Jaggers v. Magruder
129 So. 3d 965
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Wesley and Janet Jaggers divorced in 2004; they have three children including Tanner and Bo who play travel baseball.
- An agreed July 27, 2004 modification required each parent to allow children to attend scheduled extracurricular activities (including baseball).
- Repeated post-divorce disputes produced contempt and modification claims; a guardian ad litem was appointed.
- Evidence showed travel baseball schedules sometimes conflicted with Wesley’s visitation and that participation in baseball was important to the boys’ emotional well‑being.
- The chancellor denied Wesley’s request to modify custody or relieve him of the obligation to allow extracurricular participation, kept the agreed extracurricular provision, adopted a revised Farese visitation schedule, preserved Wesley’s midweek visits, and provided make‑up time when baseball conflicted with visitation.
- Wesley appealed, arguing the extracurricular activities usurped his visitation and the chancellor erred by not adopting the guardian ad litem’s exact visitation recommendation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wesley) | Defendant's Argument (Janet) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether chancellor erred by not relieving Wesley of obligation to allow children to participate in extracurriculars | Extracurriculars (travel baseball) usurp visitation and prevent fostering close father‑child relationship; relief needed | Agreed order requires allowing activities; boys’ emotional welfare and continuity favor allowing baseball; Wesley knew and acquiesced | Court affirmed: chancellor within discretion to enforce agreed extracurricular provision, allow baseball, and provide make‑up visitation when conflicts occur |
| Whether chancellor erred by not adopting guardian ad litem’s visitation recommendations | GAL recommended relieving Wesley of most obligations to transport children except for Tanner/Bo baseball; Wesley argued court should follow GAL | Chancellor adopted most GAL recommendations, but retained the specific agreed schedule as in children’s best interests | Court affirmed: chancellor may decline exact GAL recommendations if supported by record and he explains reasons |
Key Cases Cited
- Rolison v. Rolison, 105 So.3d 1136 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (standard of review in domestic‑relations cases)
- Price v. Price, 22 So.3d 331 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (questions of law reviewed de novo)
- Ellis v. Ellis, 840 So.2d 806 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) (chancellor’s discretion and child’s best interest)
- Clark v. Myrick, 528 So.2d 79 (Miss. 1988) (deference to chancery court in custody/visitation)
- Harrington v. Harrington, 648 So.2d 543 (Miss. 1994) (visitation must promote healthy parent‑child relationship)
- Suess v. Suess, 718 So.2d 1126 (Miss. Ct. App. 1998) (modification requires showing prior decree not working)
- McCracking v. McCracking, 776 So.2d 691 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000) (visitation schedule adversely affecting child’s emotional stability is not working)
- Mord v. Peters, 571 So.2d 981 (Miss. 1990) (visitation rights highly valued)
- Chalk v. Lentz, 744 So.2d 789 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999) (visitation should foster close relationship)
- Cox v. Moulds, 490 So.2d 866 (Miss. 1986) (noncustodial parent generally has broad discretion during visitation)
- Henderson v. Henderson, 952 So.2d 273 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (chancellor may refuse exact GAL recommendations)
- Floyd v. Floyd, 949 So.2d 26 (Miss. 2007) (chancellor must summarize GAL recommendations and explain reasons for rejection)