Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Sean Edwards and Reanna Zyla never married, but had two children together. They lived in Arizona, and in 2010, an Arizona court entered an order establishing the parties’ custodial rights and visitation: joint legal and physical custody. Edwards and Zyla lived together on and off while in Arizona until 2013, when they moved to Mississippi. The issue this case presented for the Mississippi Supreme Court’s review centered on the application of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). Specifically, the issue was whether the Warren County Chancery Court erred in deciding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear a custody dispute between Edwards and Zyla. After review, the Supreme Court affirmed the chancery court’s judgment, reversed the county court’s registration of the Arizona custody modification and remanded this matter for the county court to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. View "Edwards v. Zyla" on Justia Law

This was the second appeal of the equitable distribution of assets of Howard Carney III and Andrea Bell Carney by the Chancery Court of Warren County. In the first appeal, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the chancellor manifestly had erred by awarding 100% of the equity in the marital home to the wife without explanation for the award. On remand, the chancellor reweighed the applicable "Ferguson" factors and again awarded 100% of the equity in the marital domicile to Andrea Carney. Howard appealed. Under the deferential standard of review applicable to the decisions of the chancery court, the Supreme Court found that the chancellor’s equitable distribution on remand was not manifestly wrong or clearly erroneous. Therefore, the judgment was affirmed. View "Carney v. Carney" on Justia Law

During a family counseling meeting, Rachel accused David of molesting their daughter. The Harrison County Department of Human Services (“DHS”) and the Biloxi Police Department investigated the alleged abuse. As part of the investigation, the South Central Mississippi Child Advocacy Center conducted a forensic interview of the couple's daughter "Samantha." During this interview, Samantha made no mention of abuse. And ultimately, neither DHS nor the Biloxi police sought criminal charges or youth-court action against David. Still, Rachel filed her complaint for divorce from David on August 31, 2011, and she continued to claim he had sexually abused their daughter. When sexual-abuse allegations are raised in a child-custody case, a guardian ad litem (GAL) must be appointed to represent the child’s best interest. Here, the appointed GAL made visitation recommendations but was not asked to make a custody recommendation. The chancellor addressed this issue on his own. Upon review of this case, the Supreme Court found the fact that the chancellor made an independent custody assessment was not made in error. Furthermore, there was no error in the chancellor’s ultimate custody decision, evidentiary rulings, and award of costs to the husband. The Supreme Court found however, the chancellor should have explained why he rejected the GAL’s recommendation that the minor children be assessed and counseled. This omission was harmless error and did not require reversal. The Supreme Court affirmed the chancellor's decision. View "Smith v. Smith" on Justia Law

In this case, the issue the appellant raised for further review was the contention that the chancellor erred in awarding a child-support judgment to her son, who was a nonparty to this case. This issue was never raised in the chancery court case at trial or in post-trial motions. As a result, the issue was not properly before the Supreme Court and thus barred from further review. View "Taylor v. Taylor" on Justia Law

In this case, the natural mother schemed to give away her child without the natural father's consent by falsely claiming in a sworn consent and joinder and in sworn testimony at the adoption proceedings, that she didn't know the child's natural father. The deception caused the court to grant an adoption to a third party based on false, material representations. The natural father discovered the deception and filed a petition to set aside the adoption. The chancellor heard the "independent action" to set aside a "judgment based on fraud." The adoptive parents moved to dismiss the natural father's petition, attacking the father's standing to bring such an action. The chancellor denied the adoptive parents' motion, and finding no error in that denial, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Doe v. Smith" on Justia Law

Patrick Heiter sought to terminate or reduce his alimony obligation. He argued the chancellor erred in finding that he had failed to prove a material change in circumstances since his divorce from Lindalyn Heiter that would justify termination or modification of alimony. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Heiter v. Heiter" on Justia Law

Propst Pittman filed a complaint for divorce against Ty Pittman on the grounds of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. After the presentation of Propst’s evidence, Ty moved for a dismissal under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 41. The chancery court found insufficient evidence to grant the divorce, and thus granted the motion to dismiss. Because the chancery court applied an erroneous legal standard, the Supreme Court reversed the judgments of the Panola County Chancery Court and the Court of Appeals and remanded this case for further proceedings. View "Pittman v. Pittman" on Justia Law

Three and a half years after his divorce was final, Dr. Chad Wigington filed a complaint to reopen. He alleged that the divorce settlement agreement between him and his ex-wife, Dr. Laura McCalop, was procedurally and substantively unconscionable and specifically requested that the chancellor modify the child support and visitation provisions. After trial, the chancellor issued an opinion and order in which he declined to set aside the divorce settlement agreement, including the child support provisions, but in which he established a procedure by which Chad and the couple’s minor child, L.P., might be reunited and begin a father-child relationship. Chad appealed the chancellor’s decision to uphold the divorce settlement agreement provisions. Laura cross-appealed the chancellor’s order to modify the visitation arrangement. The Supreme Court dismissed these appeals and remanded, finding that because the chancellor retained jurisdiction to supervise the reunification process and to revisit the case in six months for further review, the order and opinion did not constitute a final, appealable judgment. View "Wigington v. McCalop" on Justia Law

The Hinds County Youth Court found that three-year-old J.T. had been sexually abused by her father, based on a statement she made which could describe either sexual abuse or innocent contact between a father and daughter. Because the State produced no evidence to show that the child’s facially ambiguous statement described abuse, and because the youth-court judge openly and admittedly disregarded the Mississippi Rules of Evidence throughout the adjudication, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "In the Interest of: J.T." on Justia Law

In July 2006, John Blakeney and his wife Wanda were arrested for the murders of Willie Earl and Anita Kitchens, Wanda’s biological grandparents and legal parents. John confessed to the murders when he was arrested. John, Wanda, and their minor children A.B. and C.B. lived with Willie Earl and Anita at the time of the murders. According to John’s confession, Wanda decided to kill Willie Earl and Anita after getting into a dispute with them over money she owed them. Since John’s and Wanda’s arrests, A.B. and C.B. lived with Carolyn McRee and her husband Don McRee. Carolyn McRee was Wanda’s biological mother and Willie Earl’s and Anita’s biological daughter. John and Wanda had not seen their children since their arrests. John appealed a Chancery Court decision to grant Don and Carolyn McRee’s petition to adopt his minor children and terminating his parental rights. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Blakeney v. McRee" on Justia Law