Graves v. Haden
| Docket Number: | 2009-CA-01082-COA Linked Case(s): 2009-CA-01082-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-29-2010 Opinion Author: Lee, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Modification of custody - Material change in circumstances - Albright factors Judge(s) Concurring: Myers, P.J., Irving, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Carlton, J. Concurs in Result Only: King, C.J., and Griffis, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CUSTODY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-30-2009 Appealed from: Lamar County Chancery Court Judge: James H.C. Thomas, Jr. Disposition: MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY GRANTED Case Number: 2006-0034-GN-TH |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Tracy Graves |
MICHAEL ADELMAN |
|
|
| Appellee: | Michael Haden | SHEILA HAVARD SMALLWOOD | ||
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 - Material change in circumstances - Albright factors |
| Summary of the Facts: | Tracy Graves and Michael Haden are the biological parents of K.H. An agreed order was entered giving primary physical custody of K.H. to Tracy. Michael later filed a motion for contempt against Tracy, alleging that she had denied him visitation rights. Michael also sought a modification of custody. The chancellor reversed the previous custody order, and Michael was granted physical custody of K.H. Tracy was granted visitation rights and ordered to pay $175 per month in child support. Tracy appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | When seeking to modify custody of a child, a non-custodial party must prove that there has been a substantial change in circumstances affecting the child; the change adversely affects the child’s welfare; and a change in custody is in the best interest of the child. Michael specifically argued that the following reasons warranted a change in custody: Tracy had moved several times since the original custody order, including moving to Texas, and she was cohabiting with a man that was not her husband, along with her two other children, her sister, and her sister’s three children. The chancellor agreed with Michael. The chancellor found that since K.H. was born, Michael has gotten married and demonstrated a more stable lifestyle, while Tracy’s lifestyle has become more unstable. Considering the totality of the circumstances, K.H.’s best interest will be served by modifying the custody arrangement. The circumstances have changed such that Michael can provide a better and more stable home environment. Tracy also argues that the chancellor erred in considering the Albright factors when there was no material change in circumstances. The chancellor properly addressed the Albright factors in determining whether a change of custody was in K.H.’s best interest. The chancellor found all but two of the Albright factors to be neutral. He found one of the remaining two factors to weigh in favor of Tracy and one to favor Michael. The chancellor found that the continuity of care clearly favored Tracy because she was K.H.’s sole caretaker for the first year of his life, and she continued to have primary physical custody after Michael was adjudicated to be the father. The stability of the home environment and employment responsibilities were found to favor Michael. The chancellor’s ultimate consideration was the best interest of the child. The chancellor did not err in making this determination. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
