Arrington v. Thrash
2013 Miss. App. LEXIS 623
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Allison Arrington's child Payton Makenzie Arrington has been connected with Doyle and Rebecca Thrash since Payton's infancy, with the Thrashes providing substantial weekend, holiday, and extended custodial time.
- The chancellor found the Thrashes had a viable, long-standing relationship with Payton and exercised substantial involvement consistent with a grandparent visitation framework under Miss. Code Ann. § 93-16-3(2)(a).
- In May 2010, Allison cut off visitation; DHS later learned of Allison's substance-abuse issues and Payton's custody arrangements shifted to Allison's mother.
- In September 2010 the Thrashes filed for grandparent visitation and for Payton's surname to be changed to Thrash, seeking to reflect paternity and family ties.
- A Rule 81 hearing occurred in November 2010; Allison was absent because a continuance motion filed days earlier purportedly remained unresolved, and she did not appear.
- The chancellor awarded extensive visitation to the Thrashes resembling what a noncustodial parent might receive and ordered changes to Payton's birth certificate and surname to Thrash, which was later appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Martin factors govern entitlement to visitation | Arrington contends Martin factors only weigh extent, not entitlement. | Thrashes argue Martin factors apply to both entitlement and extent of visitation. | Martin factors apply to entitlement and extent; preserved on record. |
| Whether the chancellor erred in awarding liberal visitation | Arrington asserts visitation should not equal parent visitation; overreliance on Martin factors. | Thrashs claim the facts justify substantial visitation due to the viable relationship and Payton's best interests. | Within discretion to award enhanced visitation given unique facts. |
| Whether the surname change (Payton's birth certificate) was proper | Mississippi birth certificate changes require Board of Health participation; no authority for grandparent visitation to effect name change. | Thrashes sought to reflect paternity, aligning with family history. | Surname-change order reversed; no authority under grandparent visitation statutes to alter birth certificate. |
| Whether Allison's absence at the hearing tainted the judgment | Arrington's absence due to continuance denial undermines due process and joinder of necessary parties. | Thrashes maintain proper notice and urgency; continuance denial did not undermine the result. | Concurring analysis notes absence of mother is reversible error; but main decision focuses on other issues. |
| Whether adjudication of paternity was properly established | DNA testing alone does not establish paternity without proper adjudication and party participation. | Testimony and supporting facts indicate paternity under new petitioning process post father death. | Paternity adjudication improper under current record; remand or proper adjudication required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Martin v. Coop, 693 So.2d 912 (Miss. 1997) (ten factors for grandparent visitation; no automatic equivalence to parent visitation)
- Townes v. Manyfield, 883 So.2d 93 (Miss. 2004) (on-record discussion required when factors support equivalent visitation)
- Smith v. Wilson, 90 So.3d 51 (Miss. 2012) (reiterates Martin factor application in grandparent cases)
- Bolivar v. Waltman, 85 So.3d 335 (Miss.Ct.App. 2012) (jurisdictional joinder requirements for necessary parties)