Child Custody | The Better Chancery Practice Blog

THE INFORMAL CUSTODY ARRANGEMENT AND ITS IMPACT ON PERMANENT CUSTODY

September 26, 2011 § 3 Comments

I talked here before about the Varner case, which holds that a child-support-paying parent (the father in that case) who has a child come to live with him may receive a credit against unpaid child support for that de facto custodial time. In Varner, the mother had court-ordered custody, but the parties made a handshake deal for the child to go and live with the father for a time.

Taking a similar set of facts, would the father have a basis to ask the court to modify custody?

In Arnold v. Conwill, 562 So.2d 97 (Miss. 1990), the father had the son with him for 16 months because of the mother’s unsettled living situation. The mother had asked the father to take the boy until she could get settled. When she did get into a stable situation, she asked the father to return the child to her custody. When he refused, she picked the child up from school, enrolled him in a new school, and resumed full-time custody of the son. The father filed a modification action, and the chancellor granted him custody due to the 16-month period.

On appeal, the MSSC recited the familiar material change-adverse effect-best interest test for changing custody. Applying that test to the facts of the case, the court said (at 100):

“To her credit, when she fell upon hard times, appellant called the child’s father for help. The custody was temporarily interrupted because of conditions over which she had no control. When she stabilized the situation, she asked appellee to restore custody to her and he declined. The parties’ act, in temporarily modifying the decree, was not binding on the court. The only change in circumstances, upon which the appellant can rely, and which the court accepted, was the fact that the father had custody for sixteen moths while the appellant, the mother, had liberal visitation withh the child.

Simply, the facts of this case do not reflect a material change in the circumstances of the parties and the child, which adversely affected [the child], to the extent that his custody should be changed from appellant to appellee.”

A lot of water has flowed under the bridge in the 21 years since this case was decided, but I believe it is still good law for the above points, and it has never been overruled or criticized. There are, however, two wrinkles:

At page 100, there is this statement: “The courts do not favor separating siblings when their parents divorce.” That concept has been refined since then to provide that, although separation is not favored, there is no hard and fast rule about separation, but it is one of many factors to be considered by the court among the Albright factors for determination of best interest. See, for example, Kimbrough v. Kimbrough, decided by the COA May 3, 2011.
And on the same page is the statement that the facts of the case did not reflect material change-adverse effect-best interest, and “Neither did the motion so charge nor the chancellor so find.” As we’ve discussed before, the law now is that if you fail to plead the elements of custody modification, your case is subject to being dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

DISESTABLISHING PARENTAGE, STEP BY STEP

September 20, 2011 § 5 Comments

As I posted here before, the legislature has adopted a procedure to disestablish parentage (paternity) in light of Williams v. Williams, 843 So.2d 720 (Miss. 2003), and its progeny, which hold that a man who is determined by DNA testing not to be the father of a child should not continue to be responsible for the support of that child.

The new code section, MCA § 93-9-10, went into effect July 1, 2011. The very first sentence of the statute states that “This section establishes the circumstances under which a legal father may disestablish paternity and terminate child support when the father is not the biological father of the child.” In my opinion, this code section is now the exclusive remedy for a father in these circumstances. Any proceeding such as a petition to remove the father from the birth certificate, or a joint petition to disestablish paternity, or a modification pleading that does not meet the requirements of the statute will be ineffective.

You may well ask, “But if the father and mother agree, what is the harm? Why not simply approve their agreement?” First of all, there are the welfare and rights of the child to consider. See, Kelly v. Day, 965 So.2d 749 (Miss. App. 2007). And secondly, if the procedure is ineffective, the child will have a later cause of action for support, making the whole earlier procedure a waste of time.

Before I step through the statute with you, please let me urge you to read the statute. I swear, it won’t take more than five minutes. If you’re going to advise clients about this, you need to be familiar with what it says.

So here is the procedure, step by step (statutory requirements in bold, my comments in regular font):

The father must file a petition in the court having jurisdiction over the child support obligation. This means that if the county court, or chancery court in another county, has entered a child support order, the petition must be filed in that court.
Process and a copy of the petition must be served on the other parent or guardian; if DHS is or has been a party to the paternity action or collection of child support, the Attorney General of the State of Mississippi must be served with process. In my opinion, since this action is under the chapter dealing with parentage (bastardy), 30-day process would be required pursuant to MRCP 81 (d)(1).
The petition must include: (a) an affidavit executed by the petitioner that he or she (there is nothing in the statute that says that the mother is precluded from filing a petition) has newly-discovered evidence since the paternity determination relating to parentage of the child, and (b) the results of a genetic or other scientific parentage test administered within one year of the filing of the petition excluding the legal father as biological father of the child or an affidavit executed by the petitioner that he did not have access to the child for testing before the filing of the petition; in the latter case, the petitioner may request that the mother (if available), child and father submit to such testing.
The court shall grant the relief on a properly filed petition if the court finds all of the following: (a) There is newly-discovered evidence as averred; (b) the scientific testing was properly conducted; (c) the legal father has not adopted the child; (d) the child was not conceived by artificial insemination while the legal father and mother were married; (e) the legal father did not prevent the biological father from asserting his parental rights with respect to the child. I recommend that your petition include allegations (a) through (e). Your client is swearing that all of these statements are true, and you are vouching under MRCP 11 (a) that the pleading has “good ground to support it.” And make sure your client reads it before signing. He is swearing all of this is true, andd if he balks or hems and haws, you might want to think about going back to the drawing board.
The court shall not set aside the paternity determination or child support order if the court finds that the legal father did any of the following: (a) Married or cohabited with the mother and assumed parental obligation and support of the child after having knowledge that he was not the biological father; (b) consented to be named as father on the birth certificate or signed an acknowledgment of paternity and failed to withdraw within the time periods mandated by MCA §§ 93-9-9 and 93-9-28, unless he can prove fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact; (c) signed a stipulated agreement of paternity that has been approved by order of the court; (d) signed a stipulated agreement of support that has been approved by order of the court after having knowledge that he is not the biological father; (e) been named as legal father or ordered to pay support after he declined to undergo genetic testing; or (f) failed to appear for a genetic testing draw pursuant to a valid court order. Same advice here about incorporating these as allegations in your petition. Make your client swear that he has not done any of the foregoing. The rationale above applies here.
If the petitioner does not make the required showing, the court shall deny the petition.
Relief is limited to prospective (future) child support, past-due child support payments, termination of parental rights, custody and visitation. The statute does not create a cause of action to recover child support paid before filing of the petition. The statutory procedure can not be used to litigate previously-paid child support. It can be used to address past-due child support, parental rights, custody and visitation.
The court may not suspend the child support obligation while the petition is pending, although the court may order that such payments may be held by the court or DHS pending a final determination. My suggestion is to plead for the court or DHS to hold the child support funds pending litigation, if that is what your client wants. If you don’t specifically ask in your petition for that relief, you likely will not get it.
The party requesting genetic testing shall pay its fees. There is no provision in the statute for the court to tax the fees other than to the party who requests it.
The usual authority of the court on motion or its own motion to order the parties to submit to genetic testing applies.
The unsuccessful petitioner shall be assessed with court costs, genetic testing fees and reasonable attorney’s fees. Here’s the reason why I suggested above that you specifically plead all of those qualifying and possibly disqualifying facts and make your client read carefully before signing. Clients sometimes will lead you to believe that they have a case, and will omit some important detail, like the execution of that acknowledgment of paternity. They think they can pull a fast one on the court, or that it somehow will slip by unnoticed. The result of failure for the petitioner is being assessed with some significant expenses. The result for you is egg on your face and slipping a notch in the court’s regard of your own credibility.

This statute should go a long way toward eliminating the welter of approaches that lawyers have taken to address the disestablishment of paternity. Now there is a single statutory provision. Read the statute, follow it, and you might accomplish something for your client.

AUTOMATIC MODIFICATION OF CHILD CUSTODY

August 23, 2011 § 2 Comments

You are representing your client in an irreconcilable differences divorce, and the long-awaited PSA has arrived in the mail from counsel opposite. Here are the provisions dealing with custody:

(g) So as to insure a fit and proper environment for the rearing of the minor children, the parties agree that in the event there is a scintilla of evidence of unmarried sexual activity by wife where the minor children are residing or in the vicinity of the minor children, wife shall immediately forfeit and be divested of all custody rights with respect to the minor children, custody of the minor children thereupon automatically vesting in husband, subject only the right of wife to have reasonable visitation with the minor children at reasonable times and places.

(h) In furtherance of the concept of a “home base” hereinabove discussed, the parties agree that the children shall reside in the Columbus, Mississippi area. Wife agrees to give husband sixty (60) days advance written notice of any intended relocation. Unless both parties agree that the children may be removed from the Columbus, Mississippi area to this new location, wife shall be divested of custody of the minor children upon such relocation and custody shall thereupon be vested in husband subject to further orders of the Court. Wife shall have the right to reasonable visitation with the minor children at all reasonable times and places during this period until the matter is finally determined by the Court.

(i) During the portion of the year in which the children reside with wife, wife agrees to give husband advance notice of any trips she plans out of the town of Columbus, Mississippi and further agrees to limit any out of Columbus, Mississippi trips to not more than three nights and to provide husband with information regarding her destination and location so as to afford him a basis to communicate with her if necessary. Furthermore, during such out of town trips, husband, at his option, shall have the right to have custody of the minor children.

It looks pretty much like what your client has told you was her agreement. She and her soon-to-be ex want the children to have some stability, and she wants this divorce over so she can get on with her life. If that’s what her husband wants, she is willing to agree to it just to get this over with.

Subparagraph (g) would effect an immediate change in custody in the event that your client engaged in unmarried sexual activity “where the children are residing” or in their vicinity, and the burden of proof would be a “scintilla of evidence,” a humble standard by any measure.

Subparagraph (h) would create an automatic modification of custody if your client relocates from the Columbus, Mississippi, area.

Subparagraph (i) essentially provides that unless the father gives your client permission to take the children out of town for longer than tree nights, she must give him custody for the duration of such trips.

What is your advice to her?

Check out the case of McManus v. Howard, 569 So.2d 1213 (Miss. 1990). There, the parties had agreed to the very terms cited above, which were approved by the chancellor. Later, the mother sought either a modification or an MRCP 57 declaratory judgment that the agreement was unenforceable as to subparagraphs (h) and (i). It appears that neither party injected subparagraph (g) into the litigation, but one can speculate that it was a tactical decision by counsel to avoid an appearance of wanting to promote or condone inappropriate activity. The MSSC did not explain why it referenced the provision in its opinion.

The chancellor denied modification for the reason that the material change-adverse effect-best interest test had not been met. He denied declaratory judgment on the ground that the parties had contracted for the custodial arrangement, and their contractual agreement should be enforced.

In the MSSC opinion, Justice Blass wrote (at page 1216):

“Being given jurisdiction by Miss.Code Ann. 93-5-24(6) (Supp.1990) and the children being wards of the state, Tighe v. Moore, 246 Miss. 649, 666, 151 So.2d 910, 917 (1963) and there being an ample body of the case law for the guidance of the court, Arnold v. Conwill, 562 So.2d 97, 99 (Miss.1990); Rutledge v. Rutledge, 487 So.2d 218, 219 (Miss.1986), the court simply cannot surrender or subordinate its jurisdiction and authority as to the circumstances and conditions which will cause a change in custody. We hold such an Agreement to be void and contrary to public policy. We have recently considered a similar problem and have reached the same conclusion. Bell v. Bell, No. 89-1108 (Miss. Oct. 3, 1990). Accordingly, we reverse, and grant judgment here for the declaratory judgment as to later sub-paragraphs 2(h) and 2(i). No other matters were submitted to this Court by the appeal.

The Bell case cited by the court found unenforceable an agreement between the parties under which the children were required to live in Tupelo until majority, and the relocation of the custodial parent would trigger an automatic modification of custody. Bell v. Bell, 572 So.2d 841, 845 (Miss. 1990).

The MSSC in McManus held that subparagraphs (h) and (i) above were unenforceable and reversed the chancellor’s ruling. There was no mention of subparagraph (g), because it was not a part of the underlying suit and was not raised on appeal, but the court’s rationale would apply to it as well, in my opinion.

It was my experience as a practitioner that parties occasionally wanted to include similar provisions in their PSA’s. Our chancellors would not approve an agreement that included the language, and I so advised my clients.

NO UCCJEA ALLEGATIONS = NO JURISDICTION? NO.

August 18, 2011 § 3 Comments

Lawyers are all over the ballpark when it comes to the UCCJEA allegations required by MCA § 93-27-209. Some still use the old and now-repealed UCCJA provisions that have apparently fossilized in their computers. Some omit them entirely. Some use a hybrid. And some even plead the proper provisions.

What happens when you fail to plead the UCCJEA provisions either completely or inadequately? Does the court have jurisdiction?

The MSSC answered the question in White v. White, 26 So.3d 342, 346 (Miss. 2010), where the court said:

First, the chancery court’s jurisdiction is set by the Mississippi Constitution, and cannot be diminished by statute. See Miss. Const. art. VI, § 159. Second, the plain language of Section 93-27-209(2) provides that, in the event the required disclosures are not filed, the court may stay the proceeding.

This issue is not jurisdictional, was within the sound discretion of the chancellor, and this argument is without merit.

The court rejected the appellant’s reliance on Marr v. Adair, 841 So.2d 1195, 1202 (Miss. App. 2003), because that case was decided under the repealed UCCJA.

Remember that under White, although the recitation of the jurisdictional language is not mandatory for the court to exercise jurisdiction, you still have to prove that the court has jurisdiction under the UCCJEA. When the MSSC said that “This issue is not jurisdictional,” it was referring to the matter at hand, which was the sufficiency of the pleadings, and not to the substance of jurisdiction in the case. It’s an important distinction. See, Miller v. Mills, decided by the COA May 3, 2011; you can read a post about the case here.

I have had lawyers move to dismiss at the outset of trial for incomplete or missing UCCJEA affidavit. I always overrule that motion and offer a continuance for the purpose of filing one, but I’ve never had anyone take me up on it.

THE DISAPPEARANCE OF MARRIAGE

July 7, 2011 § 1 Comment

In its issue of June 25, 2011, The Economist offers some arresting insights into the state of marriage in our nation that bear reflection by lawyers and judges who deal with family issues. Some of the article’s points:

Married couples, for the first time, now make up less than half (45%) of all households.
In every state the numbers of unmarried couples, childless households and single-person households are growing faster than those comprised of married people with children, according to the 2010 census. Married couples with children comprised 43% of households in 1950; they now account for just 20%.
Traditional marriage has evolved over the past 50 years from a near-universal rite to a luxury for the educated and affluent. In 1960, only four percentage points separated the wedded ways of college and high-school graduates (76% versus 72%). The gap has since widened to 16 percentage points, according to the Pew Research Center. A Census Bureau analysis released this spring found that brides are significantly more likely to have a college degree than they were in the mid-1990s.
The divorce rate has been declining as the marriage rate has been declining. The National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville has studied the phenomena and concluded that both declines are due to the fact that marriages are becoming more and more selective. The project also found that divorce rates for couples with college degrees are only a third as high as for those with a high-school education.
Americans with a high-school diploma or less (who account for 58% of the population) tell researchers they would like to marry, but do not believe they can afford it. Instead, they raise children out of wedlock.
Only 6% of children born to college-educated mothers were born outside marriage, according to the National Marriage Project. That compares with 44% of babies born to mothers whose education ended with high school. “Less marriage means less income and more poverty,” reckons Isabel Sawhill, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. She and other researchers have linked as much as half of the income inequality in America to changes in family composition: single-parent families (mostly those with a high-school degree or less) are getting poorer while married couples (with educations and dual incomes) are increasingly well-off. “This is a striking gap that is not well understood by the public,” she says.

There are implications here that reach far beyond mere economic considerations. Are we witnessing the degeneration of the American Middle Class, with its credal optimism grounded in family, economic opportunity, improvement, education and hard work? The American mantra at least since the 1930’s has been that the next generation will be better off than this one, and so on and on to infinity; the data suggests that principle is dead or dying.

Single parents have less income at their disposal than do married couples living together. Single mothers often live at or near poverty level. Children raised in poverty or near poverty have fewer opportunities to better themselves, and are more likely to pass their accustomed way of life on to their children.

The negative impact on children of being fatherless has been well documented.

The sociology behind these developments is beyond the scope of this blog. It’s important, however, for us to be aware of the forces that affect the lives of those who pass through our courts.

ANOTHER UNSUCCESSFUL ASSAULT ON THE NATURAL PARENT PRESUMPTION

June 29, 2011 § 1 Comment

It is axiomatic that as between a natural parent and a third party, it is presumed that the best interest of the child will be preserved by being in the custody of the natural parent. Sellers v. Sellers, 638 So.2d 481, 486 (Miss. 1994). This natural parent presumption over third-party custody has been the subject of prior posts here and here.

In Vaughn v. Davis, 36 So.3d 1261 (Miss. 2010), the supreme court reversed a chancellor’s ruling that a temporary agreement to change custody was enough to overcome the presumption. In Wells v. Smith, decided May 31, 2011, by the COA, the appellate court rejected in loco parentis as a basis to overcome the presumption.

In Brown v. Hargrave, decided June 28, 2011, the COA rejected yet another assault on the presumption, this time based on the judge’s finding that the totality of the circumstances and the plaintiff’s long-term care of the child. Relying again on Vaughn v. Davis, the found that the trial judge applied an incorrect legal standard, and sent the case back to the chancellor for a rehearing to determine whether some other basis exists to overcome the presumption.

I’m going to take up for the chancellor in this one so as to make an important point. Chancellors are sometimes (too often I might add) confronted with a situation in which it is obvious that one party has no business with custody of the child, and that the child would be far better off with the other party. The problem is that the case is sloppily tried, points are not made in the record, evidence is not introduced, and the chancellor is left with having to do what he or she fervently believes to be in the best interest of the child without an adequate supporting record. The usual result is a remand, or, in some cases a rendered reversal.

If you don’t want to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, put on as strong a case of unfitness as you can muster. Put on proof of circumstances that are strong enough to rise to the level of abandonment. Make as strong a case as you can. If you leave the judge without much to hang his decision on, it may end up that your client is the unhappy one.

COMING TO GRIPS WITH McDONALD

June 20, 2011 § 7 Comments

I don’t think it’s an overstatement that the Mississippi Supreme Court’s decision in McDonald v. McDonald, 39 So.3d 868 (Miss. 2010), set chancery court practice vis a vis guardians ad litem (GAL) on its proverbial ear. And it’s not so much what McDonald held as what it hinted at.

Before McDonald, it was common practice to allow a GAL to investigate, file a report, and testify to the results and findings of the investigation, including hearsay, and make a recommendation. After all, most of what a GAL unearths is based on hearsay: the GAL interviews the children, neighbors, school teachers, parents, relatives, and reviews medical records and school records. In my experience most chancellors allowed the GAL to testify to the facts disclosed in the investigation, and I don’t recall anyone ever objecting to the hearsay. Most lawyers used the GAL’s report as a guide for what evidence would prove or disprove the case. It was a good system that allowed a qualified person as an arm of the court to look behind the positions of the warring parties and to pierce the veil of partisanship. I have observed on more than one occasion in contested child custody cases that the momma and dady are each zealously pursuing their own positions, but no one is looking out for the best interest of the children. The GAL’s role as arm of the court was a perfect complement to the chancellor’s role as superior guardian of the children. Frankly, it worked pretty well when a well-qualified and diligent GAL was involved. When the GAL proved to be less than diligent, the chancellor was free to discount or even disregard the findings and recommendations.

Enter McDonald. In that case, the mother in a child custody modification case objected to the GAL’s oral testimony, ” … stating that if the teachers and others being quoted by the GAL had something to report, they should have been required to be there. The court responded that
GALs are allowed by “historical practice” to offer hearsay testimony, and overruled the objection. ” McDonald at 884.

The Supreme Court disagreed and pointed out without expressly holding that a GAL’s oral hearsay testimony should be excluded. Justice Dickinson’s specially concurring opinion was even more blunt when he stated that MRE 1 expressly states that the evidentiary rules do apply in chancery court. End of dicussion for him.

The court did not extend its hearsay proscription to GAL written reports, however. The following language, beginning on page 882, is instructive:

“Jennifer argues that the GAL exceeded the proper role of a GAL by offering hearsay testimony, as well as taking ‘on a role as a litigant/expert’ by providing a written report to the court, making recommendations, discussing the views of the court-appointed counselor, filing a motion, testifying, examining witnesses, and meeting ex-parte with the chancellor. Other than offering hearsay testimony as discussed below, the GAL was simply following the provisions of the GAL statute and the pronouncements of this Court. This Court dealt recently with a similar issue in S.G. v. D.C., 13 So.3d 269 (Miss.2009), an opinion handed down after the briefs were filed in this appeal. The S.G. Court stated the following regarding the proper role of a GAL:

[A] guardian ad litem appointed to investigate and report to the court is obligated to investigate the allegations before the court, process the information found, report all material information to the court, and (if requested) make a recommendation. However, the guardian ad litem should make recommendations only after providing the court with all material information which weighs on the issue to be decided by the court, including information which does not support the recommendation. The court must be provided all material information the guardian ad litem reviewed in order to make the recommendation. Recommendations of a guardian ad litem must never substitute for the duty of a chancellor. Id. at 282.

The GAL in the case sub judice did not offer the type of testimony criticized in S.G. See id. at 274 n. 5. This GAL reported on matters required by her appointment, and consistent with a GAL’s duties as outlined in S.G. Id. at 282.

The statute’s provision that a GAL “shall have the duty to protect the interest of a child for whom he [or she] has been appointed guardian ad litem. The guardian ad litem shall investigate, make recommendations to the court or enter reports as necessary to hold paramount the child’s best interest,” is consistent with the traditional roles required of a GAL, which predate the enactment of the statutes. Miss.Code Ann. § 43-21-121(3) (Rev.2009). In In the Interest of D.K.L., 652 So.2d 184 (Miss.1995), this Court held that a GAL had failed in his duties by simply deferring to a therapist’s recommendations, and not submitting his own recommendation as to the best interests of a child. Id. at 188. The D.K.L. Court stated that the GAL ‘did not have an option to perform or not perform, rather he had an affirmative duty to zealously represent the child’s best interest.’ Id. In In the Interest of R.D., 658 So.2d 1378 (Miss.1995), this Court held that “children are best served by the presence of a vigorous advocate free to investigate, consult with [the children] at length, marshal evidence, and to subpoena and cross-examine witnesses.” Id. at 1383 (quoting Shainwald v. Shainwald, 302 S.C. 453, 395 S.E.2d 441, 444 (S.C.Ct.App.1990)). See also M.J.S.H.S. v. Yalobusha County Dep’t of Human Serv. ex rel. McDaniel, 782 So.2d 737, 740-42 (Miss.2001)(GAL failed in his duty by relying on DHS records and the recommendations of a therapist and social worker). In D.J.L. v. Bolivar County Department of Human Services ex rel. McDaniel, 824 So.2d 617 (Miss.2002), this Court found no error in a GAL’s cross-examination of witnesses. Id. at 622. The Court also ’emphatically proclaim[ed] to the bench and bar that … the guardian must submit a written report to the court during the hearing, or testify and thereby become available for cross-examination by the natural parent.’ Id. at 623. Therefore, the GAL would have been derelict in her duty to zealously represent the boys’ best interests if she had failed to interview the boys, consider the opinions of experts, marshal evidence, make an independent recommendation, question witnesses, submit reports, and make herself available for cross-examination.

The chancellor did not allow the GAL to usurp his role as the “ultimate finder of fact.” Id. The chancellor heard all witnesses, read all the
reports, and made his own decision based upon independent findings of fact. Thus, we find this portion of Jennifer’s argument to be without merit.”

Footnote 7 on page 884 states:

“Hearsay testimony should not to be confused with a GAL’s written reports, which sometimes, by their very nature, will include statements, which, if offered into evidence at trial to prove the truth of the matter asserted, would be inadmissible hearsay, unless they qualify under one of the exceptions to the rule against hearsay. Any such inadmissible hearsay, however, would not require exclusion of the entire report. This issue is not before the Court this day.”

I have heard reactions to McDonald that just about cover the ball park. One chancellor has said that he and the other judge in his district no longer appoint GAL’s unless they are required by statute because they feel that McDonald has rendered the GAL role ineffective and superfluous. I have heard chancellors confess that they don’t have any idea where to go post McDonald when it comes to GAL’s. And GAL’s have come to me and said they are now quite confused as to what they can and can not do.

The GAL system is far too valuable to chancery court to be relegated to the trash heap. At least for the time being, chancery court maintains its historical distinction from circuit in that the chancellor has a high duty to act in the best interest of a child, and to have a greater role at trial than to be a mere referee blowing the whistle and throwing penalty flags for hearsay transgressions; the chancellor’s duty is to ensure that the best interest of a child is protected, even when the parties themselves do not do so. The GAL has for many years given the chancellor a practical, effective way to meet his or her responsibility.

So how do we reconcile McDonald with the traditional role of the GAL? I think it comes down to the following for the party who will make positive use of the GAL recommendations:

Plan to qualify and tender the GAL as an expert. Ask the court at the outset of trial for leave to allow the GAL to remain in the court room in her role as an expert, if the rule is invoked.
Call every witness identified in the GAL report to establish the substantive facts that support the GAL’s recommendations, and, of course any other witnesses you feel that you need to call.
Finally, call the GAL as an expert witness and offer her report into evidence. She should qualify as an expert because of her legal training and experience, plus the fact that every GAL now must undergo special training and maintain certification. And as for her testimony, remember that, under MRE 703, “The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to him before the hearing. If of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence.” Moreover, with all of the factual evidence already in the record, the GAL is free to comment on it.

But, you say, this will result in more cumbersome, longer and more expensive trials in custody actions with GAL’s. You are certainly right, but that is what the supreme court is directing us to do.

My understanding is that the GAL in McDonald was qualified as an expert. The opinion in McDonald did not explain why Rule 703 was not an adequate basis for her hearsay testimony that ” … need not be admissible in evidence.” So until the MSSC takes another shot at the issue, I interpret McDonald to mean that the GAL may include hearsay in his report, and may testify to it NOT to establish the truth of the matter asserted, but to establish the basis for his recommendations. In other words, you will have to call the witnesses and have them testify, and put the documents, photos and records in via competent testimony if you want or need those facts to be established in the record.

For now that is the way I will approach McDonald.

SOME RANDOM THOUGHTS ON VISITATION

June 7, 2011 § Leave a comment

The visitation awarded to the non-custodial parent should be such as will foster a positive and harmonious relationship between parent and child. Wood v. Wood, 579 So.2d 1271, 1273 (Miss. 1991).
The chancellor has broad discretion in fashioning visitation, keeping in mind the best interest of the child, the rights of the non-custodial parent, and the need to maintain a healthy, loving relationship between the non-custodial parent and the child. Harrington v. Harrington, 648 So.2d 543, 545 (Miss. 1994).
The chancellor should specify the terms for visitation. Lauro v. Lauro, 924 So.2d 584, 591 (Miss. 2006). The visitation rights should be defined and fixed so as to avoid chaos. Brown v. Gillespie, 465 So.2d 1046, 1049 (Miss. 1985).
Overnight visitation is the rule, not the exception. Cox v. Moulds, 490 So.2d 866, 870 (Miss. 1986). The non-custodial parent is presumptively entitled during reasonable times to overnight visitation with the child. Harrington at 545.
The chancellor may place restrictions on visitation in circumstances where there is “an appreciable danger of hazard cognizble in our law.” Newsom v. Newsom, 557 So.2d 511, 517 (Miss. 1990). Any restriction must be shown to be necessary to avoid harm to the child. Dunn v. Dunn, 609 So.2d 1277, 1286 (Miss. 1992); Harrington, at 545; and Howell v. Turnage (Miss. App. 2011), at ¶ 16. A post discussing Howell v. Turnage is here.
In order to modify visitation, all that needs to be shown is that the prior order for visitation is not working, and that modification is in the best interest of the children. Suess v. Suess, 718 So.2d 1126, 1130 (Miss. App. 1998).

IN LOCO PARENTIS TAKES ANOTHER HIT

June 6, 2011 § Leave a comment

In the COA case of Wells v. Smith, decided May 31, 2011, the appellate court was again confronted with a painful reality that chancellors are seeing more and more frequently: the situation where a child is raised by the grandparents because one or both of the natural parents has chosen to be absent from the child’s life, and the natural parent awakens one day to assert his or her parental rights.

In this most recent case, Tara Wells had given birth to a son, Jason, out of wedlock in 2003. Robert Johnson was Jason’s natural father. Tara and Jason lived with her mother, Sarah Smith, and her husband, William, for a time after the birth while she attended college. Tara’s college education spanned three years, and her time spent with Jason tapered off the longer she was in school. In April, 2006, Tara and Robert were married, and they moved to Washington, DC, where Robert was stationed with the military. Tara took Jason with her to live in DC, but returned him to live with the Smiths a short time later. After three months of marriage, Tara and Robert separated. Tara stayed in the DC area and Jason split time between there and Mississippi until November, 2006, when he returned to Mississippi for good.

In May, 2007, Tara signed over medical guardianship of Jason to the Smiths. Tara’s contact with Jason grew less and less. She allowed Jason to live with the Smiths, never asking to take him to live with her. In the meantime, Robert Johnson had been incarcerated in Virginia. In June, 2008, the Smiths filed pleadings in Mississippi seeking permanent custody of Jason. On October 1, 2008, they filed a petition for adoption and termination of Tara’s and Robert’s parental rights.

In December, 2008, Tara began living with another man, Neil Baker, and they were engaged in March, 2009, despite the fact that Tara was still married to Robert Johnson. Tara and Neil moved to Arizona. She was financially dependent on Neil, and he had never met Jason.

Also in December, 2008, Robert Johnson joined in the Smiths’ pleading for custody and consented to their being granted custody; he also consented to and joined in the petition for adoption.

In April, 2009, the court appointed a GAL. The GAL report recommended that the child stay with the Smiths. The GAL report, as well as the weight of proof at trial, established that the Smiths were the only mother and father Jason had ever known, and that their home was the only home he had ever had.

The chancellor relied on the doctrine of in loco parentis, in part on the GAL’s recommendation, to overcome the natural parent presumption and to find, applying the Albright factors, that Jason’s best interest would best be served by staying with the Smiths rather than his mother.

On appeal, the court analogized the case to the recent supreme court decision in Vaughn v. Davis, 36 So.3d 1261 (Miss. 2010), in which the court reversed and remanded for the chancellor to determine whether the father had relinquished the natural-parent presumption for reasons other than forfeiture by agreeing to a temporary custody order. The supreme court did not want to extend Grant v. Martin, 757 So.2d 264, 266 (Miss. 2000), which held that a parent’s agreement to a guardianship or custody judgment in a third party does create a forfeiture of the natural-parent presumption, to temporary orders, and wanted the chancellor to evaluate the proof to determine whether there was some other basis upon which to proceed.

The Vaughn decision pointed out the case of In re Leverock, 23 So.3d 424 (Miss. 2009), in which the natural father was found to have deserted his child by avoiding his moral and legal duties and parental obligations for in excess of two years.

The COA said in Wells:

“Although Vaughn was a case where the chancery court improperly found relinquishment of the natural-parent presumption due to the signing of a temporary custody order, it is analogous to this case. Here, the chancellor improperly relied on the doctrine of in loco parentis to find that the natural-parent presumption had been relinquished. We have been able to find no precedent for using that doctrine to overcome the natural-parent presumption. However, given the similarity of the facts in this case to Leverock and Vaughn, this case should be remanded to the chancery court to determine whether Tara deserted Jason, thus relinquishing her right to the natural-parent presumption. On remand, the chancery court should consider Jason’s circumstances at the time of remand.” [Emphasis added]

As in Davis, then, the Wells court directed the chancellor to find a basis other than the one he originally asserted as a basis to accomplish the best interest of the child. In Wells, the rejected basis was in loco parentis. I would guess that the definition of desertion to be applied by the trial judge will be MCA § 93-15-103(3).

The bottom line is that if you’re still barking up the in loco parentis tree, you are barking up the wrong tree. It simply won’t form the basis to overcome the presumption in favor of the natural parent. You’ll have to find another way to go in these very difficult, gut-wrenching cases.

CREDITING “UNPAID” CHILD SUPPORT

June 1, 2011 § 2 Comments

Lawyers and the courts are often called upon to clean up the mess made by the parties when they make a handshake deal to modify a judgment. Here’s a fairly common setting …

The custodial mom and son aren’t getting along. The child is a rebellious teenager who is not interested in school. He has fallen in with the wrong crowd and appears headed for trouble. Non-custodial dad agrees for the child to come live with him to finish out the school year and get him straightened out. Junior lives with dad for 10 months, does better in school, gets his head right, and returns to live with mom. During the 10 months Junior was with his father, dad did not pay the $300 a month child support ordered by the court in the divorce judgment. As soon as Junior returns home, mom files a contempt action against dad, wanting her $3,000 in child support arrearage, plus interest and attorney’s fees.

Mom claims that the law of Mississippi is that the court can not enforce a modification by the parties, and that if dad had wanted to be relieved of child support he should have gotten a court order.

Dad points to the fact that he supported the child 100% during the 10 months Junior was with him, and the money would be an unjust enrichment for mom.

Who’s right?

In the case of Varner v. Varner, 588 So.2d 428, 434 (Miss. 1991), the parties had three children with a “global” child support obligation of $600. One of the children came to live with the father for a number of years. The court said:

The law remains firm that court-ordered child support payments vest in the child as they accrue and may not thereafter be modified or forgiven, only paid. But this does not mean that equity may not at times suggest ex post facto approval of extra-judicial adjustments in the manner and form in which payments have been made.

The court went on to find that the father had, indeed, made the child support payments ordered by the court for Junior’s benefit. He just did not make the payments to the mom. The court cited the case of Alexander v. Alexander, 494 So.2d 365, 368 (Miss. 1986), quoting it as follows:

If we affirm the chamcellor’s back award of child support to Mrs. Alexander, we will create a situation of unjust enrichment in Mrs. Alexander. This is true because nduring the entire period of time for which Mrs. Alexander claimed support Mr. Alexander had the child in his custody, was supporting the child, and furthermore, was paying the child the $200 a month child support called for by the decree.

Under these circumstances Mrs. Alexander would have no claim to the back child support except to accept it as a conduit to pass directly to the child or back to Mrs. Alexander for the use and benefit of the child. We consider this a vain and foolish act. In our opinion, when the custodial parent received full child support during the time she had custody of the child, did not complain when the child moved in with the other parent, and accepted this arrangement for 20 months with the child support being paid directly to the child, the parent paying the child support is entitled to full credit for all child support paid to the child. He is also entitled to [credit for] any additional support which he has evinced by satisfactory proof to the trial court.

The court went on to say that the father may receive credit for having paid child support where the child lived with him for a time and he paid the support directly to, or for the benefit of, the child. The effect of Varner is that the paying parent is granted a pro rata credit for child support. In Varner (at page 434), that meant that the father received a $200 a month credit against his “global” child support obligation of $600 a month for three children; in other words, since 1/3 of the children lived with him for a time, he is entitled to a pro rata reduction of 1/3.

The decision also includes the familiar admonishment that parties who modify a court judgment without court approval do so at their peril, and they encouraged parties to obtain a judgment incorporating their agreement before embarking on it.

A similar issue arose in Dorr v. Dorr, 797 So. 2d 1008, 1012-1015 (Miss. App. 2001), in which Houston Dorr was ordered to pay child support to his former wife, Susanne Dorr. In return, Houston was given the right to claim the child as a dependent for tax purposes. Houston failed to make consistent child-support payments from 1985 to 1994. In 1988, Houston and Susanne made an extra-judicial agreement whereby Houston relinquished his right to claim the child as a dependent for tax purposes. Susanne claimed the tax exemption from 1988 through 1994 and received a $4,300 tax benefit from doing so. Then, in 1998, Susanne filed suit against Houston for the back child support. The COA found that, although the chancellor had no authority to enforce the extra-judicial agreement, the chancellor erred by not giving Houston credit for giving up his right to the exemption. The court held:

In our view, this financial benefit to [Susanne] for the child’s benefit, though not directly derived from [Houston]’s own income, in equity ought to be considered as a credit towards [Houston]’s recurring child support obligations accruing during the same period, much in the same manner that such indirect payments as social security payments to dependent children derived through the efforts of the obligee have been allowed as credit toward child support. See , e.g., Bradley v. Holmes, 561 So. 2d 1034, 1035 (Miss. 1990).

Dorr was followed in the COA case of Potts v. Windham, decided March 1, 2011, at ¶ 8. The trial court had denied credit to the father for the amount of the mother’s income tax refund because his income was such that he would not have paid any income taxes had he filed, whether or not he claimed the child as a dependent. In reversing, the COA noted that the mother had realized a $4,300 credit by claiming the child, and that the benefit to her, not to the father, was the relevant yardstick to determine whether there would be unjust enrichment.

In the Bolton v. Bolton, decided May 24, 2011, by the COA, at ¶ 47, the following language appears:

Courts award child-support to the custodial parent for the benefit and protection of the child. Smith v. Smith, 20 So. 3d 670, 674 (¶13) (Miss. 2009). “Such benefits belong to the child, and the custodial parent has a fiduciary duty to hold them for the use of the child.” Id. “The law remains firm that court-ordered child-support payments vest in the child as they accrue and may not thereafter be modified or forgiven, only paid.” Id. “But this does not mean that equity may not at times suggest ex post facto approval of extra judicial adjustments in the manner and form in which support payments have been made.” Id. “The noncustodial parent may be entitled to credit for any additional support which he/she has evinced by satisfactory proof to the trial court.” Id.

In Bolton, the parties had resumed cohabitation after the divorce for a time, and the father was given credit for around $10,000 in payments that he was able to prove he had made for the benefit of the child during the time that the parties lived together. The credit reduced his arrearage in child support from around $14,000 to around $4,000.

To sum it up, your client may just be entitled to some credit for payments made for the benefit of the child in lieu of child support. The result appears to rely on a situation where there is either an actual live-in situation or an actual intended exchange of value in place of child support. Don’t expect your client, though, to get credit for birthday presents, new shoes, school supplies, or toys purchased in the ordinary course of being a non-custodial parent.

Where Am I?