Goudelock v. Goudelock
104 So. 3d 158
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Robert and Jennifer Goudelock divorced in Dec. 2009; they share one child, Gunner, born 2006.
- Initial decree in Feb. 2010 awarded joint legal and physical custody with weekly custody exchanges.
- Jennifer petitioned for modification in Aug. 2010; sought sole custody, additional child support, and transportation for visitations.
- Robert counter-claimed contended Jennifer was in contempt; the court did not find contempt for either party.
- May 19, 2011, chancery court granted Jennifer sole legal and physical custody, increased child support, and denied contempt; Robert appealed.
- Court restated standard for modification as material change in circumstances adverse to the child's welfare and the best interest analysis; Albright framework used.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Modification of custody standard applied | Robert argues wrong standard was used | Jennifer argues proper material-change plus best interests test | Standard properly applied; Albright analysis used to determine best interests |
| Contempt finding against Jennifer | Robert contends Jennifer violated joint custody by arranging dental care | Jennifer acted within medical care requirements; preapproval not always needed | Chancellor did not abuse discretion; no contempt finding |
| Right to participate in medical decisions | Robert claims he should preapprove all medical decisions | Medical condition may require unilateral medical decisions; minimizes friction | One-parent medical decisions permitted under Purviance v. Burgess; no merit to challenge |
Key Cases Cited
- Albright v. Albright, 437 So.2d 1003 (Miss. 1983) (Albright framework for best-interest analysis in custody cases)
- Floyd v. Floyd, 949 So.2d 26 (Miss. 2007) (modification requires material change in circumstances and best interests test)
- Hensarling v. Hensarling, 824 So.2d 588 (Miss. 2002) (standard of review—manifestly wrong or clearly erroneous; polestar is child's best interest)
- Purviance v. Burgess, 980 So.2d 308 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (one parent may make medical/educational decisions to reduce friction)