Riley v. Riley
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-01838-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-05-2004 Opinion Author: Griffis, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Desertion - Modification of custody - Child support - Visitation Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges and Lee, P.JJ., Irving, Myers, Chandler and Barnes, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Ishee, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CUSTODY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-16-2003 Appealed from: Lauderdale County Chancery Court Judge: Sarah P. Springer Disposition: GRANTED DIVORCE AND AWARDED CUSTODY OF MINOR CHILDREN TO DAWNELL Case Number: 01-401-M |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Gary Anthony Riley |
LAWRENCE PRIMEAUX |
||
| Appellee: | Dawnell H. Riley | S BEAUCHAMP T JONES |
|
|
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: Desertion - Modification of custody - Child support - Visitation |
| Summary of the Facts: | Gary Riley was granted a divorce from Dawnell Riley on the ground of desertion. Dawnell was awarded custody of the couple's two minor children, along with child support. Gary appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Custody The chancellor’s separate maintenance order granted Dawnell custody of the children. Because the order was a final judgment that established custody of the children, Gary’s complaint contained a request that the chancellor consider a modification of custody. To modify an award of custody, the noncustodial parent must prove that a material change in circumstances has transpired since the issuance of the custody decree, this change adversely affects the child's welfare, and the child's best interests mandate a change in custody. Gary argues that a material change occurred because Dawnell did not let him see the children as often as he would like and because he could provide a more stable home environment for the children. Because Gary did not present any evidence of any material change of circumstances in the custodial home, the chancellor did not err in denying Gary's request to modify the original custody decree. Issue 2: Child support Gary argues that the court erred in denying his request to reduce his child support payments, because his gross pay has been reduced by $100 per month and there was an increase in his Social Security and Medicare withholdings and an increase in his life and health insurance premiums. Child support may be modified if there has been a material change in the circumstances of one or more of the interested parties since the entry of the original decree. In denying Gary's request to modify child support, the chancellor found that Dawnell had substantial expenses in raising the children. Her daycare expense alone required all except $10 of the child support, and Dawnell must still provide the necessities of food, clothing, and other related expenses. Therefore, the chancellor did not err in denying Gary’s request for a modification of his child support obligation. Issue 3: Visitation The court’s order required Gary to pick the children up from Dawnell's home and return them at the end of the visitation period. Gary argues that it would be better for the children if Dawnell provided some of the transportation because this would allow them to see their parents working together. The chancellor’s finding that there was no evidence to indicate that the current transportation provisions were not working is not error. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
