Blakely v. Blakely
| Docket Number: | 2010-CA-01948-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-15-2012 Opinion Author: Fair, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - Child support - Child custody - Relationship of parent and child Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Maxwell and Russell, JJ. Dissenting Author : Carlton, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-17-2010 Appealed from: Grenada County Chancery Court Judge: Vicki Cobb Disposition: DIVORCE GRANTED; CUSTODY OF CHILDREN AND SUPPORT DETERMINED Case Number: 08-10-236VC |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | George Curtis Blakely, Jr. |
KENT E. SMITH |
|
|
| Appellee: | Teena Lynnette Williams Blakely | 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 support - Child custody - Relationship of parent and child |
| Summary of the Facts: | George and Teena Blakely were granted an irreconcilable differences divorce. George received custody of the couple’s daughter by agreement, while the chancery court awarded custody of the couple’s son to Teena after a trial. George appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Child support George argues that the chancellor should have awarded him child support and college expenses for his daughter. Support for the daughter was not clearly addressed by the property settlement agreement, nor was it expressly submitted to the chancery court for determination. The only agreed issues were that George would get custody of the daughter and that each party would be responsible for half of the children’s medical expenses. The record shows that the daughter was nearly nineteen years of age at the time of trial. She was attending college and lived on campus, though she would stay with George on weekends. She had a scholarship that paid for her tuition, housing, and food expenses. She was also employed part time, and testimony indicated that she had paid for some of the cost her books, though she received an allowance from George. Nonetheless, the chancellor addressed support and education expenses for the daughter in her judgment, and neither of the parties has argued the issue of waiver or attacked the adequacy and sufficiency of the consent agreement. The chancellor held that the daughter’s course of conduct toward her mother warranted a denial of child support and college expenses. It was uncontested that the daughter and her mother had a strained relationship even before the separation. After the separation, the daughter refused to visit her mother and generally refused to communicate with her. She rebuffed any attempts at reconciliation, refusing to return phone calls or text messages, and she had refused Teena’s gift for her high school graduation. The chancellor acted within her discretion in denying child support and educational expenses for the daughter. Issue 2: Child custody George argues that the chancellor should have awarded custody of the son to him. In determining the best interest of the child in custody disputes, it is the duty of the court to consider that the relationship of parent and child is for the benefit of the child, not the parent. The chancellor is required to address each of the Albright factors that is applicable to the case before her. In this case, the chancellor found that most of the Albright factors did not strongly favor either parent. Teena possessed superior parenting skills and capacity, had employment that was more conducive to custody, and had provided most of the care for the child prior to separation. George had stronger emotional ties to the son, but the chancellor was concerned that George had used them to alienate the son from his mother. The chancellor was convinced that George could not put the son’s best interest above his anger at Teena. She concluded that placing the son in Teena’s custody would facilitate a healthier relationship with both parents. The chancellor’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
