Marshall v. Harris
| Docket Number: | 2006-CA-01930-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-CA-01930-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-06-2008 Opinion Author: CHANDLER, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Child custody - Visitation Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, BARNES AND CARLTON, JJ. Judge(s) Concurring Separately: Griffis, J., specially concurs with separate written opinion, joined by Chandler, Ishee and Roberts, JJ. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Roberts, J. without separate written opinion. Concurs in Result Only: Ishee, J., concurs in result only without separate written opinion. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CUSTODY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-03-2006 Appealed from: Claiborne County Chancery Court Judge: George Ward Disposition: CUSTODY OF TWO MINOR CHILDREN AWARDED TO MOTHER Case Number: 2006-0096GN |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | DEMETRI MARSHALL |
JESSIE L. EVANS |
||
| Appellee: | LIKITHA HARRIS | MELVIN HURLEY MCFATTER |
|
|
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: | Child custody - Visitation |
| Summary of the Facts: | : The Claiborne County Chancery Court entered an order declaring Demetri Marshall to be the natural father of the two minor male children, M.M. and O.M. The chancellor granted custody of both children to their mother, Likitha Harris, and ordered Marshall to pay child support of $1,000 per month along with medical benefits. Marshall received visitation every other weekend, holidays, and the entire month of July. Marshall appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Separate custody Marshall argues that the chancellor erred by failing to grant separate custody of the two minor children. The polestar consideration in a child custody case is the best interest of the child. In the absence of some unusual and compelling circumstance dictating otherwise, it is not in the best interest of children to be separated. Here, the chancellor considered each of the Albright factors in awarding custody of both children to Harris. The chancellor found the best interests of the two boys would be to remain together in the care of their mother. Harris had a more forgiving work schedule and a stable home environment that did not require her to constantly travel. M.M. was doing well in school, and Harris was the parent who had taken care of the boys since they were born. There was no error with the chancellor’s ruling. His decision to award custody of both children to Harris was supported by substantial credible evidence. Issue 2: Visitation Marshall argues that the chancellor’s ruling on visitation was in error because it had the effect of reducing the amount of time he could spend with M.M. to an amount of time less than what he spent with them before the order. As with the determination of custody, the chancellor must award visitation based on what is in the best interest of the child. Here, the chancellor’s visitation order is not in error. The chancellor never stated he was granting liberal visitation, and the summer visitation he granted to Marshall was for the entire month of July, as Marshall requested. Furthermore, the chancellor granted Marshall an additional seven days of visitation at the end of each year to celebrate Kwanzaa with his children. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
