Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

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

This action began as a paternity and custody dispute between Concetter and James Wilson. James was adjudged to be Sha’Nyla Wilson's natural father. Concetter was awarded custody, and James was awarded visitation. Concetter died in 2011. When Concetter’s relatives would not return "Sha" to James, he filed a petition for modification and sought sole legal and physical custody of Sha. The chancellor entered an order that awarded the primary physical custody of Sha to Pearlean Davis, Sha’s maternal grandmother. The chancellor also awarded James liberal visitation. In the decision, the chancellor did not treat the issue as an initial custody dispute between a natural parent and grandparent. Instead, the chancellor considered the motion as a modification of child custody based on the prior custody determination between Concetter and James. The chancery court found that the natural parent presumption was rebutted, and, further, that the best interests of the child were served by remaining in the physical custody of the grandmother, while allowing the father liberal visitation. Because the evidence was insufficient to rebut the natural parent presumption, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Wilson v. Davis" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Mississippi Supreme Court's review centered on the validity of a 1995 Florida divorce decree. Sarath Sapukotana (Sarath) and Palihawadanage Ramya Chandralatha Fernando (Fernando) were married in Sri Lanka in 1992. Sarath moved to the United States a year later. In 1995, a Florida court entered an uncontested divorce decree, dissolving the marriage of Sarath and Fernando. In 2004, Sarath then married Martha Gay Weaver Sapukotana (Martha) in Mississippi. Sarath died intestate in 2008 from injuries which led to a wrongful death suit. The trial court granted Martha’s petition to be named the administratrix of the estate, over the objection of Fernando, Sarath’s first wife. This allowed Martha to file, and later to settle, the wrongful death claim. Fernando claims that the 1995 Florida divorce decree was fraudulent and void for lack of service of process, and that she instead was the rightful beneficiary to Sarath’s estate and to the proceeds of the wrongful death action. Fernando filed a motion to vacate the chancery court’s decision to appoint Martha as administratrix of Sarath’s estate. The chancery court dismissed Fernando’s motion and held that Martha was the rightful beneficiary to Sarath’s estate. Fernando appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the chancery court, finding that the chancery court lacked authority to vacate the 1995 Florida divorce decree. View "In Re: In the Matter of the Estate of Sarath Sapukotana" on Justia Law

The parties to this case cited irreconcilable differences as grounds for their divorce. One appealed the chancellor’s award of child support and the equitable distribution of marital property. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court found the chancellor’s award of child support was supported by the evidence, and affirmed in that respect. But because the chancellor’s property distribution rested on several factual findings unsupported by the evidence at trial, the case was reversed and remanded for a new property distribution. View "Burnham v. Burnham" on Justia Law