Griffith v. Pell
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-00532-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-CT-00532-SCT ; 2002-CT-00532-SCT ; 2002-CT-00532-SCT ; 2002-CT-00532-SCT ; 2002-CT-00532-SCT ; 2002-CT-00532-SCT ; 2002-CA-00532-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-02-2003 Opinion Author: Southwick, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Paternity - Purpose - Hearing transcript Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King, P.J., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers and Chandler, JJ. Dissenting Author : Griffis, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-12-2002 Appealed from: Warren County Chancery Court Judge: Jane R. Weathersby Disposition: PATERNITY DECLARED AND SUPPORT ORDER ENTERED Case Number: 00-072GN |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Joseph Griffith |
PATRICIA PETERSON SMITH |
||
| Appellee: | Sue Ann Pell | MARK W. PREWITT |
|
|
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: | Paternity - Purpose - Hearing transcript |
| Summary of the Facts: | Sue King became pregnant and told Robert Pell he was the child's father. When Stephanie Pell was born, Stephanie's ostensible parents married. About eighteen months later, Pell commenced divorce proceedings. Five years after telling Pell that she was pregnant with their child, Mrs. Pell brought a paternity action against Joseph Griffith, claiming he was actually the father of the child. The chancellor, relying solely on the blood test, ordered Griffith to pay child support. Griffith appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Paternity Griffith argues that the chancellor erred in refusing to hear testimony on any matter but child support and visitation, because an action in paternity is of wider scope than merely assigning fatherhood to the contributor of DNA and then ordering child support. He also argues that the wrong legal standard was applied when the child's best interest was not weighed. Current case law provides that paternity suits have limited purposes. Where scientific evidence points overwhelmingly towards one man as the father of a child, paternity is established, and the only matter left to resolve is that of support. In addition, the best interest of the child standard is to be applied when determining custody issues. Therefore, the court did not err. Issue 2: Hearing transcript Griffith argues that he was prejudiced when the court would not allow portions of the hearing to be recorded in the transcript where the chancellor allegedly informed the parties that she already knew how she would rule and would hear no testimony but that relating to Griffith's payment of child support, medical insurance, and whether he wanted visitation rights. A party claiming error from an omission in the record must demonstrate prejudice. Because the transcript shows that most of the statements Griffith claims were made off the record were also made on the record, Griffith cannot have been prejudiced since his counsel had the opportunity to argue his position. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
