litem Steve argues that it was error for the chancellor to reject the concerns of the guardian ad litem without summarizing the guardian ad litem's opinions and explaining why they were rejected. The chancellor appointed the guardian ad litem after Melannie made an allegation that Steve had abused their son. This allegation was substantiated with photographs of bruises on the son. The chancellor stated that the appointment of the guardian ad litem was mandatory due to Melannie's abuse allegations and the involvement of DHS. Assuming that the appointment of a guardian ad litem was mandatory, the chancellor properly addressed the guardian ad litem's findings. The guardian ad litem made no custody recommendation; the only recommendation that the guardian ad litem made to the court was that there were no grounds for finding any abuse of the child. This was reflected in the chancellor’s divorce decree, which stated that there was insufficient proof of child abuse. The chancellor properly considered all of the evidence before the court in rendering the custody decision. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
