Potter v. Greene
| Docket Number: | 2006-CA-01009-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-15-2008 Opinion Author: LEE, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Modification of custody - Allegations of sexual abuse - Guardian ad litem’s recommendation Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., MYERS, P.J., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CUSTODY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-31-2006 Appealed from: RANKIN COUNTY CHANCERY COURT Judge: John Grant Disposition: CHANCELLOR CHANGED PRIMARY PHYSICAL CUSTODY OF MINOR FROM MOTHER TO FATHER Case Number: 51,662 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | RUTH POTTER |
ALI MUHAMMAD SHAMSIDDEEN |
||
| Appellee: | RODTRELLUS GREENE | WILLIAM F. JORDAN |
|
|
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 - Allegations of sexual abuse - Guardian ad litem’s recommendation |
| Summary of the Facts: | In 1997, a daughter was born to Ruth Potter and Rodtrellus Greene. In 2002, Greene filed a petition in the Rankin County Chancery Court for visitation and other relief. Greene, who had been living near Atlanta, Georgia, since his daughter’s birth, was awarded reasonable visitation with his daughter. The chancellor also ordered Greene to pay $300 per month in child support, as well as one-half of the child’s medical expenses. In 2003, Potter was found in contempt for failing to allow Greene to exercise his visitation rights and she was ordered to pay Greene’s reasonable attorney’s fees. After Potter accused Greene of abusing their daughter, the Rankin County Youth Court entered an order requiring Greene and Potter to schedule a psychological assessment of the child. The youth court also ordered both Greene and Potter to submit to a psychological assessment. At a review hearing, the youth court found that Potter had neither met with the psychologist for her assessment nor presented the child for her assessment. The youth court, pursuant to the guardian ad litem’s recommendation, suspended visitation with both parents and placed the child in the custody of the Department of Human Services. Shortly thereafter, the psychologist submitted his recommendation to the court, finding that the allegations of abuse were unfounded. Primary physical custody of the child was eventually returned to Potter. Over the next two years various motions were filed by both parties, including motions by Greene alleging contempt and seeking a modification of child support. After a hearing on various motions, the chancellor awarded primary physical custody of the child to Greene. Potter appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Allegations of sexual abuse Potter argues that the chancellor erred in finding that the allegations of sexual abuse made against Greene were unsubstantiated. Both the psychologist and the guardian ad litem determined that the abuse allegations were concocted by Potter and were unsupported by the evidence. Based on the record, the chancellor did not err. Issue 2: Modification of custody Potter argues that the chancellor erred in modifying the custody of her daughter, because the report of the guardian ad litem recommended that the child continue to live with Potter. In child custody modification, the court considers whether there has been a material change in circumstances which adversely affects the welfare of the child and whether the best interest of the child requires a change of custody. While a chancellor is in no way bound by a guardian’s recommendations, a summary of these recommendations in addition to his reasons for not adopting the recommendations is required in the chancellor’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this case, the chancellor noted that, while he greatly respected the guardian’s judgment and recommendation, he determined that it was in the best interest of the child that she be placed in Greene’s custody. There was no error in the chancellor’s decision. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
