Rachel Smith v. David Smith
206 So. 3d 502
| Miss. | 2016Background
- Rachel and David Smith divorced after Rachel accused David of sexually abusing their daughter in 2011; criminal and DHS investigations resulted in no charges.
- Chancellor initially granted Rachel sole custody and supervised visitation for David, then later modified to joint legal custody with Rachel primary physical custodian; a guardian ad litem (GAL) was appointed to investigate the abuse allegations and address visitation.
- A second forensic interview produced allegations from the child; the GAL coordinated experts, produced a written report recommending unsupervised visitation for David and periodic neutral counseling/assessments for the children, but made no custody recommendation.
- The chancellor discredited the abuse allegations, found some interviewer/counselor conduct suspect, excluded statements to a counselor as unreliable, and awarded primary physical and legal custody to David.
- The chancellor ordered Rachel to reimburse David $8,080 paid for supervised visits at Lighthouse Ministries; Rachel appealed asserting multiple errors (GAL duties/report, Albright analysis, evidentiary rulings, and reimbursement).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rachel) | Defendant's Argument (David) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether chancellor erred by failing to state reasons for rejecting GAL recommendation that children receive periodic neutral counseling | GAL recommended counseling; chancellor failed to explain why he rejected it | Chancellor had discretion; omission harmless because it did not affect custody | Court: omission was error but harmless; no reversal required |
| Whether GAL appointment, instruction, and report were deficient | GAL duties not sufficiently defined; investigation/report inadequate; failed to zealously represent children or recommend custody | GAL was properly tasked to investigate abuse and visitation, coordinated experts, and made visitation recommendations; not asked to recommend custody | Court: no reversible error; GAL performed required functions and chancellor may independently make custody decision |
| Whether chancellor’s Albright analysis and custody award were improper (weight given to Rachel’s conduct and mental stability) | Chancellor overemphasized Rachel’s handling of allegations and mental state; misapplied some Albright factors | Chancellor’s findings on credibility, judgment, parenting, and emotional ties were supported by record; substantial evidence supports award to David | Court: affirmed—chancellor’s factual findings supported by substantial evidence under Albright factors |
| Whether chancellor erred in excluding hearsay statements from counselor (statutory 13-1-403(2) and Rule 803 exceptions) | Statements admissible under Rule 803(4) (diagnosis/treatment) or not barred by invalidated statute | Chancellor found statute (13-1-403) invalid but alternatively excluded statements as unreliable under Rule 803(25) | Court: exclusion under 13-1-403 was incorrect (statute invalid), but exclusion under Rule 803(25) was proper; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Albright v. Albright, 437 So. 2d 1003 (Miss. 1983) (sets best-interest factors for custody)
- Hall v. State, 539 So. 2d 1338 (Miss. 1989) (invalidating Evidence of Child Sexual Abuse Act / limits on statutory hearsay rules)
- McDonald v. McDonald, 39 So. 3d 868 (Miss. 2010) (GAL duties: written report or testimony and recommendations if requested)
- Borden v. Borden, 167 So. 3d 238 (Miss. 2014) (standards for reviewing custody and chancellor factfinding)
- Gateley v. Gateley, 158 So. 3d 296 (Miss. 2015) (appellate review in child-interest cases may be relaxed)