S.S. v. S.H.
| Docket Number: | 2008-CA-02051-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-28-2010 Opinion Author: Barnes, J. Holding: Reversed and rendered. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Termination of child support - Clean hands doctrine Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Griffis, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-17-2008 Appealed from: Covington County Chancery Court Judge: J. Larry Buffington Disposition: ENTERED AN ORDER TERMINATING CHILD SUPPORT Case Number: 95-038 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | S. S. |
DAVID SHOEMAKE |
||
| Appellee: | S. H. | PRO SE |
|
|
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: | Termination of child support - Clean hands doctrine |
| Summary of the Facts: | The parties, Smith and Howard, divorced in 1995 when their minor child was two years old. In 2002, Howard was indicted for sexual battery against the child. An order passing the cause to the inactive files was entered in 2005, citing that a material witness was discredited and that Howard was concerned that taking the matter to trial would cause physical and mental damage to the child. Howard agreed to have no contact with the minor child until the age of majority, and he would not attempt to exercise any visitation rights with the minor child. In 2007, the minor child filed a motion to change her surname from Howard to Smith. The motion was joined by her mother. Howard contested the motion. The motion was granted. On May 7, 2008, nunc pro tunc to April 17, 2008, the chancery court entered an order terminating child support. Smith appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The amount of money that the noncustodial parent is required to pay for the support of his minor children should not be determined by the amount of love the children show toward that parent. The actions to forfeit support must be clear and extreme. At the hearing on the change of name, the minor child in this case testified that she had not talked with her father and did not want to. She testified that she wanted “no contact with him whatsoever” and had “no desire to see him at all.” She also testified that she did not love her father and did not want to have anything to do with him. Although Howard was never convicted of the sexual battery of his daughter, her response does not seem to be so extreme as to warrant termination of Howard’s obligation for child support. The lack of visitation or contact by the father comes from the court order entered by the Forrest County Circuit Court, not any action taken by the child. Under the order, Howard was not to attempt to have any physical contact with his daughter while she was under the age of twenty-one and not to exercise any visitation right with her that he might have under the judgment or decree of divorce. At the time of the chancery court’s order terminating child support, Howard owed over $50,000 in child support and related expenses. The clean-hands doctrine prevents a complaining party from obtaining equitable relief in court when he is guilty of willful misconduct in the transaction at issue. The failure of Howard to pay or the chancery court to address the previously owed child support was error. Accordingly, the chancellor’s order denying relief is reversed and rendered. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
