Easley v. Easley


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2011-CA-00035-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 06-05-2012
Opinion Author: Fair, J.
Holding: Reversed and Remanded

Additional Case Information: Topic: Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - Child custody - Joint custody - Section 93-5-24(2) - Best interest of child
Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Barnes, Ishee, Maxwell and Russell, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Roberts, J.
Concurs in Result Only: Carlton, J.
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CUSTODY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 11-08-2010
Appealed from: Calhoun County Chancery Court
Judge: Edwin Hayes Roberts, Jr.
Disposition: CUSTODY OF MINOR CHILDREN AWARDED TO HUSBAND
Case Number: 2010-065-R

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Beverly Griggs Easley




ELIZABETH FOX AUSBERN



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief

  • Appellee: Matthew Jason Easley PAUL M. MOORE 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 - Section 93-5-24(2) - Best interest of child

    Summary of the Facts: Matthew and Beverly Easley were granted an irreconcilable differences divorce. The chancellor ultimately awarded custody of the couple’s children to Matthew, with generous visitation for Beverly. Beverly appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: The chancellor concluded that joint custody would be best for the children but that section 93-5-24(2) did not allow it unless both parties had requested it in their consent. Section 93-5-24(2) states: “Joint custody may be awarded where irreconcilable differences is the ground for divorce, in the discretion of the court, upon application of both parents.” The Mississippi Supreme Court addressed the question of whether the statute requires the specific request of both parents in Crider v. Crider, 904 So. 2d 142 (Miss. 2005) and concluded that if joint custody is determined to be in the best interest of the child using the Albright factors, the parties should not be able to prohibit this by the wording of the consent. In this case, the chancellor undertook a full analysis of the Albright factors and found most factors neutral. The chancellor found joint custody to be in the children’s best interest. Both parents testified that weekly alternating custody had been working well. But when forced to choose between the parents, Matthew was granted custody because he was slightly favored by the Albright analysis. The chancellor erroneously concluded that joint custody could not be awarded, and it was error to deviate from the children’s best interest by giving sole custody to Matthew. On remand, the chancery court should consider the present circumstances as well as those existing at the time of its prior custody determination.


    Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court