Kimberly Wolfe Smith v. Milton Martin
222 So. 3d 255
| Miss. | 2017Background
- Milton and Geneva Martin (grandparents) sought grandparent visitation with two grandchildren after their son Marty (the children’s father) died by suicide; children were in mother Kimberly’s custody and later adopted by Brandon Smith.
- The Martins had a long-standing, frequent, and overnight visitation history, including caring for the children after the father’s death and during the mother’s hospitalization.
- After an incident on January 2, 2011 and other behavior concerns, Kimberly and Brandon (the Smiths) cut off the Martins’ visitation; the Martins then filed for grandparent visitation under Miss. Code § 93-16-3(2).
- The chancery court granted visitation (third weekend every month) after applying § 93-16-3(1) and (2) and the Martin v. Coop factors; it also ordered family counseling. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
- On certiorari the Smiths argued the chancellor applied an incorrect legal standard by shifting or heightening the burden of proof onto the parents and misapplying Troxel v. Granville and Martin v. Coop.
- The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed, holding the chancellor properly considered statutory requirements and Martin factors and that no manifest error occurred; it clarified that the child’s best interest under § 93-16-5 must be considered before awarding visitation under § 93-16-3(1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Smith) | Defendant's Argument (Martins) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether chancellor shifted burden to parents in violation of Troxel | Chancellor required parents to disprove visitation or prove grandparents posed a threat; burden improperly shifted | Chancellor properly weighed evidence; grandparents must nonetheless satisfy statutory elements and Martin factors | No reversible error; record shows chancellor considered correct standards and best interests; no manifest error |
| Whether a finding under § 93-16-3(1) automatically entitles grandparents to visitation without evaluating best interest per § 93-16-5 | Martin (per Smiths’ reading of Martin v. Coop) suggested entitlement once statutory elements met | Grandparents must still satisfy best-interest inquiry; § 93-16-5 requires best-interest consideration before visitation granted | Court clarifies Martin was mistaken to limit best-interest review; § 93-16-5’s best-interest analysis is required even if § 93-16-3(1) elements are met |
| Whether the chancery court properly applied Martin v. Coop factors | Martin factors were misapplied or ignored; parents argued chancellor demanded proof only of incapacity/threat | Martins point to detailed factor-by-factor analysis supporting visitation | Held that chancellor scrupulously weighed Martin factors and based decision on children’s best interests |
| Whether visitation under § 93-16-3(2) was established (viable relationship; unreasonable denial; best interest) | Smiths argued denial was reasonable due to behavior concerns and incidents | Martins argued viable relationship existed, denial was unreasonable, and visitation served children’s best interest | Court affirmed that Martins satisfied § 93-16-3(2) elements and that visitation was in children’s best interests |
Key Cases Cited
- Martin v. Coop, 693 So. 2d 912 (Miss. 1997) (established multi-factor test for grandparent visitation inquiries)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parental fundamental right to make child-rearing decisions limits third-party visitation statutes)
- Morgan v. West, 812 So. 2d 987 (Miss. 2002) (reversed grandparent visitation where chancellor failed to consider child’s best interest and articulate Martin factors)
- Settle v. Galloway, 682 So. 2d 1032 (Miss. 1996) (natural grandparents have no common-law visitation right; any visitation right derives from statute)
- Givens v. Nicholson, 878 So. 2d 1073 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (chancellor must review Martin factors and best-interest considerations before granting grandparent visitation)