Darnell v. Darnell
167 So. 3d 195
| Miss. | 2014Background
- Carla and Duff Darnell married in 2004 and divorced in 2012; they have one child, C.D., born 2006.
- During divorce proceedings, C.D. exhibited behaviors suggesting sexual abuse; DHS investigations found no substantiated abuse.
- Carla sought sole physical custody and a temporary protective order; a guardian ad litem (GAL) was appointed.
- The chancellor granted Duff primary physical custody and denied Carla’s custody request after an Albright analysis, despite preschool-age statements by C.D. not admitted at trial.
- Carla appealed, claiming admissibility errors for C.D.’s statements, improper exclusion of Dr. Benton’s testimony, failure to explain rejection of GAL recommendations, and weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of C.D.’s statements as hearsay/nonhearsay | Darnell alleges two statements are nonhearsay | Chancellor correctly ruled statements were hearsay without a tender-years exception | First two statements nonhearsay and admissible; third and DHS/Center statements hearsay and excluded |
| Admissibility of Dr. Benton’s testimony | Benton testimony appropriate under Rule 703 | Court properly excluded as unreliable/redundant | Court did not abuse discretion in excluding Benton; remand possible to reconsider in light of admitted nonhearsay statements |
| Whether the chancellor adequately addressed GAL recommendations | Chancellor failed to state reasons for not following GAL | Chancellor weighed Albright factors and had discretion | Issue deemed not reversible error; not manifestly wrong given Albright analysis and record |
| Whether the custody ruling was against the weight of the evidence | Weight of evidence favored Carla based on GAL and statements | Weight favors Duff due to alleged abuse and stability concerns | Weight-of-the-evidence issue not reached due to reversal on hearsay issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Albright v. Albright, 437 So.2d 1003 (Miss. 1983) (guides Albright factor-based custody analysis)
- Floyd v. Floyd, 949 So.2d 26 (Miss. 2007) (requires detailing guardian ad litem recommendations when rejected)
- Hensarling v. Hensarling, 824 So.2d 583 (Miss. 2002) (court may consider guardian ad litem recommendations but not bound by them)
- Lorenz v. Strait, 987 So.2d 427 (Miss. 2008) (role of GAL findings in custody decisions; deference to trial court’s discretion)
- McKee v. Bowers Window & Door Co., Inc., 64 So.3d 926 (Miss. 2011) (expert admissibility standards for Rule 702/703)
- Jackson v. State, 527 So.2d 654 (Miss. 1988) (nonhearsay purpose admissibility of statements to show they were made)