Christian v. Wheat
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-00388-SCT Linked Case(s): 2003-CA-00388 ; 2003-CA-00388 |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-01-2004 Opinion Author: Cobb, P.J. Holding: Reversed and Rendered |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Domestic relations - Visitation with child at prison - Best interest of child Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller, P.J., Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Dissenting Author : Graves, J. Concurs in Result Only: Easley, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-10-2003 Appealed from: Forrest County Chancery Court Judge: Sebe Dale, Jr. Disposition: Granted visitation to father of the minor child while incarcerated. Case Number: 02-0160-GNJ-D |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Toni Dae Anderson Christian |
PENNY JONES ALEXANDER |
||
| Appellee: | David Anthony Wheat | JOSEPH EDGAR FILLINGANE W. J. GAMBLE, III |
|
|
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: | Domestic relations - Visitation with child at prison - Best interest of child |
| Summary of the Facts: | David Wheat was adjudicated the natural father of Anthony Gabriel Wheat (Gabe) as the result of a Petition for Judgment of Filiation filed by Gabe’s mother, Toni Christian. The order of filiation awarded Christian full care, custody and control of Gabe, and held in abeyance and suspended all matters of visitation and child support until Wheat was released from the penitentiary. Three months later, Wheat filed petition for modification of visitation, and was granted monthly visitation at the penitentiary. Christian appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Christian argues that the chancellor did not consider the child’s best interest because there was no testimony introduced concerning the child’s best interest and no finding by the chancellor that the child’s best interest was even considered. A party seeking modification must show that a prior decree is not working and that a modification is in the best interests of the child. Wheat supplied no testimony concerning what would be in Gabe’s best interest. There was no showing that it would be advantageous in any way for Gabe to visit Wheat in prison. Christian, on the other hand, testified that Wheat was dangerous and that she was fearful of him. She also testified that Gabe was very young and impressionable, and she was concerned about Gabe being at the prison. The chancellor made no finding of what would be in the child’s best interest; he simply stated that he felt that the child is entitled to have an opportunity to know both parents. Because there was no proof that visitation would be in the child’s best interest, the chancellor’s judgment is reversed and rendered. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
