 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Beasley v. Scott4/19/2005
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 04/19/2005
PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTS
. On May 7, 1999, Victoria Scott was born to Katrina Scott. At times prior to and after Victoria's birth, Karl Beasley was notified that he could be Victoria's father. In February 2001, Katrina filed a complaint for paternity in the Lee County Chancery Court and, after DNA testing, it was determined that Karl was in fact Victoria's father. On October 15, 2002, Karl filed a complaint for child custody and emergency relief. On November 22, 2002, the chancellor adopted the parties' agreement, namely that Katrina be awarded temporary primary physical custody and that Karl be awarded reasonable visitation.
The chancellor also stated that all other issues in Karl's complaint be held in abeyance until further order.
. Katrina filed a counter-petition for child custody on May 7, 2003, asking inter alia for sole primary legal and physical custody of Victoria. Another order was entered on June 4, 2003, which set forth additional visitation for Karl and which also stated that all other issues in Karl's complaint be held in abeyance until further order. A hearing on the matter was held December 4, 2003, and a final decree was signed nunc pro tunc on January 20, 2004. In the final order, the chancellor awarded Katrina custody of Victoria, set visitation, and awarded child support to Katrina. Karl now appeals to this Court asserting that the chancellor erred in awarding physical custody of Victoria to Katrina and in ruling that Karl was precluded from contesting permanent physical custody as a result of entering into an agreed order which awarded temporary custody to Katrina. Finding no error, we affirm.
DISCUSSION OF ISSUES
I. DID THE CHANCELLOR ERR IN AWARDING PRIMARY PHYSICAL CUSTODY OF VICTORIA TO KATRINA?
. In this issue, Karl argues that the proof presented during the trial fails to support the chancellor's findings as to the Albright factors. The standard of review in child custody cases is similar to the standard in all domestic relations cases. A reversal is proper if the chancellor is manifestly in error or has applied an erroneous legal standard. Williams v. Williams, 656 So. 2d 325, 330 (Miss. 1995). Appellate courts need only to determine if the chancellor's decision was supported by credible evidence. Lee v. Lee, 798 So. 2d 1284 ( ) (Miss. 2001).
. It is well settled that in child custody cases, the polestar consideration is the best interest of the child. Albright v. Albright, 437 So. 2d 1003, 1005 (Miss. 1983). The factors used to determine what is in the "best interests" of a child with regard to custody are: (1) age, health and sex of the child; (2) determination of the parent that had the continuity of care prior to the separation; (3) which parent has the best parenting skills and which has the willingness and capacity to provide primary child care; (4) the employment of the parent and responsibilities of that employment; (5) physical and mental health and age of the parents; (6) emotional ties of the parent and child; (7) moral fitness of the parents; (8) the home, school and community record of the child; (9) the preference of the child at the age sufficient to express a preference by law; (10) stability of home environment and employment of each parent; and (11) other factors relevant to the parent-child relationship. Id.
. However, an appellate court must find a chancellor in error where the chancellor improperly considers and applies the Albright factors. Hollon v. Hollon, 784 So. 2d 943 ( ) (Miss. 2001). In determining whether the chancellor abused his d
Page 1 2 3 4 Mississippi DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|