Maegan White v. Christopher White
166 So. 3d 574
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Maegan and Christopher Lee White divorced by irreconcilable differences after separation; the chancery court decided custody of their two children and awarded sole physical custody to Christopher (C.L.).
- Temporary orders initially gave Maegan custody; visitation for C.L. was suspended after Maegan alleged inappropriate touching of daughter Harley, a GAL investigation followed, allegations were later found unsubstantiated and visitation restored.
- The parents consented in writing to the court resolving custody, visitation, support, insurance, schooling, and related child issues; trial occurred June 18–19, 2013.
- Evidence at trial emphasized C.L.’s long-term, local, stable employment and residence, Maegan’s multiple moves and job changes (including a brief termination after a positive drug screen), and competing testimony on parenting, credibility, and stability.
- The GAL recommended custody to C.L. based on stability; the chancellor conducted an Albright-factor analysis, questioned Maegan’s credibility (including the molestation allegation), and awarded custody to C.L.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Maegan) | Defendant's Argument (C.L.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the chancellor was required to consider joint custody in an irreconcilable-differences divorce when neither party requested joint custody | Crider and Clark require the court to consider joint custody where both parties submit custody for the court’s determination; Maegan says parties’ consent to court determination equals joint application | Court should not be required to consider joint custody absent parties’ request; chancellor properly focused on best interest and discretion under statute | Court held no requirement to consider joint custody here; Crider/Clark do not mandate consideration when parties did not request joint custody; chancellor’s focus on best interest was proper |
| Whether the chancellor erred in applying the Albright factors in awarding custody to C.L. | Many Albright factors allegedly supported alternate findings favoring Maegan or joint custody; Maegan contends several factor findings were unsupported or inadequately explained | C.L. emphasizes chancellor’s discretion, deference to credibility findings, and substantial evidence supporting factors favoring him (stability, employment, school continuity) | Court affirmed: chancellor’s Albright analysis was supported by substantial evidence, credibility determinations, and proper weighing of factors; award to C.L. not manifestly wrong or clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Crider v. Crider, 904 So.2d 142 (Miss. 2005) (when parties consent in writing to court determination of custody in an irreconcilable-differences divorce, court may consider and award joint custody)
- Clark v. Clark, 126 So.3d 122 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (remand where chancellor may have believed joint custody could not be considered despite facts supporting it)
- Albright v. Albright, 437 So.2d 1003 (Miss. 1983) (sets Albright factors and best-interest polestar for custody decisions)
- Mercier v. Mercier, 717 So.2d 304 (Miss. 1998) (discussion of the tender-years presumption and its diminished role)
- Hall v. Hall, 134 So.3d 822 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) (explains deference to the chancellor and that Albright analysis is not a mathematical test)