White v. White
| Docket Number: | 2009-CA-01701-COA Linked Case(s): 2009-CA-01701-COA ; 2009-CT-01701-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-28-2011 Opinion Author: Irving, P.J. Holding: AFFIRMED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - Child custody - Albright factors Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Griffis, P.J., Myers, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Russell, J. Dissenting Author : Carlton, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-18-2009 Appealed from: Alcorn County Chancery Court Judge: John L. Hatcher Disposition: AWARDED PRIMARY PHYSICAL CUSTODY OF MINOR CHILDREN TO THE FATHER Case Number: 2008-0295-02-H |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Anna White |
AMY D. SALING |
|
|
| Appellee: | John White | RICHARD SHANE MCLAUGHLIN NICOLE H. MCLAUGHLIN | ||
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: | Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - Child custody - Albright factors |
| Summary of the Facts: | John and Anna White filed a consent to divorce on the ground of irreconcilable differences but left the following issues for the chancellor to decide: custody of the children, visitation rights, restrictions to be placed upon contact with the paternal grandparents, determination of marital property and division of property, debts, child support, medical insurance for the children, alimony, and attorney’s fees. The chancellor entered a judgment awarding John primary physical custody of the children, finding that such was in the children’s best interests. Anna appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The polestar consideration in child custody cases is the best interest and welfare of the child. Chancellors making custody decisions must consider the age of the child; the health and sex of the child; the continuity of care prior to the separation; parenting skills and willingness to provide primary childcare; employment and responsibilities of employment; physical and mental health and age of the parents; emotional ties of parent and child; moral fitness of parents; the home, school, and community record of the child; the preference of the child; stability of the home environment and employment of each parent; and other factors relevant to the parent-child relationship. In this case, substantial evidence undergirds the chancellor’s decision. As to the Albright factors, the chancellor found that the age of the children, the continuity of care prior to separation, the emotional ties of parent and child, and the preference expressed by the children favored neither parent. However, the chancellor concluded that the well-being of the couple’s daughter had been negatively impacted by sexual-abuse allegations against John’s father, and, therefore, the factor regarding the health of the children slightly favored John. As to parenting skills and willingness to provide childcare, the chancellor found that Anna’s pursuit of the sexual-abuse allegations and unwillingness to allow the children to participate in extracurricular activities had had a negative impact, and, therefore, this factor also favored John. The chancellor found that the employment of the parents favored John as well, because he was employed and had expressed a willingness to modify his employment to allow more time with the children. The chancellor found that the physical health of the parties favored John due to Anna’s “significant physical limitations, . . . being crippled from the waist down and legally blind.” The chancellor found that the moral fitness of the parents slightly favored Anna, as she had taken the children to church. As to the home, school, and community record of the children, the chancellor noted that the children had performed well in Tennessee, but Anna’s inability and unwillingness to allow the children to participate in extracurricular activities caused that factor to favor John slightly. The chancellor found that John had been steady in his employment and place of residence, while Anna was unemployed and living in a home “clearly above her financial means.” The record shows that the chancellor carefully considered each of the Albright factors before determining that John should have custody of the minor children, and there is no reason to overturn the chancellor’s judgment. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
