Jackson v. Jackson
| Docket Number: | 2010-CA-00849-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-CA-00849-COA ; 2010-CT-00849-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-06-2011 Opinion Author: Myers, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - Child custody - Joint custody - Albright factors Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell and Russell, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-12-2010 Appealed from: Union County Chancery Court Judge: John A. Hatcher Disposition: GRANTED DIVORCE AND AWARDED JOINT CUSTODY OF CHILDREN Case Number: CV2008-000182-73H |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Clifford Nolan Jackson |
JOE M. DAVIS |
|
|
| Appellee: | Charity Lynn Jackson | LUTHER PUTNAM CRULL JR. | ||
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 - Joint custody - Albright factors |
| Summary of the Facts: | Cliff and Charity Jackson agreed to an irreconcilable differences divorce but left the issue of child custody to the chancery court. Both parents sought physical custody of the children, but each also asked the court to consider joint custody in the alternative. After a trial, the chancellor awarded joint custody, with physical custody to alternate between the parents at two-week intervals. Cliff appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The polestar consideration in child custody cases is the best interest and welfare of the child. When evaluating the fitness of each parent, the chancellor considers age, health, and sex of the children; continuity of care; parenting skills and the willingness and capacity to provide primary child care; employment responsibilities of the parents; physical and mental health and age of the parents; moral fitness of the parents; emotional ties of the parents and children; home, school, and community records of the children; preference of a child at the age sufficient to express a preference by law; stability of the home environment and employment of each parent; and other relevant factors in the parent-child relationship. The chancellor undertook an extensive Albright analysis, finding most factors neutral. Cliff was favored on continuity of care, since he had primary custody of the children after the separation, while Charity was favored because both of the children are female. Overall, the chancellor concluded that both parents were fit and that the Albright factors did not strongly favor one over the other. Based on the specific circumstances of the case, the chancellor determined that joint custody was in the children’s best interests. Cliff argues that Charity should not have been favored based solely on the sex of the children. Cliff also argues he should have been favored on the factors of parenting skills and moral fitness because of Charity’s admitted post-separation adultery. Finally, he contends that the chancellor failed to give proper weight to the greater availability of his extended family and the fact that Charity’s work schedule only allowed her to take the children to church every other Sunday and Wednesday. Cliff’s argument appears to be based on the mistaken assumption that joint custody cannot be awarded if more of the Albright factors favor him, however slightly. From the record it appears that both parents are fit to care for the children. Cliff is a self-employed brick mason, while Charity is a registered nurse. Both are generally healthy and have stable employment and work histories. Cliff stayed in the marital home, while Charity bought a nearby house after the separation. Both parents have cared for the children, are able and willing to continue to do so, and appear to have generally exercised good judgment in child-rearing decisions. Although Charity did admit to post-separation adultery, she was careful to keep it from the children. The joint custody order will allow the children to maintain close relationships to both sides of their extended family. The sex of the children is also a legitimate factor for the chancellor to consider. Both of the Jacksons’ children are female. Even if both parents are fit, joint custody should not be awarded where it is impractical or burdensome to the children. Distance is not an issue in this case. An award of joint custody also requires that the parents are willing and able to cooperate in sharing custody. On this issue, the record is somewhat mixed. The chancellor appears to have been satisfied that the Jacksons were willing and able to cooperate and make joint custody work for their children. There was no abuse of the chancellor’s discretion in awarding joint custody. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
