Amy Lynette Bolen Butler v. Stephen Bradley Butler
218 So. 3d 759
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Stephen and Amy Butler divorced in 2010; they share joint legal custody of their daughter A.B., born 2008, with Amy having primary physical custody and a detailed visitation schedule for Stephen.
- The divorce decree allowed supervised visitation to progress to unsupervised, but contained driving and overnight restrictions tied to Stephen’s DUI-related issues; a later second DUI re-triggered restrictions "until further order of the court."
- In December 2014 Stephen filed to modify visitation and for contempt; Amy counterclaimed seeking sole legal and physical custody and supervised-only visitation for Stephen.
- At the June 2015 chancery trial, witnesses testified about missed visitation (attributed partly to Stephen’s work), Amy’s interference with visits, Stephen’s rehabilitation and limited drinking, and concerns about his mental health and smoking; A.B. has asthma/allergies but participates in activities.
- The chancellor removed supervision requirements (restored the original unsupervised visitation rights subject to the DUI-triggered restriction continuing) and denied Amy’s request to modify custody to award her sole custody.
Issues
| Issue | Butler's Argument | Bolen's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether custody should be modified to sole custody for Bolen | No material change; maintain joint custody | A material change in circumstances occurred (inability to cooperate) warranting sole custody | Denied; no material change shown that would justify custody modification |
| Whether visitation should be modified to remove supervision restrictions | Visitation schedule was not working; reinstatement of original unsupervised rights is in child’s best interest | Visitation should remain supervised (Amy sought supervised-only) | Granted modification: removed supervision and allowed driving/overnights, subject to DUI-triggered restriction remaining in effect |
Key Cases Cited
- Dupree v. Pafford, 200 So. 3d 1092 (Miss. Ct. App.) (standard of review for custody modification)
- Pearson v. Pearson, 121 So. 3d 266 (Miss. Ct. App.) (standard of review cited)
- Carter v. Carter, 204 So. 3d 747 (Miss.) (chancellor’s factual findings test)
- Marascalco v. Marascalco, 445 So. 2d 1380 (Miss.) (appellate deference to chancellor)
- Branch v. Branch, 174 So. 3d 932 (Miss. Ct. App.) (review of legal issues de novo)
- Adams v. Rice, 196 So. 3d 1086 (Miss. Ct. App.) (chancery court discretion on visitation)
- Ellis v. Ellis, 840 So. 2d 806 (Miss. Ct. App.) (best-interest standard for visitation)
- Brooks v. Brooks, 76 So. 3d 215 (Miss. Ct. App.) (deference to chancellor’s credibility determinations)
- Mosley v. Mosley, 784 So. 2d 901 (Miss.) (chancellor best positioned to evaluate child’s interests)
- Moreland v. Spears, 187 So. 3d 661 (Miss. Ct. App.) (test for custody modification: material change, adverse effect, best interest)
- Mabus v. Mabus, 847 So. 2d 815 (Miss.) (material-change analysis)
- Lipsey v. Lipsey, 755 So. 2d 564 (Miss. Ct. App.) (parental inability to cooperate not alone a material change)
- Culberson v. Culberson, 196 So. 3d 1062 (Miss. Ct. App.) (modifying visitation requires prior decree not working)
- Strange v. Strange, 43 So. 3d 1169 (Miss. Ct. App.) (presumption favoring maintaining parent-child relationship)