Solomon v. Robertson
| Docket Number: | 2007-CA-00169-COA Linked Case(s): 2007-CA-00169-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-15-2008 Opinion Author: LEE, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Grandparent visitation - Section 93-16-3(1) - Attorney’s fees - Motion to dismiss defendant Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., MYERS, P.J., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS Non Participating Judge(s): CARLTON, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-02-2007 Appealed from: MARION COUNTY CHANCERY COURT Judge: Johnny Lee Williams Disposition: CHANCELLOR AWARDED VISITATION TO GRANDPARENT Case Number: 2006-0189-G-W |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | LANEDRA TUSHONE BOYD SOLOMON AND TIM SOLOMON |
GARLAND D. UPTON |
||
| Appellee: | BARBARA ANN ROBERTSON | JOHN GORDON ROACH |
|
|
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: | Grandparent visitation - Section 93-16-3(1) - Attorney’s fees - Motion to dismiss defendant |
| Summary of the Facts: | Lanedra Boyd and Joseph Boyd were divorced, and the mother was awarded primary physical custody of the couple’s only child. Lanedra subsequently remarried. Barbara Ann Robertson, the paternal grandmother of the child, filed a petition in the Marion County Chancery Court seeking visitation rights. The chancellor granted Robertson visitation rights and ordered Lanedra to pay Robertson $750 plus court costs. The chancellor denied Lanedra’s motion for attorney’s fees. Lanedra appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Grandparent visitation According to section 93-16-3(1), either parent of the child’s parents who was not awarded custody may petition the court and seek visitation rights with such child. Although a grandparent has standing to petition for visitation, a natural grandparent’s statutory right to visit her grandchild is not as comprehensive as a parent’s visitation rights. As always, the best interests of the child are the paramount consideration when determining visitation. Lanedra’s argument on this issue mainly concerns her frustration with Boyd and his failure to comply with certain obligations as agreed to at the time of divorce which has nothing to do with whether the chancellor erred in granting visitation rights to Robertson. Lanedra also argues that there was no viable relationship between Robertson and the child for six months prior to the filing of the petition. The chancellor determined that it was in the best interest of the child to have visitation with Robertson. There was no error committed by the chancellor in granting grandparent visitation rights to Robertson under section 93-16-3(1). Issue 2: Attorney’s fees Lanedra argues that the chancellor erred in denying her request for attorney’s fees, because she is entitled to attorney’s fees under section 93-16-3(4). Although Lanedra did file a motion prior to trial asking for attorney’s fees, she offered no proof, either in the motion or during trial, tending to show any financial hardship. Therefore, there was no error in the chancellor’s decision to deny attorney’s fees. Issue 3: Motion to dismiss defendant Lanedra argues that the chancellor erred in denying her motion to dismiss her present husband as a defendant in Robertson’s petition for visitation rights. There was no error in allowing her husband to remain a defendant in the case. He himself testified that he helped his wife oppose Robertson’s visitation, as well as actively participating in any other custody-related matters. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
