Cantin v. Cantin
| Docket Number: | 2010-CA-00753-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-31-2012 Opinion Author: Barnes, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Modification of custody - Supervised visitation - Material change in circumstances Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell and Russell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Fair, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-31-2010 Appealed from: Warren County Chancery Court Judge: Vicki Barnes Disposition: DENIED MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY AND AWARDED INCREASE IN CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS Case Number: 2003-427GN |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | John Joseph Cantin |
W. RICHARD JOHNSON |
||
| Appellee: | Rebecca Cantin | WREN CARROLL WAY |
|
|
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: | Modification of custody - Supervised visitation - Material change in circumstances |
| Summary of the Facts: | John Joseph Cantin (Joseph) and Rebecca Cantin (Becky) were divorced in 2004. The chancery court awarded Becky primary physical custody of the couple’s daughter, who was two years old at the time, and child support. In 2009, Becky petitioned the chancery court for an increase in child support payments and requested that Joseph’s visitation be supervised. Joseph responded with a motion for contempt and request for a modification in primary physical custody. The chancery court denied Joseph’s motion and awarded Becky an increase in the child support payments. The chancellor also ordered supervision of Joseph’s visitation with his daughter for a period of six months. Joseph appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Supervised visitation Joseph argues that the chancellor’s order of supervised visitation based on testimony by a social worker was error, because the testimony was inaccurate and lacked credibility. Joseph’s argument regarding whether supervised visitation was warranted is moot as he was scheduled to receive unsupervised visitation beginning on June 1, 2011. Furthermore, the court did not err in admitting the testimony. At the time of the first hearing, the social worker had counseled and interacted with the couple’s daughter and her family for approximately one year. The testimony was reflective of the daughter’s confused feelings toward her father as a result of the divorce, his two subsequent marriages, and his work schedule, which requires him to be out of town for lengthy periods of time. Joseph also submits that the social worker’s close association with Becky tainted her testimony. However, it is not unusual that she had a better relationship with Becky, since Joseph essentially withdrew himself from the counseling process. Thus, this issue is without merit. Issue 2: Material change in circumstances For a request to modify custody to be successful, the non-custodial parent must show: a material change in circumstances has occurred since the issuance of the judgment or decree sought to be modified, the change adversely affects the welfare of the child, and the proposed change in custody would be in the best interest of the child. Joseph claims that Becky “is deceitful and purposely attempts to deny [him] his rightful visitation[.]” He also alleges that Becky has subjected their daughter to “negative influences and circumstances” and that the situation in her home is “dysfunctional, stressful, unstructured, and confusing.” Joseph refers to Becky’s need for counseling, the fact that she has had two aneurysms, and that she lives with her “boyfriend without the benefit of marriage.” In regard to Becky’s mental and physical health, the testimony shows that Becky was attending parenting classes to deal appropriately with her daughter’s emotional issues and ADHD. Becky also testified that she had only one aneurysm, not two, and her physician said it was not the product of a chronic issue. A parent’s relationships or indiscretions, standing alone, are not enough to constitute a material change in circumstances. At the time of the initial hearing, Becky had been in a relationship with her fiancé for approximately three years, and the couple had been engaged for approximately eighteen months. There was no testimony that the daughter had any problems related to the fiancé’s presence in the household. Since his divorce from Becky, Joseph had remarried twice and was in the process of divorcing his fourth wife. He also admitted that his last three wives had taken out temporary restraining orders against him. Only parental behavior that poses a clear danger to the child’s mental or emotional health can justify a custody change. Joseph has presented no evidence Becky failed to ensure the daughter’s health and safety. Thus, the chancery court’s denial of Joseph’s motion for modification of custody was not manifest error. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
