Romans v. Fulgham
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-00873-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-10-2006 Opinion Author: Barnes, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Child custody - Legal standard Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving and Ishee, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Roberts, J. Dissenting Author : Griffis, J. Dissent Joined By : Southwick and Chandler, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CUSTODY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-16-2004 Appealed from: Lafayette County Chancery Court Judge: Edwin Hayes Roberts, Jr. Disposition: PRIMARY PHYSICAL CUSTODY OF CHILD AWARDED TO FATHER. Case Number: 2004-418 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Lisa Godin Romans |
MERRILL K. NORDSTROM |
||
| Appellee: | William Ryan Fulgham | CARRIE A. JOURDAN |
|
|
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 - Legal standard |
| Summary of the Facts: | William Fulgham was adjudicated the natural father of A.F., a child born out of wedlock to Lisa Romans. The paternity judgment ordered Fulgham to pay to Romans $100 per month in child support, but was silent as to custody. Fulgham filed a petition seeking primary physical custody of the child. The chancellor awarded Fulgham primary physical custody of the child, and awarded joint legal custody to both parents. Romans appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Romans argues that this matter should have been treated as a custody modification proceeding rather than an initial determination of custody. The appropriate legal standard to apply in custody actions dealing with an illegitimate child, when there has been no prior custody determination, is that found in divorce proceedings, which is the best interest of the child considering the Albright factors. While Romans concedes that the paternity judgment did not explicitly award her primary physical custody of the child, she argues that the chancery court implicitly awarded her primary physical custody of the child. Nothing in the record suggests that matters of custody were ever considered as part of the paternity proceedings or indicates that the Albright factors were employed by the court during the paternity proceeding. Therefore, the chancellor properly categorized the custody proceeding as an initial determination, rather than as a modification proceeding. In reaching his decision to award primary physical custody of the child to Fulgham, the chancellor made extensive findings on the record with regard to each of the Albright factors. The chancellor’s decision in this case is thus supported by substantial, credible evidence. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
