Jennifer Carter v. Josh Carter, 204 So. 3d 747

Background

Jennifer and Josh Carter divorced in 2011; Jennifer was awarded legal and physical custody of their daughter Delaney. Josh filed a custody-modification motion in 2012 alleging a material change in circumstances but did not specify facts of neglect in the pleadings.
A court-appointed investigator (not formally a guardian ad litem) inspected Jennifer’s mobile home and photographed cluttered, unclean conditions; the cabin they later occupied was renovated and passed county inspection before the second day of trial.
Pediatric endocrinologist Dr. Naznin Dixit had diagnosed Delaney with "failure to thrive" (low percentiles) but testified there were no signs of abuse or neglect and that Delaney was healthy within normal ranges.
The chancery court found a material change in circumstances, described the home conditions as dangerous, awarded physical custody to Josh, and ordered Jennifer to pay child support; Jennifer moved for a new trial and later filed a supplemental Rule 59 motion asserting the trial court erred by not appointing a guardian ad litem (GAL).
The Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed but adopted a new standard requiring allegations of neglect to meet Youth Court Law neglect definitions to mandate appointment of a GAL; the Mississippi Supreme Court granted certiorari to review procedural and substantive issues.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Carter)	Defendant's Argument (Carter)	Held
Whether Jennifer’s late supplement to her Rule 59 motion (raising GAL issue) is procedurally barred	Supplemental Rule 59 filing should be considered because original Rule 59 was timely filed and trial court considered the supplement; no objection by Josh waived timeliness defense	Supplemental ground is untimely and jurisdictionally barred if not raised within 10 days of judgment	Court allowed review: trial court may, in its discretion, consider amendments to a timely Rule 59 motion; Josh’s failure to object waived the timeliness defense, so issue preserved.
Whether appointment of a guardian ad litem was mandatory because allegations of neglect arose during proceedings	GAL was mandatory because neglect allegations arose at trial (inspector’s report, questioning of Dr. Dixit, evidence of poor home conditions and medical care)	No formal pleading charged abuse/neglect; evidence did not establish abuse/neglect sufficient to trigger mandatory GAL under §93-5-23	Held GAL was not mandatory: pleadings lacked explicit charges; record evidence did not establish abuse/neglect and chancellor did not abuse discretion in declining to appoint GAL.
Whether Court of Appeals’ new standard (neglect allegations must meet Youth Court jurisdictional level) is correct	Court of Appeals’ Youth Court–level requirement is too strict and risks excusing appointment of GAL when legitimate concerns arise	The Court of Appeals’ analysis sought to limit GAL appointments to serious neglect that would trigger Youth Court jurisdiction	Court overruled the Court of Appeals to the extent it announced a new standard; applied statutory scheme and precedent to hold appointment is mandatory only where a charge of abuse/neglect arises and chancellor retains discretion to evaluate legitimacy of allegations.

Key Cases Cited

Albright v. Albright, 437 So.2d 1003 (Miss. 1983) (sets custody-factor framework used in custody decisions)
Robison v. Lanford, 841 So.2d 1119 (Miss. 2003) (importance of GALs in custody proceedings; best-interest standard)
Brake v. Speed, 605 So.2d 28 (Miss. 1992) (Rule 59 amendment permissibility and relation to federal practice)
Telford v. Aloway, 530 So.2d 179 (Miss. 1988) (ten-day Rule 59 deadline is inflexible)
Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007) (timely filing of appeal-related deadlines is jurisdictional)
Johnson v. Johnson, 872 So.2d 92 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (chancellor has discretion to determine legitimacy of alleged neglect under §93-5-23)
Borden v. Borden, 167 So.3d 238 (Miss. 2014) (standard of review for chancellor findings in custody matters)