Heath Grames v. Holly Grames
235 So. 3d 210
Miss. Ct. App. Hist.2017Background
- Heath and Holly Grames separated in January 2014 after a 1995 marriage; they have four children: Parker (1998), Miles (2000), Clarissa (2002), and Savannah (2006).
- Holly filed for divorce in February 2015 in Forrest County Chancery Court; a guardian ad litem (GAL) was appointed to represent the children’s best interests.
- Chancellor awarded custody of the two girls (Clarissa and Savannah) to Holly and the two boys (Parker and Miles) to Heath; a visitation schedule was set and later clarified by a supplemental judgment.
- Relevant facts: Holly began a long-distance relationship with a man in Utah after separation; Miles was upset by a suggestive photo Holly texted to that boyfriend; two older children expressed preferences to live with Heath, Clarissa preferred Holly, and Savannah (youngest) had no preference.
- Heath appealed, arguing (1) the chancellor erred by separating the siblings and (2) the visitation plan unreasonably limited his contact with his daughters.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Heath) | Defendant's Argument (Holly) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether splitting custody of siblings was in children’s best interest | Separation was not in children’s best interest; children should remain together with Heath | GAL recommended split; chancellor found split better served best interest given children’s ties and circumstances | Affirmed: split custody supported by substantial evidence and GAL recommendation |
| Whether chancellor properly applied Albright factors | Albright factors (moral fitness, child preference, employment stability) favor Heath | Chancellor considered Albright factors, found moral fitness neutral, child preferences not dispositive, and employment/stability considered but flexible schedule favored Heath for work | Affirmed: chancellor’s fact findings not manifestly wrong; Albright analysis reasonable |
| Whether visitation schedule deprived Heath of significant contact with daughters | Visitation was unreasonable and limited his relationship with his daughters | Visitation accounted for Holly’s move to Utah and sought to maximize sibling contact; summer and holiday allocations balanced | Affirmed: chancellor’s broad discretion; schedule appropriate given distance and custody split |
| Whether chancellor erred by relying on GAL recommendations | Implicitly: chancellor over-relied on GAL instead of weighing other evidence | GAL produced extensive report; chancellor explained reliance but evaluated Albright factors | Affirmed: reliance on GAL permissible where supported by substantial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Sanderson v. Sanderson, 824 So. 2d 623 (Miss. 2002) (appellate review of chancellor’s factual findings limited to manifestly wrong or clearly erroneous standard)
- Lowrey v. Lowrey, 25 So. 3d 274 (Miss. 2009) (conclusions of law reviewed de novo)
- Albright v. Albright, 437 So. 2d 1003 (Miss. 1983) (listing factors for child-custody best-interest analysis)
- Owens v. Owens, 950 So. 2d 202 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (sibling placement generally assumed in child’s best interest absent contrary circumstances)
- Bowen v. Bowen, 688 So. 2d 1374 (Miss. 1997) (best interest is the polestar consideration in custody disputes)
- Hall v. Hall, 134 So. 3d 822 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) (Albright analysis is not a mathematical equation; appellate court defers to chancellor’s factual findings)
- Anderson v. Anderson, 961 So. 2d 55 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (child preference is only one factor in custody determinations)
- Fountain v. Fountain, 877 So. 2d 474 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) (chancellor has broad discretion to determine visitation, guided by child’s best interest)