Weeks v. Weeks
| Docket Number: | 2006-CA-01265-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-CA-01265-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-29-2008 Opinion Author: CARLTON, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - Albright factors - Authentication of report - M.R.E. 901 - M.R.E. 902 Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CUSTODY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-08-2006 Appealed from: SUNFLOWER COUNTY CHANCERY COURT Judge: Jane R. Weathersby Disposition: DIVORCE GRANTED ON GROUNDS OF IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES AND CUSTODY OF MINOR CHILDREN AWARDED TO FATHER Case Number: 2005-0412 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | IN THE MATTER OF THE DISSOLUTION OF THE MARRIAGE OF: ORA JACKSON WEEKS |
ALSEE MCDANIEL |
|
|
| Appellee: | MONTRIEL WEEKS, SR. | BENNIE L. RICHARD | ||
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 - Albright factors - Authentication of report - M.R.E. 901 - M.R.E. 902 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Ora Jackson Weeks and Montriel Weeks, Sr. were granted a divorce based on irreconcilable differences. The chancellor gave Montriel custody of the couple’s two minor children. Ora was granted weekend and holiday visitation and was ordered to pay child support in the amount of $300 per month. Ora appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Albright factors Ora argues that the chancellor put too much weight on the moral fitness factor in her Albright analysis and that the chancellor disregarded evidence presented under remaining factors, thereby impermissibly sanctioning her for adultery. The polestar consideration in custody matters is the best interest of the child, not marital fault. In this case, after applying the Albright factors, the chancellor determined that Montriel could provide a more stable and healthy home environment, including household routine, composition of the household and the stability of relationships within the home and with the other household members. The chancellor, in her findings of fact and conclusions of law listed each of the Albright factors, then stated that she had carefully considered the applicable factors and determined that Montriel was the better parent. Although the chancellor did not discuss each of the Albright factors at length, it is clear from the record that she considered each applicable factor. Further, there is evidence in the record related to each factor that supports her ruling. Ora claims that the chancellor, in stating that she would not penalize Montriel for not having a job, sanctioned her for adultery while rewarding Montriel for being unemployed. The chancellor found that Montriel was working to complete his college education and making efforts to find employment upon graduation. Ora’s argument that the chancellor disregarded evidence under this factor is without merit. The chancellor considered that Montriel’s family owned a daycare facility, which the children could attend while Montriel attended school. The chancellor found that Montriel could provide a more stable home environment, and the existence of extended family to help him with the children and the availability of day care weighed in his favor. Ora argues that the chancellor disregarded evidence that Montriel was not morally fit to have custody of the children. The chancellor found that Montriel was more capable of providing a stable and healthy home environment. Ora’s assertion that the chancellor disregarded evidence is without merit. Issue 2: Authentication of report The chancellor allowed a report of Ora’s boyfriend’s prior criminal history into evidence. Ora argues that the “priors report” was not properly authenticated as required by M.R.E. 901 and that the report does not meet the requirements of a self-authenticated document under M.R.E. 902. The report was not printed on any official letterhead of the police department and bore no other seal or attestation that it was an official document. The officer who testified regarding the report of prior incidents had not generated it and was not certain who had generated it or how the records were kept. Thus, it did not meet the requirements of M.R.E. 901. However, its admission constitutes harmless error. Even without the prior incident reports on the boyfriend, the chancellor had evidence regarding his violent behavior and the environment in Ora’s home. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
