Brumfield v. Brumfield
| Docket Number: | 2008-CA-01944-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-30-2010 Opinion Author: Myers, P.J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Child custody - Statutory presumption - History of perpetuating family violence - Section 93-5-24(9)(a)(i) - Albright factors Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, P.J., Irving, Griffis, Ishee, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): King, C.J. Dissenting Author : Carlton, J., dissents with separate written opinion. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Barnes, J., concurs in part and in the result without separate written opinion. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CUSTODY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-05-2008 Appealed from: WALTHALL COUNTY CHANCERY COURT Judge: Debbra K. Halford Disposition: CUSTODY AWARDED TO FATHER Case Number: 2005-0216 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Heather M. Brumfield |
EDWIN L. BEAN, JR. |
|
|
| Appellee: | Alex Noah Brumfield | GARY L. HONEA | ||
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 - Statutory presumption - History of perpetuating family violence - Section 93-5-24(9)(a)(i) - Albright factors |
| Summary of the Facts: | Heather and Alex Brumfield were granted an irreconcilable differences divorce. Alex and Heather submitted the issues of property division and child custody to the chancellor. The chancellor awarded custody of the children to Alex and ordered Heather to pay child support. After Heather appealed on the custody issue, the Court of Appeals remanded the case to the chancellor for more detailed findings of fact on the Albright factors. The Court also asked the chancellor to determine whether the statutory presumption against granting custody to a parent with a “history of family violence” should have been enforced against Alex. On remand, the chancellor expanded on her original findings, specifically addressing each of the Albright factors. She reaffirmed her prior conclusion that it was in the children’s best interest to be placed in Alex’s custody. The chancellor also expressly found that the violent incident was isolated and that Alex did not have a history of perpetuating family violence, as defined by the statute. She found no presumption against granting Alex custody of the children. If this presumption had existed, the chancellor found it had been rebutted. Heather appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Statutory presumption Heather argues that the chancellor erred in finding that Alex did not have a history of perpetuating family violence, as defined by section 93-5-24(9)(a)(i), which defines a history of perpetuating family violence as either a pattern of family violence against a member of the household or a single incident of family violence that results in serious bodily injury. Heather testified about an incident that occurred on September 9, 2005, in which Alex grabbed Heather, dragged her outside, threw her to the ground, and hit her twice with a belt. The chancellor found Heather’s description of the September 2005 incident to be credible, but she concluded that it was an isolated incident insufficient to trigger the presumption. The chancellor noted that there was no testimony that Alex had hit Heather on any other occasion and that there was no suggestion that he had ever abused the children. At trial, Heather did testify that, after the separation, someone had beaten on her door and shined a flashlight into the windows of her home on “several occasions,” but she admitted that she “wasn’t sure” it had been Alex, apparently conceding that she had no evidence he was responsible. According to the statute, a single incident of domestic violence does not establish a history of family violence unless it results in “serious bodily injury.” The only physical injuries Heather described as resulting from the incident were relatively minor – scratches to her face – and she was uncertain exactly how they had occurred. Thus, the chancellor did not abuse her discretion in finding no “history of family violence” as defined by the statute and, consequently, no statutory presumption against awarding custody to Alex. Issue 2: Albright factors The best interest of the child is the polestar consideration in deciding which parent should receive primary custody, but the chancellor should consider the Albright factors to determine where the children’s best interest lies. On remand, the chancellor made detailed findings of fact on each factor. She concluded that all of the named Albright factors either favored Alex or did not favor either parent. The chancellor weighed this against the domestic violence incident, which she considered in the “other factors,” and concluded that it was in the children’s best interest to be placed in Alex’s custody. The decision as to where the children’s best interest lies is entrusted to the chancellor’s sound discretion, which cannot be disturbed absent a clear showing of an abuse of that discretion. In this case, the chancellor thoroughly considered the evidence offered on the Albright factors and her findings are supported by substantial evidence. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
