Walley v. Pierce
| Docket Number: | 2010-CA-00409-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-CA-00409-COA ; 2010-CT-00409-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-19-2011 Opinion Author: Griffis, P.J. Holding: AFFIRMED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Grandparent visitation - Section 93-16-3(2) - Preference of parents Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Myers, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Russell, J. Dissenting Author : Irving, P.J. Concurs in Result Only: Carlton, J., concurs in result only without separate written opinion Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-04-2009 Appealed from: Greene County Chancery Court Judge: G. Charles Bordis, IV Disposition: GRANTED GRANDPARENT-VISITATION RIGHTS TO MATERNAL GRANDPARENTS Case Number: 2009-22RP |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Lori Lynn Walley and Christopher Blake Walley |
CHRISTOPHER DOUGLAS HENNIS |
|
|
| Appellee: | Kathy Lynn Pierce and Tony Curtis Pierce | JOSEPH EDGAR FILLINGANE | ||
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: | Grandparent visitation - Section 93-16-3(2) - Preference of parents |
| Summary of the Facts: | Lori Walley and Christopher Walley have three children. Kathy Pierce and Tony Pierce are the children’s maternal grandparents. The Walleys had been married for approximately eight years at the time of trial. From the time they were married until about a year before trial, the Walleys lived in a mobile home located on the Pierces’ property. Due to their close proximity, the Pierces shared a close relationship with the children and saw them on an almost daily basis. In 2008, there was a physical altercation between Lori and Blake’s mother and sister. In October 2008, the Walleys moved from the Pierces’ property and into a rental home because of tension within the family. After the move, the Walleys only allowed the Pierces to have visitation with the children at their home or while in their presence. The Pierces filed a petition for grandparent-visitation rights, alleging that the Walleys had unreasonably denied them visitation with their grandchildren. An agreed temporary order was entered that allowed the Pierces supervised visitation. The Pierces testified that, even though the Walleys said they were welcome to visit the children, they did not feel comfortable in the Walleys’ home. The Pierces believed that unsupervised visitation was required for them to maintain their close relationship with the children. The chancellor agreed and awarded unsupervised visitation to the Pierces. The Walleys appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | To award visitation to the Pierces under section 93-16-3(2), the chancellor was required to find that the Pierces had established a viable relationship with the children, and the Walleys had unreasonably denied the Pierces’ visitation rights with the children; and the visitation rights of the Pierces would be in the best interests of the children. The Walleys argue that the chancellor showed little regard for their wishes, despite finding that they were fit parents. The record, however, shows that the chancellor gave due consideration to the Walleys’ wishes. The chancellor weighed the concerns of the Walleys, and he found that their main reason for denying visitation was their spite resulting from tensions between Blake’s family and the Pierces. The chancellor noted that: it was agreed by all parties that the Pierces and the minor children loved one another; the Walleys complained of no failings on the part of the Pierces in regard to the children; and the Walleys’ concerns resulted from the presence of an unfenced swimming pool on the Pierces’ property and Kathy’s propensity to make derogatory comments that might be harmful to the children. There was no manifest error in the chancellor’s finding that the Walleys had unreasonably denied visitation to the Pierces and that such visitation was in the best interests of the children. The Walleys argue that the United States Supreme Court has recognized a presumption that fit parents act in the best interests of their children. Their allegation that the chancellor totally disregarded their preferences is not supported by the record. The chancellor clearly considered their arguments that visitation should be limited and supervised, and he found those arguments wanting. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
