Kevin McKeown v. Elizabeth Allison Estes
230 So. 3d 741
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- New York courts awarded Elizabeth Allison sole legal and physical custody and authorized her move with the child from NYC to Oxford, Mississippi; the New York Family Court entered a visitation order giving father Kevin McKeown summer visitation and imposing notice/itinerary/address-disclosure requirements.
- Allison filed a contempt and modification complaint in Lafayette County Chancery Court alleging Kevin repeatedly failed to provide required notice, itineraries, and the address/affidavit for where the child would stay.
- Multiple summonses were issued; a New York process server (attorney David Chidekel) returned that he personally served Kevin in New York; Kevin later challenged that service and submitted a 2003 newspaper article alleging Chidekel lied in an unrelated matter.
- A telephonic jurisdictional conference included Mississippi and New York judges; the New York judge declined continuing jurisdiction as inconvenient, and Kevin filed (and later amended) a New York appeal that was not shown to stay Mississippi proceedings.
- At the Mississippi contempt/modification hearing Kevin did not appear; the chancery court found him in contempt, suspended visitation until he proved a physical address, required adequate notice or that visitation occur in Mississippi, and awarded Allison attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Allison) | Defendant's Argument (McKeown) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mississippi court erred in proceeding while Kevin had an ongoing New York appeal over jurisdiction | Mississippi was a more convenient forum; New York declined continuing jurisdiction so Mississippi could proceed | The chancery court should have stayed proceedings because Kevin had taken steps to appeal New York’s jurisdictional decision | Court: No error — Mississippi could hear modification under UIFSA/related statutes and the New York appeal did not automatically stay Mississippi proceedings |
| Adequacy/credibility of service (process server Chidekel) and due process | Allison relied on the process server’s sworn return showing personal service | Kevin argued Chidekel lied about service, citing an unrelated 2003 article; he claimed denial of due process from alleged false service | Court: Presumption of proper service from sworn return stood; Kevin failed to rebut with admissible extrinsic evidence or file a motion contesting service, so service/due-process claim fails |
| Whether modification/suspension of visitation was contrary to child’s best interest | Allison argued existing order was not working: Kevin gave late notice, failed to provide itineraries, did not disclose child’s location, missed return dates — so modification/suspension and address-disclosure requirement protect the child’s interests | Kevin argued court ignored best-interest factors and acted with bias; he did not show the modified conditions were unreasonable | Court: Modification and temporary suspension were within chancellor’s broad discretion and supported by evidence; measures serve the child’s best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Isom v. Jernigan, 840 So. 2d 104 (Miss. 2003) (standard of review for chancery appeals)
- Sanderson v. Sanderson, 824 So. 2d 623 (Miss. 2002) (appellate review limits for chancery factual findings)
- Collins v. Westbrook, 184 So. 3d 922 (Miss. 2016) (presumption that properly executed process-server return establishes service)
- Wilburn v. Wilburn, 991 So. 2d 1185 (Miss. 2008) (chancellor’s broad discretion in visitation and due-process objections require timely objection)
- Moreland v. Spears, 187 So. 3d 661 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (standard for modifying visitation: prior decree must be not working and modification must serve child’s best interest)
- Jaggers v. Magruder, 129 So. 3d 965 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) (noncustodial parent generally has broad discretion during visitation)
- Cox v. Moulds, 490 So. 2d 866 (Miss. 1986) (clarity in visitation terms fosters more harmonious co-parenting)