### Gin ger h as remarried an d tak en th e last name o f her husb and , Joe H artfield. 1 I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 4 - CT - 0 0 0 8 8 - S CT GI NGER M. McS W

AI N ( HAR T FI EL D)
v. C H A R L ESC

. McS W A IN ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 09/ 16/ 2003 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. J AM ES H. C. THOM AS, J R. COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: LAM AR COUNTY CHA NCERY COURT A T T O R N E Y F O R A P P E L L A N T : W IL L IA M E . A N D R E W S , III ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLEE: J AM ES R. HA YD EN NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CI VI L - DOMES T I C R E L AT I ONS DI S P OS I T I ON: T HE J UDGMENT OF T HE CO UR T OF A P P E A L S I S R E V E R S E D . T H E J UD GM ENT O F THE LAM AR CO UN TY CH AN CERY CO UR T I S REI NSTA TED A N D A FFIRM E D - 12/ 14/ 2006 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: EN BA NC. CO BB, PRES I DI NG J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. T he Lam arC ounty C hancery Court , i n a hea r i ng f orm odi f i cat i on of

chi l d cus t ody, h e ld th a t c u sto d y s h o u ld b e tra n sfe rre d fr o m th e m o th e r, G in g e r M . M c S w a in H a rtfie ld , to 1 the f ather , Char l es C. M cSw ai n. T he C our tof A ppeal s r ever s ed, f

i ndi ng thatthe cha ncel l or had err ed i n cons i der i ng G i nger ’ s pastbehavi orand the pos s i bi l i ty of f utur e i m pr ovi dent behavi ori n det erm i ni ng w hetherther e had be en a mat er i al change i n ci r cumst ance s thathad

### Although it is a phra secommonly use d by lawyer s and judge s, the reis no provi si on 2 

### un der M iss. Co de Ann . Sect io n9 3 -5 -2 4 fo r “primary ” physical cu stody. T hat sectio n sets forth t he vari ous c ombinations of p hy sica l and le galcus tody, but wi th regard t o physi ca l cus tody, it

only provide s f

or j oint physical cu st ody, a

nd physi ca l c ust ody in onepar ent or another . Se e Ru sh v. R ush , 932 So. 2d 794, 796 ( Mis s. 2006). The phys ic a lvi ol e nc einc lud e d o neoc c a s i on on whic h Ginge r rippe d Mr. Hartf ie ld’ s 3 

### shirt off . On anothe r oc ca si on, Ginger dre w a knife o n him. Therewas al so an occ as ion wher e Ginge r threw a la

ptop int o the winds hie ld of Mr. Hart fi el d’s car. Mil le r wa s f orc ed to w itness many o f these fig hts an d w as up set bythem. 2 adver s el y af

f ect ed thei rchi l d, M i l l erM cSw ai n. W e hol d thatther e w as no abus e of d isc re tio n b y th e c h a n c e llo r; a n d th e re fo re , w e re v e rse th e ju d g m e n t o f th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls
a n d a ffirm th e c h a n c e llo r’s ju d g m e n t.

F AC T S AN D C HA NC E RY CO UR T P RO CE E DI NG S ¶2 . C h arles a n d G ing er M cS w ain w ere m arried in 1 9 9 7 , a n d M il ler w as b o rn in O ctob er, 1998. T he coupl e f

i l ed f oran i r r econc i l abl e di f f erences di vor ce i n A pr i l of 2000 i n t he L amarC ounty C hance r y C our t . I n the s ett l ementagr eement , they agr eed t o j oi ntl egal
cus t ody of

M i l l erw i th G i ngerha vi ng pr i m ary phys i cal cus t ody. T he j udgm entw as f i nal on 2 Sept ember14, 2000. ¶3. I n February 2001, G i ngerm arr i ed J oe H art f i el d. T he tr i al evi dence s how s t hatt he
m arr i age w as s tr ai ned f r om the begi nni ng. H art f i el d and G i ngerengage d i n ar gum ent s and f i ght s thatsomet i m es erupt ed i nt o physi cal vi ol ence as w el l
. O n atl eas tone occ as i on, the 3 vi ol ence r os e t o s uch a l evel thatthe pol i ce ha d t o be ca l l ed. ¶ 4 . Ha r t f

i e l d t e s t i f i e d th a th e b e l i e v e d Gi n g e r ’ s a c t i o n s t o b e th e r e s u l to f h e ra l c o h o l i s m. H e al s o s poke of

G i nger ’ s pr obl ems w i th depr es s i on and the nega t i ve ef f ectthatherdr i nki ng

### Ginge r s ai d that s he woul d le aveMil le r in one room whil e s he and Ram ona we nt 4 

### int o thebathroom

and s moke d thecoc aine us ing a pipe
. Ginge r t es tified th at w hen s he woul d drink in f ront of Mi ll er , s he r ef

er re d to t he 5 

### alcoh ol th at she w as drinkin g as “h ot co ffee.” 3 h a d o n h e r m e d ica tio n . O n o n e o c c a sio n , H a rtfie ld , frig h ten e d b y G in g e r’s a c tio n s, le ft w ith M il ler an d too k h im to the h o m e o f H artfi eld’s m o ther. ¶5. I n J ul y 2002 G i ngerbegan us i ng coca i ne w i th her ne i ghbor , R amona. G i nger adm i t t ed thatby S eptem ber, she and R am on a w ere u sing c ocaine fr equ entl y. S he als o admi t t ed thatM i l l erw oul d go w i th hert o R amona’ s house w hen she w as usi ng coca i ne, but
s he deni ed eve rus i ng coca i ne “i n f r ontof hi m . ” G i ngerdi d adm i tt o dri nki ng a f ew t i m es 4
a w ee k in fron t of M il ler. 5 ¶6. I n l at e Sept emberof 2002, G i nger vol unt ar i l y admi t t ed her s el f i nt o the J ol i m ar W el l nes s I ns t i tut e ( J ol i m ar ) f ordrug and al cohol r ehabi l i t at i on. G i nger , H art f i el d, and C har l es M cSw ai n agr eed pr i vat el y t hatC har l es w oul d have phys i cal pos s es s i on of M i l l erf or the dur at i on of

G i nger ’ s s t ay atJ ol i m ar . O n O ct ober22, 2002, G i ngercompl et ed a 28- day pr i m ary car e pr ogr am atJ ol i m ar , and then s t ayed in an ext ended c ar e pr ogr am w hi ch s he compl et ed on N ovember22, 2002. H ow ever , s he att ended the w eekl y af t er car e pr ogr am o n ly u n t i l F ebruary, 20 03 , no tw i thst and i ng Jol i m ar’ s di scharge evaluat i on and aft ercare recom m end at i on that s he att end aft ercar e group s f or tw o y ears . ¶ 7 . On No v e mb e r5 , 2 0 0 2 , b e f o r e Gi n g e rh a d c o mp l e t e d h e re x t e n d e d c a r e p r o g r a m, C har l es f i l ed a pe t i t i on f

orm odi f i cat i on and emer gency he ar i ng w i thoutnot i ce i n the Lam ar C ounty C hance r y C our t , see ki ng per m anentm odi f i cat i on of

chi l d cus t ody. O n thatday, t he

### 4

chanc el l orgr ant ed t empora r y phys i cal cus t ody of M i l l ert o C har l es i n an ex par t e emer gency t empora ry orde r . O n N ovember13, G i ngerm oved t o setasi de t he t empora ry orde r , and the chanc el l orm odi f

i ed the t empora r y or dert o al l ow G i ngerw eeke nd vi s i t at i on begi nning N ovember15, 2002. ¶8. B etw een D ece m ber10, 2002, and J anuary 31, 2003, the cha ncel l or ent er ed thr ee addi t i onal t empora r y or der s w hi ch i ncr eas ed M i l l er ’ s t i m e w i th G i nger , on a al t ernat i ng b asis. T h e tri al w as set fo r M arc h 1 2 , 2 0 0 3 , b u t w h en a su b p o en ae d w itn ess fa il ed to ap p ea r, the mat t erw as c ont i nued. O nce a gai n, the cha ncel l orent er ed a t empora ry or derr egar di ng M ill e r, w h ich a ltern a ted h is p h y sic a l p o ss e ss io n b e tw e e n C h a rle s a n d G in g e r o n a w e e k ly b a sis u n til th e d a te o f tria l. ¶9. T he tr i al t ook pl ace A ugus t25 and 26, 2003. Fi nal j udgm entw as i s s ued Sept ember 16, 2003, cont i nui ng j oi ntl egal cu st od y, buttr ans f err i ng phys i cal cus t ody of M i l l erf r om G i ngert o C har l es , and gr ant i ng “eve ry r eas onabl e vi s i t at i on” t o G i nger , al bei tw i t hi n a s peci f i c s chedul e. I n s uppor tof hi s deci s i on, the cha ncel l orci t ed thatG i ngeri s an admi t t ed drug a nd a l cohol addi ctw ho i s curr ent l y on m edi cat i on f ordepr es s i on. T he cha ncel l orf ound thatG i ngerhas had s ui ci dal thought s and s uf fer s f r om the us ual negat i ve f eel i ngs t hat
acc om pany drug and al cohol abus e. I tw as al s o f ound thatt her e i s s t i l l f r i ct i on betw een G i ngerand H art f

i el d i n t hei rm arr i age. G i nger ’ s cont i nu ed as s oci at i on w i th R amona, t he
n eigh b o r w h o h ad su p p li ed G ing er w ith c o ca ine, w as o f p arti cu lar co n ce rn to th e c h an ce ll o r. ¶10. T he j ud gm ent al s o r ef l ect ed the cha ncel l or ’ s conce rns thatG i ngerhad notatt ended the s ugges t ed af

t er car e f orherr ehabi l i t at i on. G i nger ’ s couns el oratJ ol i m art es t i f i ed thathe

### H is und isputed testimony was that he do es drinko ccasion ally, andth at inth e past 6 

### year hemay havebought “ threeor f our c as es of be er , s o one, two be er s a wee k.” 5 bel i eved G i ngerw oul d s eek he l p i f s he l os tcont r ol of

heract i ons . T he cha ncel l ors t at ed that G ing er’s p ast i n ab il ity to co n tr o l her a cti o n s w o u ld no t m ak e for a g o o d circu m stan ce for a chil d d epen dan ton G i ng er m aking i m po rt ant deci si on s. ¶11. A l though i tw as re cogni zed thatC har l es had been m arr i ed f ourt i m es and us ed al cohol
r e g u l a r l y , th e c h a n c e l l orf ou n d th a tCha r l e s h a d a mor e s t a b l e h o me e n v i r o n me n t . To 6
s uppor tthi s pos i t i on, the cha ncel l orpoi nt ed outt hatC har l es w or ked f r om hi s hom e, had a comfort abl e i ncome and w as curr ent l y i n a s t abl e mar r i age. ¶12. W i th t hes e f

i ndi ngs , t he chanc el l ordet erm i ned thatt her e had been a mat er i al change i n ci r cumst ance s w hi ch had an adver s e i m pacton M i l l er . T he cha ncel l orthen tr acke d t he f act or s s etf

or th i n Albr i

ght v. Albr i ght , 437 So. 2d 1003 ( M i s s . 1983) , as he eva l uat ed the f act s and ci r cumst ance s t o det erm i ne w hetheri tw as i n M i l l er ’ s bes ti nt er es tt o r emai n i n the
cus t ody of

hi s m other , orw hetheri tw oul d b e b es tf orM i l l ert o be i n hi s f

ather ’ s cus t ody. T he cha ncel l orthen aw ar ded cus t ody of M i l l ert o C har l es M cSw ai n, gi vi ng G i nger reas on able vi si t at i on ri gh t s.

PROCEEDI NG S I N THE C OU RT OF APPE ALS ¶13. O n di r ectappea l , the C our tof A ppeal s r ever s ed and r ender ed w i th r es pectt o t he
c h a n c e llo r’s d e c isio n to m o d ify c u sto d y o f M ill e r, ho ld in g tha t th e c h a n c e llo r h a d a b u se d h is di s cr et i on by “f

ocus [ i ng] on the pot ent i al f orf utur e pr obl ems r atherthan the pr es ent l y-

### 6

exi s t i ng ci r cumst ance s of M i l l er ’s h om e li f

e. ” McS w a in v. McS w a in , 2005 M i s s . A pp. L E X IS 8 3 3 at ¶1 3 (M iss. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 5 ). A N A L Y S IS I . St andard of R evi ew ¶ 1 4 . T h is C o u rt laid o u t th e sta n d a rd fo r re v iew in g a c h a n c e llo r’s d e c isio n in a c h ild
cus t ody cas e i n Mab us v. Mab us , 8 4 7 S o . 2 d 8 1 5 (M iss
. 2 0 0 3 ). “In a c a se d isp u tin g c h ild
c u sto d y , th e c h a n c e llo r’s fin d in g s w ill n o t b e re v e rse d u n les s m a n ife stly w ro n g , cle a rly
err oneous , orthe pr operl egal s t andar d w as notappl i ed. ” I d. at818. I I . E vi dence of

m at eri al change i n ci rcum s t ances ¶15. I n a modi f

i cat i on pr ocee di ng, the bur den i s on the non- cus t odi al par entt o pr ove by a pr eponder ance of

the evi dence : “( 1) thata s ubs t ant i al change i n ci r cumst ance s has tr ans pi r ed s i nce i s s uance of the cus t ody decr ee; ( 2) thatt his ch ange a dver s el y af f ect s t he chi l d’ s w el f

ar e; an d ( 3) thatthe chi l d’ s bes ti nt er es t s m andat e a c hange of cus t ody. ” I

d. ( ci t i ng B ubac v. B os ton , 6 0 0 S o . 2 d 9 5 1 , 9 5 5 (M iss. 1 9 9 2 )). ¶ 1 6 . T h e c ru x o f th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls’ a n a ly sis w a s th a t th e m a ter ial c h a n g e s in ci r cumst ance s i n M i l l er ’ s hom e l i f e thatw oul d have a n adver s e af f ecton M i l l erw er e not cont i nuous and no l ongerexi s t ed att he t i m e of the tr i al
. “[ T ] he cha ncel l ors houl d f i nd t hat the over al l ci r cum st ances i n w hi ch a c hi l d l i ves have mat er i al l y change d a n d a re like ly to
rem ain m ater i all

y cha ng ed for th e fores eeab l e f uture . ” McS w a in , 2 0 0 5 W L 2 9 7 9 6 7 8 a t ¶ 12 ( quot i ng Tuckerv. Tucker , 45 3 S o . 2d 12 9 4 , 12 9 7 (M iss. 19 8 4 )) (em p h asis in o ri g inal). The Courtof

A ppeal s s t at ed thatthe cha ncel l orabus ed hi s di s cr et i on beca us e he f ocus ed on

### 7

the po t enti al f

or f utur e probl em s rather than present l y-exi st i ng ci rcum st ances an d, becau se G in g e r w a s d ru g a n d a lco h o l fre e a t th e tim e o f th e h e a rin g , the m a ter ial c h a n g e in
c ir c u m s ta n c e s w a s n o t c o n te m p o ra n e o u s a n d c o u ld n o t m a n d a te a c h a n g e o f c u s to d y . I d. at ¶ 1 3 . T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls w e n t on to sa y tha t i t ap p e a re d “th a t th e c h a n c e llo r m ista k e n ly
us ed pas tm i s conducton G i nger ’ s partt o tr i ggera r e- w ei ghi ng of the A lb rig h t f

act or s . ” I

d. at¶15. ¶17. T hi s C our tr ece nt l y deal tw i th a ver y si m i l arcas e i n Johnson v. G r ay , 859 So. 2d 1006 ( M i s s . 2003) , w her e a m other( J ohns on) appeal ed a chanc el l or ’ s or derthatc us t ody of h er c h il d b e tran sferred fr o m h er to h er e x -hu sb an d , the c h il d ’s na tural father (G ray ). J ohnson w as an al cohol i c, had atl eas tone ca racc i dentw her e s he w as dr i vi ng undert he i nf l uence of a l cohol , a nd e ven had an i nci dentw her e s he goti nt o a f i ghtw i th herboyf

r i end
a n d k n o c k e d a w in d o w o u t o f h is tru c k
. I d. a t 1 0 0 8 -0 9 . H o w e v e r, as in th e c a se p re se n tly bef or e the C ou rt , Johnson s oughttr eatm entf r om a r ehabi l i t at i on f

aci l i ty and w as r el eas ed p ri o r t h e c u s to d y h e a ri n g in h e r c a s e , a n d s h e w a s a tte n d in g a ft e rc a re tw ic e e v e ry w e e k
. I d. at 10 1 4 -15 . S h e h ad also m arried, st arted att en d ing ch u rch , an d w as b u il d ing a h o m e b efo re th e h e a ri n g . I

d. U nderthe C our tof A ppeal s’ reasoni ng, J ohns on s houl d have r et ai ned
cus t ody of

herchi l d. H ow ever , thi s C our tuphel d t he cha ncel l or ’ s deci s i on t o tr ans f er cus t ody f r om J ohns on t o G r ay, s t at i ng that“har dl y enough t i m e” ha d pas s ed “t o det erm i ne i f [ J ohns on] [ w oul d] b e ab l e to remai n s ober
. ” I d. at1015. T hi s C our tuphel d the chancel l or ’ s deci s i on t o us e the pos s i bi l i ty of a f utur e r el aps e as a f

act orw ei ghi ng agai nst J ohns on.

### 8

¶18. H er e, the chan cel l or c i t ed numer ous r eas ons f orhi s deci s i on t o m odi f y cus t ody of M i l l er . T he fact ors cons i der ed i ncl uded G i nger ’ s depr es s i on and the f actthats he had
s ui ci dal thought s . G i nger ’ s drug and al cohol addi ct i on, herf ai l ur e t o att end af

t er car e, and the f actthatG i ngers t i l l as s oci at es w i th he rf or m erdrug pa r tnera l s o w ei ghed heavi l y i n t he chanc el l or ’ s deci s i on. ¶19. T he C our tof

A ppeal s hel d t hatbeca us e G i ngerw as notus i ng drugs oral cohol atthe tim e o f th e h e a rin g , G in g e r’s a d d ictio n c o u ld n o t b e c o n sid e re d a c o n tin u in g c h a n g e in
c irc u m sta n c e . H o w e v e r, by G in g e r’s o w n ad m iss io n o n the w itn e ss sta n d , sh e w ill al w ays be an a ddi ct , and, as the chanc el l orm ent i oned i n hi s j udgm ent , she c ont i nues t o s uf f erf r om the nega t i ve f

eel i ngs thatacc om pany an a ddi ct i on. G i nger ’ s drug a ddi ct i on tr ans pi r ed af t er th e c u sto d y a rra n g e m e n t to w h ich sh e a n d C h a rle s a g re e d w a s in c o rp o ra te d in to th e ir i rr econc i l abl e di f

f er ence s di vor ce de cr ee. Itis m os tcert ai nl y a mat er i al change that
a d v e rse ly a ffe c ts M ill e r, a n d b e c a u se h e r d ru g a d d ictio n is s o m e th in g th a t G in g e r w ill lik e ly have t o endur e f

oryear s , if

n ot t he r es tof

herl i f e, i tcont i nues . G i nger ’ s drug addi ct i on s at i s f i es the f i r s ttw o pr ongs of

the t es tf

orm odi f i cat i on of

chi l d cus t ody. ¶20. A l s o ci t ed by the cha ncel l orw as the di s cor d i n G i nger ’ s m arr i age w i th J oe H art f i el d. T he C ou r to f

Appe a l s s t a t e d tha tb e c a us e the t e ns i on b e tw e e n H a r t f i e l d a nd Gi ng e ratt he t i m e of tr i al “w as notas f i er ce a nd cont ent i ous as i thad pr evi ous l y been, ” thatthe
c ir c u m s ta n c e s th a t m ig h t h a v e m a n d a te d a c h a n g e in c u s to d y h a d s u b s id e d
. McS w a in , 2005 W L 2979678 at¶17. A s di s cus s ed ea r l i er , the f i ght s thatt ook pl ace betw een H art f i el d and

### 9

G i ngerw er e of

t en extr emel y heate d and very vi ol ent . T hes e types of f i ght s cons t i tut ed a
m aterial ch an g e in c ir cu m stan ce s tha t w o u ld ad v erse ly affec t M il ler. ¶ 2 1 . T a k e n in th e a g g re g a te, th e fa c to rs c o n sid e re d b y th e c h a n c e llo r o b v io u sly c o n stitu te suff i ci ent ci rcum st ances t o w arr ant a ch ang e in cu st od y w ou l d be in M i l l er’ s besti nter est s. T he c ha nc e l l ortho r ou gh l y e xa mi ne d the e vi de nc e a nd mad e a f i nd i ng o f

f a c tu s i ng t he A lb rig h t f

act or s . H e det erm i ned t hatM i l l er ’ s bes ti nt er es t s w oul d be s erved by a
m odi f i cat i on of

the or i gi nal cus t ody agr eement , and aw ar ded cus t ody of M i l l ert o C har l es M cSw ai n. W e f

i nd no err ori n t hi s r egar d. I I I . M odi f

i c at i on o f

c us t ody ¶ 2 2 . T h is C o u rt h a s b e e n v e ry c lea r a b o u t th e a m o u n t o f d e fe re n c e th a t ch a n c e llo rs a re to
r ece i ve i n m aki ng a f

actual det erm i nat i on. “[ W ] e, as an appe l l at e court , w i l l aff i rm the decr ee i f the r ecor d s how s a ny gr ound upon w hi ch the dec i s i on m y be j us t i f i ed .
. . W e w i l l not
a rb itrar il y sub sti tute ou r j u d g m en t for th at of th e ch an ce ll o r w h o i s i n th e b est po sit ion to eval uat e al l f

act or s r el at i ng t o the b es ti nt er es tof the chi l d. ” Tucker , 453 So. 2d at1296 ( quot i ng Y

ates v. Y ates , 284 So. 2d 46, 47 ( M i s s . 1973) )
. I n the pr es entcas e, ther e w as suff i ci ent evi den ce forthe ch ancell or to fi n d tha ta chan ge o f cust od y w as i n M i l l er’ s best i nt er es t . A r evi ew of

the r ecor d and the j udgm entr evea l s no m ani f es tw r ong, c l earerr or , or i m proper l egal anal ysi s, and the rul i ng of the ch ancell or w as r easona ble unde r the fact s. CO NC L US I ON ¶ 2 3 . C h a n c e llo rs a re in th e b e st p o sitio n to m a k e a d e ter m in a tio n b a se d o n th e fa c ts pr es ent ed t o them attr i al
. I n thi s cas e, the cha ncel l ors t at ed thatG i ngerw as a good mot her

### 10

w ho m ade a bad choi ce. U nf or tunat el y, t he choi ces thatG i ngerm ade w i l l af f ectherand her f ami l y f ora very l ong t i m e. T he chanc el l orw ei ghed t he f act s i n t hi s cas e and m ade a rul i ng bas ed on thos e f

act s , and thi s C our tw i l l notsecon d gu ess thatrul i ng. T her ef or e, t he ju d g m e n t o f th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls is re v e rse d , an d th e ju d g m e n t o f th e L a m a r C o u n ty C hance ry C our ti s af

f i r m ed. ¶24. T HE J UD GMEN T OF THE COU RT OF AP P E AL S I S RE VE RS E D. T HE JU D G M E N T O F TH E C H A N C E R Y C O U R T O F LA M A R C O U N T Y IS RE I NS TA TE D AND A F F I RM ED . S M I TH, C. J . , W ALLER, P. J . , DI AZ , EAS LEY, CAR LS ON , DI CK I NSON AND RAN DO LPH, J J . , CO NC UR. GR AVES, J . , DI S S ENTS W I THO UT S EPARATE W RI TT EN OP I NI ON.