Court: Court of Appeals of Mississippi; June 3, 2003; Mississippi; State Appellate Court
Juanita Joy McKenzie and Terry Joe McKenzie were married in 1987 and had two children before separating in 1995 and divorcing in 1996, with joint legal custody awarded to both and physical custody to Juanita. In January 2001, Terry petitioned to modify the custody arrangement, claiming a substantial change in circumstances warranted transferring custody to him. Juanita countered with a request for increased child support. During the trial in May 2001, the chancellor acknowledged a material change justifying an increase in child support but deferred the custody decision. On August 27, 2001, custody was awarded to Terry, leading Juanita to appeal on multiple grounds, including the absence of a substantial change in circumstances, the best interests of the children, and procedural issues regarding the lack of a guardian ad litem and allowing children to testify.
The court assesses the intertwined issues of material change, best interest of the children, and burden of proof, emphasizing the limited standard of review for chancellor decisions, which can only be overturned if manifestly wrong or legally erroneous. A material change adversely affecting a child's welfare must be demonstrated by the moving party, followed by evidence that the child's best interest necessitates custody modification. The Mississippi Supreme Court has clarified that only parental behavior posing a clear danger to a child's mental or emotional health justifies a custody change. The chancellor concluded that a material change affecting the children's needs had occurred, considering financial aspects and the children's age, and conducted an analysis of the Albright factors pertinent to their best interest.
Terry petitioned for a custody modification citing his increased income, the children spending time at Juanita’s boyfriend’s house unsupervised, and occasional bruising on the children since the divorce. However, he failed to provide evidence of any adverse impact on the children's well-being. Witnesses described the children as well-adjusted and performing well academically. Child psychologist Paul Davey testified that the children rated their mother more favorably than their father on most scales. During cross-examination, he expressed that he did not believe there had been a material change in circumstances, clarifying that sporadic bruising was insufficient for such a claim.
Joanna and Terrence testified separately, with Joanna initially denying having bruises but later acknowledging them. She expressed love for her mother and contentment with the current custody arrangement. Terrence indicated a preference for living with his father, noting that Juanita was the stricter parent during the week, while weekends with Terry were more enjoyable.
The court found the chancellor erred in determining that custody should change, as Terry did not provide convincing evidence of a decline in Joanna's situation affecting the children. The court clarified that a child's preference alone does not constitute a material change in circumstances that justifies custody modification. Consequently, the court reversed the chancellor's decision and deemed the issues regarding the appointment of a guardian ad litem and the children's testimonies moot. The case was remanded for the chancellor to reconsider custody modification, particularly concerning child support payments. The judgment of the Lawrence County Chancery Court is reversed and remanded for further proceedings, with costs of the appeal taxed to the appellee.
