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 7 - CA- 0 1 3 8 5 - S CT CHASITY NICOLE S

M I TH W I LBURN
v. W I LL I AM HAYWOOD W

I LBURN D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 05/ 31/ 2007 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. GL E NN AL DE RS ON COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: LAF AYETT E COUNTY CHANCERY COURT ATT ORNEYS F OR APP EL LANT: J OHN THOM AS L AM AR, J R. DAV I D M . S LOCUM , J R. ATT ORNEY F OR APP EL LE E: T. S W AYZE AL F ORD NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CI VI L - CU S T ODY D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E M A N D E D - 10/ 02/ 2008 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: B E F O R E D I A Z, P . J. , C A R L SO N A N D R A N D O L P H , JJ. RAN DO LPH, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. C has i ty N i col e Sm i th W i l burn and W i l l i am H ayw ood W i l burn di vor ced on gr ounds of i rr e c on c i l a bl e di f

f e r e nc e s . The i r“ Pr op e rty Se tt l e mentA gr e e ment ” pr ovi ded f orj oi ntl egal
cus t ody of

thei rtw o mi norc hi l dr en “w i th [ W i l l i am] ha vi ng pr i m ary phys i cal cust od y and [ C has i ty] havi ng r eas onabl e per i ods of vi s i t at i on . . . . ” Fol l ow i ng an agr eed modi f i cat i on by the part i es i ncr eas i ng Chasi ty’ s vi s i t at i on, Chasi ty f i l ed an “A m ended Peti t i on f or M o d ifica tio n o f D iv o rc e D e c re e ” in th e C h a n c e ry C o u rt o f L a fa y e tte C o u n ty , M iss iss ip p i,
s eeki ng a modi f

i cat i on of

cus t ody and/ orvi s i t at i on r i ght s . A tthe s ubs equenthear i ng, t he chanc el l ors t ayed the pr ocee di ngs and appoi nt ed an i ndepende ntps ychol ogi s tt o i nt ervi ew the p are n ts an d ch il d ren , then rep o rth is r ec o m m en d ati o n s. In th e interim , C h asity ’sT he coupl e had t w o chi l dr en, T . W . , born A pr i l 3, 1994, and C
. W . , born J une 14, 1 1995. 

### 2 vi s i t at i on w as i ncr eas ed f ur therby or derof

the cha ncery court . Fol l ow i ng r ece i pto f the ps ychol ogi s t ’ s r eport , a hear i ng w as hel d and an or ders ubs equent l y ent er ed pr ovi di ng t hat W il li am w o u ld re tai n p ri m ary p h y sical cu stod y o f th e m ino r ch il d ren an d red u cing C h asity ’s
v is ita tio n to e s s e n tia lly th a t p ro v id e d fo r in th e o ri g in a l “ P ro p e rt y S e ttle m e n t A g re e m e n t.” F o llo w in g d e n ial o f h e r “ M o tio n fo r R e c o n sid e ra tio n ,” C h a sity filed n o tice o f a p p e a l. FACTS ¶2. O n A pr i l 15, 2004, W i l l i am and C has i ty f i l ed a “J oi nt C om pl ai nt f or D i vor ce” i n t he chanc ery courton the bas i s of irreconci l abl e di f

f er ence s . T he j oi ntcompl ai ntf ur ther
r eques t ed thatW i l l i am and C hasi t y “be aw ar ded j oi ntl egal cus t ody of the part i es ’ m i nor chi l dr en[ ]
. . . . ” O n J une 8, 2004, W i l l i am and C has i ty f i l ed a “ Pr operty S et t l em ent 1 A gr eement ” pr ovi di ng, i n pert i nentpart , thatthe coupl e w oul d have j ointl egal cus t ody of the mi norchi l dr en, “w i th [ W i l l i am] havi ng pri m ary physi cal cust ody and [ C has i ty] havi ng
r eas onabl e per i ods of

vi s i t at i on . . . . ” Speci f i cal l y, C has i ty w oul d have vi s i t at i on w i t h t he
m i norchi l dr en eve r y otherw eeke nd f r om 6: 00 p. m . on Fr i day eve ni ng thr ough 6: 00 p. m . on S un day even i ng ; forsi x w eeks du ri ng the sum m er i n tw o-w eek, non-con secut i ve int erval s; fo r h o lid a y s a ltern a tin g y e a rly ; an d “s u c h o th e r p e rio d s o f v isitatio n as m a y b e m u tu a lly agr eed upon betw een the par t i es . ” T he “Pr operty Set t l ementA gr eement ” expr es s l y added th a t: i ti s under s t ood and agr eed be tw een the part i es thatthi s A gr eementi s ent er ed i nt o w i thoutundue i nf

l uence , f r aud, c oer ci on, orm i s r epr es ent at i on, orf orany r eas on n oth e r e i n s t a t e d. The p r ov i s i on s i n thi s Agr e e menta nd the i rl egal e ff e c t a re fu lly k n o w n a n d u n d e rsto o d b y e a c h o f th e p a rties , an d e a c h p a rtyI n ent er i ng i nt o the “Pr operty Set t l ementA gr eement , ” W i l l i am w as r epr es ent ed by 2 c o u n se l, w h ile C h a sity w a s n o t. 

### Regarding the“Property Se ttle me nt Agree me nt, ” thechanc er y court found “it to be 3 

### a c ompl et e, fa ir , a

nd equitabl e se ttle me nt of theproperty ri ghts and obligati ons of theparti es as to th e parties’ . . . ch ild supp ort an d v isitation .” 3 acknow l edg es thatthe A gr eementi s f ai rand equi t abl e r egar dl es s of any gr ounds f

ordi vor ce, know n or unknow n, t hatm ay now or he r eaf t erexi s t , and th a t it is b e in g e n te re d in to v o lu n ta ri ly
. . . .

. . . I ti s a l s o unde r s t ood a nd a gr eed thatthi s A gr eements t ands al one as a contr act betw een the part i es and s hal l r emai n i n f ul l for ce and ef

f ectu n les s a n d

u n til m odi f i ed by s ubs equent

A gr eem entof

the par t i es ors upers eded by a law f ul O r derof a [ c] our tof com pet ent j ur is di ct i on .[ ] 2 ( E m phas i s added)
. O n J une 16, 2004, the cha ncery courtent er ed a “J udgm entforD i vor ce

– Irre c o n c ilab le D iffe re n c e s” in a c c o rd w ith th e “ Jo in t C o m p lain t fo r D ivo rce ” a n d “ P ro p e rty S e ttle m e n t A g re e m e n t.” 3 ¶3
. N ear l y s i x m on ths l a t e r , o n D ece m ber12, 2004, C has i t y f i l ed a “ Pet i t i on f

or M odi f i cat i on of

V i s i t at i on R i ght s and ForC i t at i on of C ont empt , ” w hich i ncl uded the
a lleg a tio n th a t: [ s ] i nce the part i es ’ s epar at i on bef or e thei rdi vor ce a nd pr i ort o entry of the D ecr ee of

D i vo rce , the part i es s har ed phys i cal cus t ody on an al t ernat i ng w e e k ly b a sis . [C h a sity ] w a s led to b e liev e b y [W ill iam ] th a t th e sa m e sc h e d u le w oul d cont i nue, and i tdi d s o unt i l entry of the dec r ee i n thi s cas e. C has i ty m ai nt ai ned thatbutf orthi s purpor t edl y f

r audul entacti on , “s he w oul d nothave
execu t ed t he P roperty S et t l em ent A greem ent and p roceeded forw ard w i tho ut s eeking ad vis e [ s i c] of couns el
. ” She f

ur theras s ert ed thats tr i ctadher ence t o the vi s i t at i on s chedul e out l i ned i n the “Pr operty Sett l ementA gr eement ” const i tut ed “a m at er i al change i n ci r cumst ance s

### 4

a d v e rs e to th e b e s t in te re s ts o f t h e c h ild re n w a rr a n tin g m o d if ic a tio n o f t h e D iv o rc e D e c re e .” W i l l i am’s s ubs equent l y- f i l ed ans w erde ni ed C has i ty’ s a l l egat i ons . A M ay 2, 2005, hear i ng bef or e the cha ncery courtr es ol ved the mat t er . T he fol l ow i ng agr eementw as r ead i nt o t he
r ecor d by couns el f

orC has i ty: b a se d u p o n a n a g re e m e n t b e tw e e n th e p a rt ie s th e v isitatio n sc h e d u le th a t is cu rr entl y incorporat ed int o the Final D ecree of D i vo rce w as m o d if iedto i ncl ude vis i tat i on b etw een [Chasi t y] and the tw o chi ldr en ev er y W ednes day night
. Ther e w i l lal

s o be i ncr eas ed vis i tat i on dur i ng the C hr is tm as [ h] ol i day, and al s o wi th [C has i t

y] on eve r

y Spr i ng B r eak
. . . . [ A ] partof the agr eement i s w hen they ar e not

i n s chool

the hol i day vis i tat i on thatis s et forth i n the ag r e e m e nt

wi l lcontr ol , tha t w hi l e the [ chi ldr en] ar e i n s chool i tw i l lbe on each W ednes day ni

ght
. (E m p h asis ad d ed ). ¶4. O n February 23, 2006, W i l l i am and C hasi t y fi l ed a “JointM ot i on” r eques t i ng “a hear i ng i n r el at i on t o unr es ol ved m att er s s t emm i ng f r om thei rFi nal D ecr ee of D i vor ce. ” The
m o tio n p ro v id e d th a t: [t ] h e p arti es w ere b efo re th is H o n o rab le C o u rt[i ] n M ay . . . 2 0 0 5 an d w ere admoni s hed i n re gar d t o t he sa m e. H ow ever , a di s put e has ar i s en i n r el at i on to th e C o u rt ’s inp u t. T h ere fore , the p arti es re sp ec tf u ll y req u est th at th e [c] o u rt heart es t i m ony and evi dence and cl ear l y es t abl i s h par amet er s f orvi s i t at i on, cont actbetw een the mi norchi l dr en and [ C has i ty] , a ndr e l a t e d i s s ues pert ai ni ng t o vi s i t at i on. O n M ay 19, 2006, C has i ty fi l ed an “A m ended Pet i t i on forM odi f i cat i on of

D i vor ce D ecr ee” cl ai m i ng that“[ t ] he act i ons of [ W i l l i am] t ow ar d hi s c hi l dr en and [ C has i ty] s i nce entry of t he l as tdecr ee i n thi s cas e cons t i tut es a mat er i al change i n ci r cumst ance s w arr ant i ng
m o d if icati o n of cu stod y or, in th e alt ern ati v e, m o d if icati o n of visit ati o n ri g h ts. ” C h a sity
s ought“t empora r y r el i ef i n or dert o i ncr eas e t he am ountof t i m e w hen t he chi l dr en ar e i n her
car e an d cus t ody and w oul d s how the i nt ens e angui s h and r es ul t i ng ef f ectof the D i vor ce

### 5

D ec ree w arran ts th e sa m e.” W ill iam ’s a n sw er a n d co u n ter-com p lai n t den ied C h asity ’s al l e ga t i on s ; r e qu e s t e d tha tChas i ty b e he l d i n cont empt f oral l egedl y “w i l l f

ul l y and w ant onl y”
re fu sin g to r e im b u rse W ill iam fo r h e r o n e -h a lf o f th e c h ild re n ’s e x p e n se s a n d d e c lin in g to
re tu rn th e c h ild re n to W ill iam a t th e c o n c lu sio n o f h e r v isitatio n ; an d a d d e d th a t: C has i ty cont i nues t o t el l the mi norchi l dr en thatt hey can c hoos e w her e they w antt o l i ve once they r eac h the age of 12 year s ol d. T hi s a ct i on a nd att i tude by C has i ty has had an a dverse eff ecton the mi norchi l dr en. C has i ty has pur chas ed i nappr opr i at e r eadi ng m at er i al and cl othi ng f orthe mi norchi l dr en. C h asity h a s e n c o u ra g ed the m ino r ch il d ren to li e to [W il li am ]
. C h asity ’s act i ons cons t i tut e a mat er i al change i n ci r cumst ance s adver s e t o the hea l th and w e lfa re o f th e c h ild re n s in c e th e J u d g m e n t o f D iv o rc e a n d [W ill iam ] req u e sts th e C o u rt to m o d if

y C h a s ity ’s v is ita tio n . . . . ¶5. O n O ct ober18, 2006, a hear i ng on C has i ty’ s amended pet i t i on and W i l l i am’s ans w er and count er - compl ai ntw as hel d bef or e the cha ncery court . J ul i e D avi ds on, a gr aduat es tud ent therapi statthe U niver si ty o f M i ssi ssi pp i P sycho l og i cal Servi ces C ent er , w ho had met
w i th the ent i r e W i l burn f ami l y atva r i ous t i m es butpr i m ar i l y s aw the mi norchi l dr en, w as t he onl y w i tnes s exami ned. A ccor di ng t o D avi ds on, T . W . had t hr eat ened t o com m i ts ui ci de and had made s ui ci dal ges tur es atvar i ous t i m es . D avi ds on t es t i f i ed thaton F ebruary 22, 2006, T . W . had s t at ed the des i r e t o s el f
- i nj ur e onl y w hen atW i l l i am’s hous e. D avi ds on added that T . W . r eport ed thatthi s de pr es s i on w as the r es ul tof a poorr el at i ons hi p w i th W i l l i am and a d e s ir e to s p e n d m o re tim e w ith C h a s ity . D a v id s o n fu rt h e r t e s tif ie d th a t b o th T .W . a n d C .W . r eport ed conc erns a boutexce s s i ve cons um pt i on of al cohol by W i l l i am. Fi nal l y, D avi ds on t es t i f i ed thatC has i ty had i nf

or m ed T
. W . aboutw hattr ans pi r ed i n one of D avi ds on’ s s es s i ons
w i th W i l l i am and Chasi ty. A ccor di ng t o D avi ds on, thi s l ed t o T . W . ’ s cl ai m of bei ng “ups et that[ W i l l i am] w as m ean t o [ C has i ty]
. ” T her eaf t er , t he chanc el l ordeci ded “t o st op t he tr i al

### Th e ch anc el lor note d, “ no more s es si ons [ at OleMis s] . Af

ter what Isaw this 4 

### morn ing I was ap palled .” Furthermo re, as William’s app ellate brief n otes, “[n ]either party obje ct ed t o the[c ] ourt ’s orde r a ppointing Dr. N ichol s, and ne it her party obj ec te d to t

he continu ance o f trial.” This report

is not c ontaine d in t

he r ec ord. 5 

### 6 atthi s s t age a nd .
. . appoi ntD r . W yattN i chol s as a p sycho l og i s t . ” A ccor di ng t o t he 4 ch an ce ll o r: [ C has i t y] i s compl ai ni ng abouta vi s i t at i on s chedul e thats he agr eed t o and s i gned .
. . . A nd, evi dent l y, s he’ s been di s cus s i ng i ti n fr ontof the chi l dr en. T hat ’ s w hatis tr ou bli ng m e. . . . [ I ] tappea r s thatthes e chi l dr en ar e bei ng m a n ip u late d b y a m o th e r th a t w a n ts to se t th e v isitatio n th e w a y sh e w a n ts to s eti t ; and by a da ddy t hat ’ s s o doggone str i ctyou can’ tknock hi m i n the hea d a n d g e t an y se n se in h im
. Y o u r p ro b lem h e re is th a t yo u ’v e g o t tw o p e o p le that are so str o n g w il led a n d so self-cen tered
. . . that the se tw o [children ] are s uf f er i ng. T he O ct ober24, 2006, orde rof the chanc ery cour tappoi nt ed D r . N i chol s “t o i nt ervi ew the p a re n ts a n d c h ild re n in th is a c tio n ” a n d c o n tin u e d the m a tter “ u n til the rep o rt o f D r. N ich o ls has been r ece i ved and he advi s es thatthe mat t ers houl d go f orw ar d. ” R egar di ng vi s i t at i on, the or derprovi ded that“[ C has i ty’ s ] vi s i t at i on w i l l be i ncr eas ed to in c lu d e , in a d d iti o n to
e v e ry W e d n e sd a y n ig h t v isitatio n , tha t herever y otherw eekend vis i t

s w i l lconclude w hen the chi ldr en re s um e sc hoolon Monday m or ni ngs rather than t erm i nati ng on S un day even i ng s” and “[ t ] he mi norchi l dr en s hal l have t el ephone a cce s s t o [ C has i ty] w hen in t he cus t ody of [W ill iam ] an d w ill h a v e a c c e ss to [W ill iam ] w h e n in th e c u sto d y o f [C h a sity ]. ” (E m p h a sis ad d ed ). ¶6. Fol l ow i ng r ece i pt of D r . N i chol s ’ r eport , the chanc el l or s et the m att er f or hear i ng on 5 M ay 30, 2007. T he tr ans cr i ptof thathe ar i ng i s abs entf

r om the r ecor d, butthe s ubs equent l y-

### Chas it y c onte nds that

thi s order “c hange d her

vis it ation in threeways : ( 1) i t revoke d 6 

### her Wedne sday night

vis it ation wi th t

he m inor chi ldren ; (2) i t c hange d her alte rnatingwee kend vi si tati on to e nd on Sunday ni ght inst ea d of Monday mor ning; and ( 3) i t grant ed her tel ephonevisi tati on ever y Tuesday and Thursday night and a dditiona lly, whe neve r the mino r children d esire.” The May 30, 2007, orde r of thechanc er y court provide s that

Chas it y’s fathe r, John 7 

### Henr y Smi th, re fe rr ed t o thechance ll or a s “a sorryp iec e of shi t! ” As a r es ult , Sm it

h was deemedin co ntemp t of co urt, o rd er edi n carceratedfor th irty (3 0) d ays inthe L afayette County De te nti on Cent er , and fined $100. 00. Chasity subse quently f il ed a “Motion f

or Reco nsid eration ,” pro vid ing that S mith is “th e sole p rov ider for h is ho useh old ” andthat “[i]t is believed that incarc eration wi llcos t [ Smi th] his job. ” TheJune1, 2007, “Order of Rel ea se ” of

the chance ry court sus pende d the r em aining t wenty-e ight

(28) days of Sm it

h’s inc arce rati on and order ed hi m rel ea se d upon paym ent of the $100. 00 fine. 7 en tered Ju n e 1 , 2 0 0 7 , o rde r of the ch an ce ry c o u rtp rov ided that W il li am retaine d p ri m ary phys i cal cust ody of the m i norchi l dr en and C has i ty’ s “m i ni m um vi s i t at i on” w as r educe d t o: [ e] very otherw eeke nd f r om 5: 00 p. m . on Fr i day unt i l 5: 00 p. m . Sunday.

. . . S ix (6 ) w e e k s o f v isitatio n d u rin g th e su m m e r b e in g th e first tw o fu ll w e e k s in J u n e , th e l a s tf

u l l we e k o f

J u n e , th e f

i r s tf u l l we e k o f

J u l y , a n d th e l a s ttwo w eeks of J ul y.

. . . C has i ty s hal l have t el ephone vi s i t at i on w i th t he mi norchi l dr en ea ch Tuesda y and Thurs day ni ghtat7: 00 p. m . T he chi l dr en may have addi t i onal t el ephone v is ita tio n w ith C h a s ity a n d b e a llo w e d to c a ll h e r w h e n th e y d e s ir e .[ ] 6 A cc o rdin g to the ch an ce ll o r:
a t th e c o n c lu sio n o f th e m a tter [C h a sity ] b e c a m e v e ry lo u d a n d b o iste ro u s in the courtr oom . I di r ect ed hercouns el
. . . t o getheroutof the courtr oom bef or e I j ai l ed her
. She l ef tthe courtr oom t al ki ng back t o the [ c] our t , and as [ he w as ] aboutt o exi tthe courtr oom he rf atherc ur s ed the [ c] our t . So I i s s ued a capi as forherfa therand he w entt o t he Laf ayett e C ounty D et ent i on C ent er a s th e re su lt o f th a t.[ ] A n d [C h a sity ] ha s g o n e to th e L a fa y e tte C o u n ty 7

### This Court note s that

this find ing is s uspe ct

as no evi denc e wa s pres ent ed that the 8 

### des cribe d conduc t wa s within hearing of the c ircui t j udge. 8 D e ten tio n C e n ter cu rsin g the [c]o u rt an d ev e ry b o d y els e , a n d h a s c o n tin u e d to d o it.[ ]

8 ¶7. O n J une 12, 2007, C has i ty f i l ed a “M ot i on f

or R econs i der at i on” of the J une 1, 2007,
o rde r of the ch an ce ry c o u rtreg a rdin g cu stod y an d v isi tat ion
. A cc o rdin g to C h asity , “D r. N i chol s advi s ed thatthe [ chi l dr en] ‘ do need t o spen d m or e t i m e w i th her [ , ] ’ r ef er enci ng C has i ty. H e r ecomm ended that‘ m or e t i m e w i th [ C has i ty] mi ghtbe the bes topt i on’ w i th the f atherhavi ng cus t ody. ” N otw i ths t and i ng the r ecomm endat i on of D r . N i chol s , “[ t ] he sch ed u le i m p lem en ted b y the [c]ou rtd ec rea sed the v isi tat ion a rran g em en t i n p lace w h en D r. N i chol s m ade hi s r eport. . . and dec r eas ed [ C has i ty’ s ] t el ephone c on t act . ” W i l l i am
r es ponded that“any a ddi t i onal cont actw i th C has i ty i s onl y m or e di s rupt i ve t o the r out i ne of the mi norchi l dr en. C has i ty cont i nues t o di s cus s the courtpr ocee di ngs w i th the mi nor chi l dr en, even t o the ext entof al l ow i ng the ch i l dren to l i s t en t o a t ape r ecor di ng of the C o u rt ’s ru lin g o f M a y 3 0 , 2 0 0 7 .” ¶8
. O n Ju ly 2 , 2 0 0 7 , a h ea ri n g o n C h asity ’s “M o ti o n for R ec o n si derat i o n ” w as h eld b efo re the cha ncery court . A tthe hea r i ng, the cha ncel l oras ked C has i ty, “i ti s al l eged he r e thatyou al l ow ed the chi l dr en t o l i s t en t o t he t ape r ecor di ng of the C our t ’ s rul i ng on M ay 30, i s t hat
corr ect ?” C has i ty re s ponded t hatno s uch r ecor di ng exi s t ed, butthat“[ W i l l i am] t ol d the ki ds
so m e th in g s th a t d id n o t h a p p e n in c o u rt o n th a t d a y , so it w a s sta ted to h im th a t th e y w o u ld know w hathappene d. ” She then admi t t ed thats he t ol d the mi norchi l dr en they coul d l i s t en to a ta p e re c o rd in g o f

t h e M a y 3 0 , 2 0 0 7 , p ro c e e d in g , “ [t]o g e t [W illia m ] to te ll th e tru th .” T he cha ncel l orr es ponded:

### The c ourt orde r t o whic h thechance ll or r ef er s i s unc le ar

from t he r ec ord. 9 

### “Notic e of

Appea l”was fi le d on August 8, 2007. 10 

### 9 [ y] ou ar e goi ng t o l earn s om e day t o do w hatthe [ c] our thas t ol d you t o do, but you go agai ns tt he [ c] our tO r deral l of the t i m e. [ ] I w as pre par ed t o gi ve you 9 ext ended oraddi t i onal vi s i t at i on unt i l thi s happene d. I am sorry. T he di s rupt i on thatyou and yourf ami l y caus ed i n the courtr oom , and you cont i nue t o di s cus s thes e l egal pr ocee di ngs w i th yourchi l dr en, and the [ c] ou rthas admoni s hed you t i m e and t i m e aga i n nott o. I ’ m denyi ng the mot i on. T he J ul y 19, 2007, or derof the cha ncery courtdeni ed C has i ty’ s “M ot i on f or R e c o n s id e ra tio n .” O n A u g u s t 1 0 , 2 0 0 7 , C h a s ity fi le d “ A m e n d e d N o tic e o f A p p e a l.” 10 I S S UES ¶9
. T h is C o u rtw il l con side r: ( 1) W hetherC has i ty’ s appea l i s unt i m el y. ( 2) W hethert he chanc ery cour ter r ed i n notal l ow i ng C has i ty a hea r i ng on her amended pet i t i on f

orm odi f i cat i on of

the di vor ce de cr ee. (3 ) W h e th e r th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt e rre d in fa ili n g to fin d a m a te ri a l c h a n g e in ci r cumst ance s ors ubs t ant i al evi dence t o s uppor ta modi f i cat i on of

cus t ody. ( 4) W hetherthe cha ncery courterr ed i n m odi f yi ng C has i ty’ s vi s i t at i on. S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶10. “Thi s C our tw i l l notdi s turb the f i ndi ngs of

a cha ncel l orw hen s uppor t ed by s ubs t ant i al
e v id e n c e u n les s th e c h a n c e llo r a b u se d h is d isc re tio n , w a s m a n ife stly w ro n g , cle a rly
err oneous oran err oneous l egal s t andar d w as appl i ed. ” Sanders on v. Sa n ders on , 824 So. 2d 623, 625- 26 ( M i s s . 2002)
. I n s hor t , “ours t andar d of r evi ew def

er s m uch t o t he chanc el l or ’ s f

i nal j udgm ent . ” Id
. at626. R egar di ng l egal quest i ons , t hi s C our tappl i es a de
n o v o s ta n d a rd o f r e v ie w . See Russ e l l v. Per f orm anc e Toy ota, I

nc. , 8 26 S o. 2d 719, 721 (M iss. 2 0 0 2 ).A mot i on f orr e c on s i de r a t i on i s tr e a t e d a s a mot i on t o a l t e rora mend j udgm ent 11 p u rs u a n t to M is s is s ip p i R u le o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 5 9 (e ). See Boyle s v. Sc hlum be r ge rTec h. Cor p. , 7 9 2 S o . 2 d 2 6 2 , 2 6 5 (M iss. 2 0 0 1 ). 

### 10 A N A L Y S IS I . W het her C hasi t y’ s appeal i s unti m el y. ¶11. M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of C i vi l Pr ocedur e 59( e) pr ovi des that“[ a] m ot i on t o al t eror amend the j udgm ents hal l be f

i l ed notl at erthan t en days af t erentr y of the j udgm ent . ” M i s s . R . C i v. P. 59( e) (em phasi s added)
. T hi s t en- day r equi r ementi s abs ol ut e, and “the courti s not perm i t t ed to ext end this t i m e peri od
. ” M i ss. R . C i v. P . 59 (e) cm t . O nly i f a par ty fi l es a tim e ly m o tio n to a lter o r a m e n d th e ju d g m e n t u n d e r R u le 5 9 d o e s “ th e tim e fo r a p p e a l fo r a ll p a rt ie s ru [n ] fro m th e e n tr y o f th e o rd e r d is p o s in g o f th e la s t su c h m o ti o n o u ts ta n d in g .” M iss . R . A p p . P . 4 (d ). O th e rw ise , “ th e n o tice o f a p p e a l re q u ire d b y R u le 3 sh a ll b e filed w ith the cl erk of

the tr i al courtw i thi n 30 days aft er t he date of entry of the j udgm entoror der app eal ed fr om . ” M i ss. R . A pp . P . 4(a)
. T hat thirty-day requi rem ent i s i nfl exibl e in the case
s ub j udi ce a s , i n c i vi l c as es , “ the t i m e f ort aki ng an appe al as pr ovi ded i n R ul es 4 or5 m ay
n o t be e x tend ed
. ” M iss. R . A p p . P . 2 (c). ¶12. O n J une 12, 2007, C has i ty f i l ed a “ M ot i on f

orRecons i der at i on” of the J une 1, 2007, 11
o rd e r o f th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt. A p p ly in g th e tim e -c o m p u tatio n sta n d a rd s o u tli n e d in M i s s i s s i ppi Rul e of

A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e 26( a) , C has i ty’ s m ot i on s houl d have be en f i l ed no la te r t h a n M o n d a y , J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 0 7 . See M i s s . R. Ap p . P . 2 6 ( e ) ; M i s s . R. Ci v . P . 5 9 ( e )
. As
s uch, W i l l i am cont ends thatChasi ty’ s t i m e f orf i l i ng a n appea l comm ence d on J une 1, 2007, and, as s he di d notf

i l e not i ce of

appea l unt i l s i xty- ei ghtdays l at er , on A ugus t8, 2007, her

### 11

appea l i s barr ed as unti m el y. C hasi ty r es ponds thatthi s i s s ue i s pr ocedur al l y barr ed as

“ [b ]e fo re a n is s u e c a n b e p re s e n te d to th is C o u rt , it m u s t fir s t b e p re s e n te d to th e tria l c o u rt .” ¶1 3. T hi s C our tf

i nds t hatC has i t y’ s “M ot i on f orR econs i der at i on” w as unt i m el y. H o w e v e r, th e re is n o e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd th a t W ill iam e ith e r o bje c te d o r re sp o n d e d to C has i ty’ s “M ot i on f

or R econsi der at i on. ” The M i s s i s s i ppi C our tof A ppeal s addr es s ed a
s i m i l ari s s ue i n S c a lly v . S c a lly , 802 So. 2d 128 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2001) , s t at i ng: [ t ] hi s C our tdoes notr evi ew mat t er s on appea l thatw er e notf i r s tr ai s ed atthe tr ia l le v e l. Shaw v. Shaw , 603 So. 2d 287, 292 ( M i s s . 1992)
. B ef or e an i s s ue c a n b e p re se n ted to th is C o u rt, it m u st first b e p re se n ted to th e trial c o u rt. T h is is d o n e b y a n o b

je c tio n . Q ueen v. Q ueen , 5 5 1 S o . 2 d 1 9 7 , 2 0 1 (M iss. 1 9 8 9 ). A t i m el y obj ect i on br i ngs the i s s ue t o the court ’ s at t ent i on, and gi ves i tthe o p p o rt u n ity to a d d re s s th e is s u e . K e ttle v. S ta te , 641 So. 2d 746, 748 (M i ss. 1 9 9 4 ). S c a lly , 802 So. 2d at132. B as ed upon thats ame r eas oni ng, thi s C our tco ncludes t hat W ill iam is p ro c e d u ra lly b a rre d fro m ra isin g th is iss u e fo r th e first tim e o n a p p e a l. I I . W hether t he chancery c ourt err ed i n not al l ow i ng C hasi t y a heari ng on h er am ended pet i t i on f or m odi f

i cat i on of

t he di vorce decre e. ¶14. “B ef

or e an i s s ue m ay be as s i gned and ar gued i n thi s C our t , i t m us t f i r s t be pr es ent ed t o the tr i al court . ” I

n re : H am pton , 9 1 9 S o . 2 d 9 4 9 , 9 5 7 (M iss. 2 0 0 6 ) (cit a tio n o m itted). C has i ty ar gues thats he:
w as den i ed the opportuni ty t o pr es entf actual s uppor tf

orherA m ended Pet i t i on f orM odi f i cat i on of D i vor ce D ecr ee. I n fa ct , hervi s i t at i on w as m odi f i ed i n a m a n n e r to re d u c e h e r v isitatio n ev e n tho u g h the o n ly ev id e n c e in th e re c o rd is th e d ire c t ex a m in a tio n o f J u lie D a v id so n , w h ich e n c o u ra g e d th e c o u rt to i ncr eas e [ C has i ty’ s ] vi s i t at i ons w i th the mi norc hi l dr e n. Cl e a r l y, [ Chas i ty] w as deni ed herdue pr oces s r i ght s . A s a r es ul t , thi s m att ers houl d be r ever s ed and r e mand e d f

ora h e a r i ng o n the mer i t s o f the i s s ue s o f

c hi l d cus t ody and vi s i t at i on.

### 12

As Ch a s i ty ’ s d u e - p r o c e s s a r g u me n ti s r a i s e d f o rth e f i r s tt i me o n a p p e a l , th i s Co u r td e e ms it p ro c e d u ra lly b a rr e d
. See I n re H am pton , 9 1 9 S o . 2 d a t 9 5 7 . N o n e th e les s, th is C o u rt w ill al so add res s this i ssue on the m eri t s. ¶ 1 5 . T h is C o u rt h a s s tate d th a t: [ t ] he part i es should b e af f or ded a f ul l , compl et e hea r i ng atw hi ch the part i es have a n oppor tuni ty t o cal l w i tnes s es i n thei rbehal f and be he ar d by th e m s e lv e s o r c o u n s e l. Fo rten b erry v. Forten berry , 33 8 S o. 2d 80 6 (M i ss. 1976)
. I f a f ul l and compl et e hear i ng i s nota l l ow ed by r ef us i ng the def

endant hi s oppor tuni ty t o pre s entevi dence , t hen the def endanti s ther eby depr i ved of d u e p ro c e s s . Id
. W eeks v. W

eeks , 5 5 6 S o . 2 d 3 4 8 , 3 4 9 -5 0 ( M is s . 1 9 9 0 ). See al s o Mo rr e a le v . Mo rr e a le , 646 S o . 2 d 1 2 6 4 , 1 2 7 0 (M iss . 1 9 9 4 ) (“ [e ]v e ry d e fe n d a n t h a s a rig h t to in tro d u c e e v id e n c e a t a hear i ng. ”)
. I n W

eeks : the def end ant of

f er ed t o pr ove, by hi s ow n t es t i m ony and the t es t i m ony of otherw i tnes s es , thathe had, i ndeed, pa i d hi s ex- w i f e the money she cl ai m ed h e h a d n o t p a id fo r th e n o n p a y m e n t o f w h ich h e w a s h e ld in c o n tem p t. H ow ever , the C hance l l ors hutof f def endant ’ s pr oof

, s ayi ng thathe w as sa tisfie d th a t th e d e fe n d a n t w a s in c o n tem p t. W eeks , 556 So. 2d at349. T hi s C our tconcl uded thatthe def endantw as de pr i ved of

hi s r i ght to a ju d icia l h e a rin g “ b y th e C h a n c e llo r’s re fu sa l to a llo w th e d e fe n d a n t to p re se n t h is evi dence
. ” Id
. Si m i l ar l y, i n Ch ilders v. Ch ilders , 7 1 7 S o . 2 d 1 2 7 9 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ), this C o u rt fo u n d th a t: [i] t w a s a d e n ial o f Ja m e s’ r ig h ts to d u e p ro c e ss fo r th e C h a n c e llo r to d e n y h is m o tio n w ith o u t h o ld in g a h e a rin g w h e re Ja m e s is g iv e n th e o p p o rtu n ity to pr ovi de f actual s uppor tf

orthe al l egat i on i n t he pl eadi ng thatther e has been a m at er i al change i n ci r cumst ance s s i nce the r ender i ng of the f or m erdecr ee. Id
. at1281.

### 13

¶16. T he cas e s ub j udi ce , ho we v e r , i s p l a i n l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m W eeks and Ch ilders
. C has i ty di d notobj ectt o the appoi nt m entof D r . N i chol s on O ct ober18, 2006, or s ubs equent l y obj ectatthe M ay 30, 2007, hear i ng, i n herJ une 12, 2007, “M ot i on f or R econs i der at i on, ” or , f

i nal l y, a tthe J ul y 2, 2007, he ar i ng thats he w as bei ng deni ed herdue process i n n ot bei ng able t o p res ent f urther w i tnesses. A s W i l l i am con t end s: [ i ] tw as C has i ty’ s bur den t o puton herpr oof
. I f s he f el tthats he w as not al l ow ed t o puton evi dence i n s uppor tof her[ p] et i t i on, then s he s houl d have m oved the courtf

oran opportun i ty t o putthos e w i tnes s es on, and i f the C hance l l ordi d notal l ow hert o do s o, then s he s houl d ha ve m ade an of f erof p ro o f a s to th e tes tim o n y sh e w a s n o t allo w e d to p re se n t. T he m ore analogou s case i s Mo rr e a le i n w hi ch “M art i n of f er ed no t es t i m ony, evi dence , ar gum entors t at ement , and .
. . t her e w as no obj ect i on f i l ed w i th the court . ” Mo rr e a le , 646 So. 2d at1270. B as ed ther eon, thi s C our tf ound t hat“[ h] ad he obj ect ed .
. . and of f er ed pr oof of evi dence thatw as t o be pr es ent ed, a di f f er entout come m i ghtr es ul t , butther e i s no err or t o compl ai n of

i n the cha ncel l or ’ s conf i r m at i on. ” Id
. Si m i l ar l y, thi s Courtc oncl udes t hat in th e a b se n c e o f a n o b

jec tio n a n d o ffe r o f p ro o f b y C h a sity , h e r d u e -p ro c e ss a rg u m e n t is
w ith o u t su b sta n tiv e m e rit. I I I . W het her t he chancery c ourt err ed i n fai l i ng t o fi nd a m at eri al ch a n g e in circ u m stan ce s o r s u b stan ti a l evid en ce to su p p o rt a m odi f i cat i on of

cus t ody. ¶1 7 . T h e Ju n e 8 , 2 0 0 4 , “P rop erty S ett lem en t A g ree m en t” b etw ee n W il li am an d C h a sity p ro v id e d th a t th e c o u p le w o u ld h a v e jo in t leg a l cu sto d y o f th e m in o r c h ild re n , “ w ith [ W i l l i am] havi ng pr i m ary phys i cal cus t ody and [ C has i ty] havi ng r eas onabl e per i ods of vi s i t a t i on . . . . ” The J un e 1 , 2 00 7, o r de ro f the c ha nc e ry c ou r tr e ga r di ng c us t ody and vi s i t at i on f

ol l ow ed thatagr eement , pr ovi di ng that“pr i m ary phys i cal cus t ody of the mi nor

### 14

c hi l dr e n s ha l l r e mai n i n [ W i l l i a m] , wi th Chas i ty ha vi ng v i s i t a t i on . ” Chas i ty a r gues on appea l , how ever , thatW i l l i am “agr eed t o s pl i tw eeks w i th the chi l dr en and h is b re a c h o f th is agr eem ent

had an adver

s e ef f ect on th e m ino r children w h ich n ec essitat ed a ch an g e in
cus t ody. ” ( E m phas i s added)
. A s s uch, s he as s ert s thatthe cha ncery courterr ed i n not
m odi f yi ng cus t ody. ¶18. T hi s C our thas s t at ed that“ [ i ] tw oul d be t ant amount t o def r audi ng the courtf

or par t i es t o pre s entt o t he cour ta prope r ty sett l ementagr eement , w hi ch i s s ubs equent l y i ncorpor at ed in to th e fin a l d e c re e , w h ile a c tu a lly in ten d in g to a b id e b y a c o n tra d ict o ry p riv a te c o n tra c t. T hi s i s cl ear l y agai ns tpubl i c pol i cy. ” Sulli van v. P ouncey , 46 9 S o. 2d 12 33 , 12 34 (M i ss. 1 9 8 5 ). See al

s o T r aub v. Johnson , 536 So. 2d 25, 26 ( M i s s . 1988) ( “[ t ] he Sulli van opi ni on cl ear l y s t at es thata pr i oragr eementent er ed i nt o by the part i es i s notenf or cea bl e i f

i ti s not
a p p ro v e d b y th e c o u rt .” ). T h e “ P r o p e r ty S e ttle m e n t A g re e m e n t” e x p re s s ly s ta te s th a t “ [i]t i s . . . under s t ood and agr eed thatthi s A gr eements t ands al one as a contr actbetw een the part i es and s hal l r emai n i n f ul l f or ce a nd ef

f ectunl es s and unt i lm odi f i ed by s ubs equent A gr eem ent

of the p art i es ors upers eded by a l aw f ulO r derof

a [ c] our tof

compet ent j ur i s di ct i on. ” ( E m phas i s added)
. T hough C has i ty ent er ed i nt o the “Pr operty Set t l ement A gr eement ” w i thoutcouns el , t hi s C our thas s t at ed t hat“havi ng el ect ed t o pr ocee d w i thout
a n a tto rn e y , a p e rs o n is b o u n d b y th e s a m e ru le s o f p ra c tic e a n d p ro c e d u re a s a n a tto rn e y .” B u lla rdv. Mo rr is , 547 So. 2d 789, 7 90 (M i ss. 1989). T her ef or e, C has i ty i s bound by t he t erm s of the “Pr operty Set t l ementA gr eement ” r egar di ng cus t ody “unl es s and unt i l m odi f i ed by s ubs equentA gr eementof the part i es ors uper s eded by a l aw f ul O r derof

a [ c] our tof

### 15

com pet entj ur i s di ct i on. ” I n the ca s e s ub j udi ce , ne i the rmodi f i c a t i on no rs up e r s es s i on occurr ed as t o cus t ody
. ¶19. R egar di ng the modi f i cat i on of

chi l d cus t ody, the t es ti s “( 1) w hetherther e has been a mat er i al change i n ci r cumst ance s w hi ch adve r s el y a f f ect s the w el f

ar e of the chi l d and ( 2)
w hetherthe bes ti nt er es tof t he chi l d r equi r es a cha nge of cus t ody. ” Floyd v. Floyd , 949 So. 2d 26, 29 ( M i s s . 2007) ( ci t i ng W e i ga nd v. Houghton , 7 3 0 S o . 2 d 5 8 1 , 5 8 5 (M iss. 1 9 9 9 )). A s the cha ncel l orm ade no s peci f i c f i ndi ng on thi s f

acti s s ue, “ w e ar e r equi r ed by ourpr i or d e c isio n s a n d b y s o u n d in stitu tio n a l co n sid e ra tio n s to a ss u m e th a t th e c h a n c e llo r re so lv e d a ll
s uch f acti s s ues i n f

avorof appel l ee. ” Cheek v. R i cker , 43 1 S o. 2d 11 39 , 11 43 -44 (M i ss. 1983) ( ci t i ng Ha rri

s v. B ail ey A ve. P ark , 2 0 2 M iss. 7 7 6 , 7 9 1 , 3 2 S o . 2 d 6 8 9 , 6 9 4 (19 4 7 )). C has i ty al l eges thatthe p urpo rt e d s e pa r a t e a gr e e ment , a ndW i l l i am’s r ef us al t o abi de ther eby, i s a “mat er i al change i n ci r cumst ance s ” w hi ch “had an adver s e ef f ecton the mi norchi l dr en

. . . .” H o w e v e r, as the “P ro p e rty S e ttl e m e n t A g re e m e n t” e x p re ss ly p ro v id e s th a t itw a s “ fa ir and equi t abl e” a nd f

r eel y e nt er ed by Chasi ty, thi s Courtc oncl udes thatthe cha ncel l ordi d not
a b u se h is d isc re tio n in k e e p in g c u sto d y c o n sis ten t w ith th e “ P ro p e rty S e ttl e m e n t A g re e m e n t” in h is J u n e 1 , 2 0 0 7 , o rd e r. See Y ates v. Y ates , 284 So. 2d 46, 47 ( M i s s . 1973) ( “eve n though the r ecor d does notcl ear l y and pre ci s el y show on w hatground orspec i f i c f i ndi ng of f

actt he deci s i on of

the l ow ercourtw as made, w e, a s an appe l l at e court , w i l l af f i r m the dec r ee i f

t he
rec o rd sh o w s an y g rou n d u p o n w h ich th e d ec isi o n m ay b e jus ti fi ed
. ”).

### The “ mate ri alchange in circ ums tance s”r uleha s no a

ppli cati on regarding vis it ation 12 

### mod ification
. See Cox v. Moulds , 490 So. 2d 866, 869 ( Mis s. 1986). 16 IV . W h eth er th e c h a n ce ry c o u rt e rr ed in m o d if y ing C h a sit y ’s vi s i t at i on. ¶20. H ow ever , as t o vi s i t at i on: [a]ll th a t n e e d b e sh o w n is th a t th e re is a p rio r d e c re e p ro v id in g fo r re a so n a b le vi s i t at i on r i ghts w hi ch i s n’ tw or ki ng and thati ti s i n the bes ti nt er es t s of the chi l dr en as fos t er i ng a posi t i ve and ha r m oni ous r el at i ons hi p betw een them and thei rdi vor ced pa r ent s t o have c us t ody provi s i ons m ade s peci f i c r atherthan fl e x ib le a n d a tte n d a n tly v a g u e .[ ] 12 Cox , 490 So. 2d at869. T he cha ncel l ori s gr ant ed “br oad dis cret i on” i n vi s i t at i on det erm i nat i ons and “[ t ] hi s C our tw i l l notr ever s e a c hance l l or ’ s f i ndi ngs of

factso l on g as they ar e s upport ed by subst an t i al evi den ce i n the record
. ” W e i ga nd , 730 So. 2d at587 ( ci t i ng T edf or d v. D em

ps ey , 4 3 7 S o . 2 d 4 1 0 , 4 1 7 (M is s . 1 9 8 3 )) (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). See a l so O l s on , 799 So. 2d at929 ( “[ o] n vi s i t at i on i s s ues , as w i th otheri s s ues conce rni ng chi l dr en, the cha ncery courtenj oys s i gni f i cantdi s cr et i on i n m aki ng i t s det erm i nat i on of w hati s i n the b est i n terest of the ch il d
. ”). ¶21. T he “Prope r ty Set t l em ent A gr eement ” provi ded C has i ty w i th vi s i t at i on every ot her
w eekend fr om 6: 00 p. m . on Fr i day thr ough 6: 00 p. m . on Sunday; s i x w eeks of s um m er vi s i t at i on i n tw o- w eek, non- cons ecut i ve i nt erval s ; hol i days al t ernat i ng year l y; and any other
v isitatio n a s m u tu a lly a g re e d u p o n w ith W illiam . T h e “ P ro p e rty S e ttl e m e n t A g re e m e n t” added thati tw oul d “r emai n i n f ul l f or ce a nd ef

f ectunl es s and unt i l m odi f i ed by s ubs equent A gr eemento f the part i es ors uper s eded by a l aw f ul O r derof

a [ c] our tof

compet ent j ur i s di ct i on. ” The post
- hear i ng r es ol ut i on of M ay 2, 2005, c ons t i tut ed s uch a modi f i cat i on

### 17

of vi s i t at i on. Thata gr eementpr ovi ded f ora dded vi s i t at i on betw een Chasi ty and the mi nor chi l dr en ea ch W ednes day ni ghtdur i ng the sc hool year , as w el l as i ncr eas ed vi s i t at i on dur i ng the C h ri stm as h o li d ay an d sp ri n g b rea k
. T h e O ctob er 24 , 20 0 6 , o rde r of the ch an ce ry c o u rt amount ed t o a sub s equents uper s es s i on “by a l aw f ul O r derof

a [ c] our tof

compet ent ju risd ictio n .” T h a t or d e r g ra n ted C h a sity fu rth e r v isitatio n , ex ten d in g w e e k e n d v isitatio n to M onday morni ng w hen t he chi l dr en r es um ed sc hool and provi di ng f orunl i m i t ed t el ephone
a c c e ss b y th e c h ild re n w ith e a c h p a re n t. ¶ 2 2
. F o llo w in g th e M a y 3 0 , 2 0 0 7 , h e a rin g , th e J u n e 1 , 2 0 0 7 , o rd e r w a s e n ter e d , sh a rp ly
re d u c in g C h a s ity ’s v is ita tio n ri g h ts , s ee f ootnot e 6 supra , w i thoutpr ovi di ng an expl anat i on th e re fo r. A c c o rd in g to C h a sity ’s u n d isp u ted a ss e rtio n , this d e c isio n p lain ly c o n flicte d w ith th e re c o m m e n d a tio n o f D r. N ich o ls th a t th e m in o r ch ild re n “d o n e e d to sp e n d m o re tim e w ith [ C has i ty. ] ” A tthe J ul y 2, 20 07 , h ear i ng on C has i ty’ s “M ot i on f orR econs i der at i on, ” the chanc el l oruphel d the vi s i t at i on pr ovi ded i n the J une 1, 2007, or der , due t o “ [ t ] he di s rupt i on that [ C hasi ty] and [ her] fam i l y cau sed in the c o u rtroom , and yo u co nti nu e t o d i scuss these l e g a l p r o c e e d i n g s wi th y o u rc h i l d r e n , a n d th e [ c ] o u r th a s a d mo n i s h e d y o u t i me a n d t i me agai n nott o. ” J us tpr i ort o thate xpl anat i on, how ever , the cha ncel l ornot ed, “I w as pr epar ed to g iv e y o u e x te n d e d o r a d d itio n a l v is ita tio n u n til th is h a p p e n e d .” ¶2 3
. “ O u r C o u rt h a s h e ld th a t th e b e st in terest o f th e ch il d i s th e m a in c o n c e rn in det erm i ni ng vi s i t at i on. ” R og e rs v. Mo rin , 791 S o. 2d 815, 820 ( M i s s . 2001) ( ci t i ng D unn
v. D unn , 609 So. 2d 12 77, 1286 ( M i s s . 1992) )
. G i ven the M ay 2, 2005, m odi f i cat i on and the O ct ober24, 20 06 , or de rof the cha ncery court , eac h gr ant i ng C has i ty addi t i onal vi s i t at i on, alon g w ith the rec o m m en d ati o n o f D r. N icho ls, n o t co n test ed b y the p arti es, th e c h an ce ll o r’s

### 18

s ubs equentdeci s i on t o r educe C has i ty’ s vi s i t at i on r ai s es a ques t i on as t o w hethert hat deci s i on w as r etr i but i ve, r atherthan i n the “be s ti nt er es t [ s ] of the chi l d[ r en]
. ” Id
. M o reo v er, th e re c o rd is v o id o f a n y c o u rt o rd e r w h ic h C h a s ity o p e n ly w e n t “ a g a in s t . . . a ll o f t h e tim e .” A cc o rdin g ly, th is C o u rtc o n clud es that the c h an ce ll o r’s fi n d ing s o f fac t r ed u cing C h asity ’s vi s i t at i on cons t i tut e an abus e of di s cr et i on, as they ar e not“support ed by subs t ant i al evi dence i n the r ecor d. ” W

e i ga nd , 7 3 0 S o . 2 d a t 5 8 7 . See al s o Sanders on , 824 So. 2d at625- 26. CO NC L US I ON ¶24. B as ed upon t he af or ement i oned ana l ys i s , thi s C our tr ever s es the C hance ry C our tof L af ayett e C ount y’ s J une 1, 2007, or derand s ubs equentdeni al of C has i ty’ s “M ot i on f

or R econs i der at i on, ” and r emands thi s cas e f ora hea r i ng on vi s i t at i on. ¶25. RE VE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D. S M I TH, C. J . , W AL LE R AND D I AZ , P . J J . , CARL S ON, GRAVE S AND DI CK I NSON, J J . , CO NCU R. EAS LEY, J . , DI S S ENTS W I THO UT S EPARATE W RI T T E N O P I NI ON . L AMAR , J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .