Webb v. Webb


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2006-CA-01701-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 02-05-2008
Opinion Author: LEE, P.J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Divorce - Child custody
Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., MYERS, P.J., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ.
Judge(s) Concurring Separately: Carlton, J., concurs with separate written opinion, joined by King, C.J., Irving, Griffis, Barnes and Ishee, JJ.
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 08-31-2006
Appealed from: Calhoun County Chancery Court
Judge: Glenn Alderson
Disposition: DIVORCE GRANTED ON GROUND OF ADULTERY AND CUSTODY OF CHILD AWARDED TO FATHER
Case Number: 2006-082(A)

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: LORENA T. WEBB




H.R. GARNER



 

Appellee: JEFFERY R. WEBB JASON D. HERRING  

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 - Child custody

Summary of the Facts: Lorena and Jeffery Webb were granted a divorce in September 2006, and custody of the couple’s son was awarded to Jeffery. Lorena appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: The factors used to determine what is in the best interest of a child with regard to custody are the age, health, and sex of the child; a determination of the parent who had the continuity of care prior to the separation; which parent has the best parenting skills and which has the willingness and capacity to provide primary child care; the employment of the parents and responsibilities of that employment; the physical and mental health and age of the parents; the emotional ties of the parent and child; moral fitness of the parents; the home, school, and community record of the child; the preference of the child at the age sufficient to express a preference by law; the stability of home environment and employment of each parent; and other factors relevant to the parent-child relationship. Lorena questions the chancellor’s ruling on the following factors which she believes weigh in her favor: the age, health, and sex of the child; continuity of care; employment responsibilities of the parents; moral fitness of the parents; and stability of the home environment and employment of each parent. At the time of trial, the couple’s child was a healthy eighteen-month-old boy. The chancellor found that both parents were fit to take care of their son and held that his age and sex did not weigh in favor of either parent. Since the tender years doctrine is only a presumption to be considered along with the other Albright factors, the chancellor’s conclusion on this issue does not rise to the level of manifest error. The parties do not dispute that for the first six months of their son’s life, Lorena was his primary caregiver. Because the record does not show that Lorena spent significantly more time with their son than Jeffery, the chancellor did not err in not favoring either party as to continuity of care. With regard to employment, the chancellor based his decision on Jeffery’s job stability and the fact that he worked close to home. Also, the chancellor noted that when Jeffery needed a sitter his parents were able to help and Lorena had to rely on a friend. The chancellor did not abuse his discretion in making this decision. With regard to moral fitness, the chancellor carefully considered the moral fitness of both parents and determined that it was in Brayden’s best interest for Jeffery to be given the advantage in this factor. The chancellor’s decision is supported by the record. Thus, Lorena’s argument that the chancellor improperly weighed the Albright factors is without merit.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court