A.M.L. v. J.W.L.
2012 Miss. LEXIS 398
| Miss. | 2012Background
- The parties’ 2002 Final Judgment incorporated an agreement granting A.M.L. primary physical custody with J.W.L. having frequent visitation and joint legal custody, plus child support, medical, college, and life-insurance provisions naming the children as beneficiaries.
- J.W.L. largely ceased overnight/weekend visitation with the two oldest daughters; A.M.L. filed a 2008 petition for modification seeking full custody, higher support, and enforcement of several provisions; J.W.L. counterclaimed for custody and changes to support and expenses.
- The chancery court found a material change in circumstances supporting a modification transferring custody of W.X., Y.Z., and C.D. to J.W.L., but held the modification in abeyance and retained A.M.L. as custodian subject to court-imposed conditions.
- GAL recommended maintaining custody but increasing J.W.L.’s input and recommending counseling; DHS investigation into allegations involving A.B. and C.D. found no evidence of abuse by J.W.L.
- Trial court increased support for W.X., Y.Z., and C.D. to $3,600 monthly; retroactive termination of A.B.’s support was entered, and Hambrick-based college-expense considerations were applied to C.D.; attorney-fee decisions were denied for lack of evidence.
- On appeal, the Mississippi Supreme Court (i) reversed the custody modification and held custody should remain with A.M.L., (ii) limited retroactive child-support effects, (iii) corrected misapplications of Hambrick to C.D., (iv) clarified life-insurance proof and related contempt issues, and (v) remanded for further definitions of college expenses and written-proof requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Custody modification proper in abeyance | A.M.L. contends no material change warranted modification; J.W.L. argues abeyance was error. | Chancellor found material change and held custody in abeyance pending compliance with conditions. | Custody modification should not have been held in abeyance; AM.L retains physical custody. |
| Retroactive termination of A.B.'s child support | Support vests and downward retroactive modification prohibited by statute; termination retroactive to 2008 was improper. | Termination based on timing of conduct and modification is permissible. | Retroactive termination to the date of the counterclaim was erroneous; effective date is the judgment granting modification. |
| Retroactive application of increases for C.D., W.X., Y.Z. | Petition filed Jan. 30, 2008; increases should be retroactive to that date. | Upward retroactive modification may be allowed but is discretionary. | Upward retroactive modification was not applied retroactively beyond the judgment date; increases not retroactive to 2008. |
| Hambrick standard applied to C.D. college expenses | Hambrick should not apply since J.W.L. did not request relief and the Agreement contemplates four-year college for any child with aptitude. | Hambrick provides a standard when a child has poor contact or attitude toward a parent. | Hambrick not applicable to C.D.;, remand to define specific college expenses under the four-year education provision. |
| Written proof of life-insurance and related contempt | J.W.L. failed to provide explicit written proof listing beneficiaries and policy details; contempt possible. | J.W.L. maintained adequate life-insurance; proof provided via testimony and a Trustmark printout. | Clarify the meaning of 'written proof' and require certified current policy details on remand; no contempt as to life-insurance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mabus v. Mabus, 847 So.2d 815 (Miss. 2003) (custody appeals require manifest error or erroneous standard; substantial evidence standard applies)
- Johnson v. Gray, 859 So.2d 1006 (Miss. 2003) ( factual findings must be supported by substantial credible evidence)
- Albright v. Albright, 437 So.2d 1003 (Miss. 1983) (standard guiding best-interests analysis in custody cases)
- Hambrick v. Prestwood, 382 So.2d 474 (Miss. 1980) (college expenses may be limited by conduct and relationship with a parent)
- Cumberland v. Cumberland, 564 So.2d 839 (Miss. 1990) (retroactive modification considerations and sanctions for dilatory tactics)
- Saliba v. Saliba, 753 So.2d 1095 (Miss. 2000) (parental responsibility and discretionary decisions in education funding)
- Cheek v. Ricker, 431 So.2d 1139 (Miss. 1983) (stability and the trauma of custody changes; Albright implications)
- Tucker v. Tucker, 453 So.2d 1294 (Miss. 1984) (reaffirms need for stability in custody orders)
- Ballard v. Ballard, 434 So.2d 1357 (Miss. 1983) (custody modification and its impact on children)
- Roberts v. Brown, 805 So.2d 649 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002) (retroactive parental-support adjustments in appeal)