In the case of Wayne John Patout v. Laura J. Patout, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed a custody decision stemming from divorce proceedings initiated by Laura Patout on July 11, 1994. An initial order of temporary relief was mistakenly treated as final by Chancellor Kenneth B. Robertson, who later recused himself from the case. Chancellor William H. Meyers issued a final judgment on August 29, 1996, granting Wayne Patout a divorce due to Laura's adultery, while awarding custody of their two sons, Joshua and Jason, to Laura and distributing marital property.
Wayne Patout subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration on September 9, 1996, and a property settlement agreement was executed on March 14, 1997, leading to an amended judgment. Wayne Patout appealed the Chancery Court's decision, questioning the custody award to Laura and the court's failure to provide detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
The background reveals a tumultuous ten-year marriage marked by multiple divorce attempts, accusations of cruel and inhuman treatment by Laura, and claims of adultery by Wayne. Laura, aged 27 at the time of the proceedings and previously married with a daughter, and Wayne, aged 48 and with three prior marriages, had two sons together. Following their separation, the children predominantly resided with Laura, although she acknowledged frequently relying on friends and babysitters due to work commitments. Disputes arose regarding the care and upbringing of the boys and their emotional well-being, yet their academic performance suggested they were adjusting well in school. The court ultimately vacated the custody determination and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Custody of the minor children, Joshua and Jason Patout, is under review, with the standard requiring a chancellor's decision to be manifestly wrong, clearly erroneous, or based on an erroneous legal standard for reversal. The Albright factors guide custody determinations, emphasizing that age does not outweigh other considerations such as health, continuity of care, parenting skills, parental employment and responsibilities, physical and mental health, emotional ties, moral fitness, and home stability.
Mr. Patout challenges the chancellor’s decision, asserting that factors favoring him include the health of the children, continuity of care, parenting skills, and the stability of the home environment. He argues that Ms. Patout’s smoking has contributed to Joshua's respiratory issues, while she claims to have quit smoking. Regarding continuity of care, Mr. Patout states he was the primary caregiver for six months prior to the separation, while Ms. Patout insists she has been the primary caregiver since birth.
Both parties presented witnesses to testify about their parenting skills, with Mr. Patout alleging Ms. Patout’s negligence and poor housekeeping, while she defended her parenting abilities and claimed the necessity of occasional babysitters.
On physical and mental health, Mr. Patout cites Ms. Patout's depression medication and medical issues as detrimental to her caregiving, whereas he highlights his own heart condition. Concerning moral fitness, Mr. Patout accuses Ms. Patout of adultery and substance use, while she denies these allegations and accuses him of misrepresenting his income. Lastly, Mr. Patout claims Ms. Patout's unstable home environment is exacerbated by her erratic work schedule and her daughter’s behavioral issues, which include counseling and running away from home.
Underlying facts remain disputed, necessitating credibility assessments, which compels a review of the chancellor's obligation to document findings of fact and conclusions of law prior to addressing custody. The Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure allows any party to request the basis for a chancellor's ruling, specifically under Rule 52(a), which mandates the court to find facts and state conclusions of law when requested. Similarly, the Uniform Chancery Court Rules (Rule 4.01) stipulate that findings must be specially articulated upon request.
In *Lowery v. Lowery*, the court referenced the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, indicating that appellate courts may vacate and remand judgments when lower courts neglect to provide requested findings. However, appellate courts may resolve custody matters without requiring further findings if the facts are undisputed and no credibility issues exist.
In this case, Mr. Patout requested findings of fact and conclusions of law through a motion for a new trial, which the chancellor denied without fulfilling the request. Ms. Patout argues that the chancellor's failure to provide these findings stemmed from being misled by Mr. Patout's counsel, particularly after a property settlement agreement was reached. Mr. Patout's counsel later requested an amended judgment without addressing the earlier request for findings, leading Ms. Patout to suggest that the chancellor should not be expected to scrutinize pleadings excessively.
The Chancellor erred by failing to make the necessary findings and conclusions as required by procedural rules, although there is no indication of deliberate refusal to do so. The oversight appears to stem from the extensive paperwork and Mr. Patout's general motion, which did not specifically request those findings. While Rule 52 is not jurisdictional, making it possible to decide a case without further findings, this situation is different from the Holloway case referenced in Lowrey, as the facts are disputed and require credibility assessments. The lack of specific findings prevents proper review of the child custody decision. Consequently, the Chancellor's amended custody judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to Jackson County Chancery Court for the entry of specific findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with M.R.C.P. 52(a). The decision is vacated and remanded, with concurrence from multiple justices and one justice concurring in the result only.
