810
Miss.
918 SOUTHERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES
substantial evidence unless the chancellorabused his discretion, was manifestly wrong, clearly erroneous, or applied anerroneous legal standard.
2. Contempt
O
39
Contempt matters are committed tothe substantial discretion of the trial court which, by institutional circumstance andboth temporal and visual proximity, is infi-nitely more competent to decide the mat-ter than the appellate court is.
3. Contempt
O
66(7)
The appellate court will not reverse acontempt citation where the chancellor’sfindings are supported by substantial evi-dence.
4. Child Custody
O
853
Trial court’s finding that ex-husband was in contempt for violating provision of parties’ divorce judgment requiring themto ‘‘foster healthy relationships’’ with theirchildren and to cooperate was clearly erro-neous; parties had been granted joint legalcustody of children, and, as such, ex-hus-band had right to be involved in and tohave opportunity to discuss benefits andconsequences of re-location with ex-wife,ex-wife had intentionally kept ex-husbandout of such discussions, and, while ex-hus-band’s conversation with child might havebeen inappropriate, he was not in con-tempt for doing something that he hadstatutory right to do. West’s A.M.C.§ 93–5–24(5)(e).
5. Child Custody
O
870
There was insufficient evidence tosupport finding of contempt against ex-husband on basis that he allegedly con-spired and assisted child in not returningto ex-wife’s home following her Christmas visitation with ex-husband; there was nodirect or indirect evidence that ex-husbandknew of or had any part in child’s refusalto return to ex-wife’s custody, and evi-dence indicated that ex-husband soughtaid, services and support of law enforce-ment, an attorney and a psychologist to tryto get child to comply with court’s orderthat she return to ex-wife’s home.
6. Child Custody
O
576
Relocation of ex-wife, who had pri-mary physical custody of parties’ children,to another state constituted material orsubstantial change in circumstances, forpurposes of determining whether modifica-tion of custody from ex-wife to ex-husband was appropriate.
7. Child Custody
O
78
A child who has attained the age of 12may state his preference to the court as to whether he would rather live with hismother or father; however, the trial courtis not bound to follow the child’s prefer-ence. West’s A.M.C. § 93–11–65.
8. Child Custody
O
576
Evidence supported conclusion thatmaterial or substantial change in circum-stances that resulted from relocation of ex- wife, who had primary physical custody of parties’ children, to another state had ad- versely affected child, for purposes of de-termining whether modification of custodyfrom ex-wife to ex-husband was appropri-ate.
9. Child Custody
O
76
The polestar consideration in anychild custody matter is the best interestand welfare of the child.
10. Child Custody
O
923(4)
Reversal of trial court’s order denyingex-husband’s motion for modification of physical custody of child from ex-wife tohim was required, where there was over- whelming evidence to establish a materialand substantial change of circumstancesthat adversely affected child, i.e., ex-wife’srelocation with children to another state
Leave a Comment