I N T H E C O UR T O F APPEA LS O F TH E STAT E O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO . 2 0 1 3 - CA - 0 0 6 0 9 - CO A CH RI S TOPHER D ANI EL LEE AP P EL LA NT
v. NI KK I G. LEE APP ELLEE D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 01/ 09/ 2013 T R IA L JU D G E : H O N
. E
. V IN C E N T D A V IS CO UR T F RO M W HI CH AP P E AL E D: ADA M S COUNTY CHAN CER Y COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: M
. DEV I N W HI TT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLEE: LI SA J ENK I NS CH AN DLER NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CI VI L - DOMES T I C R E L AT I ONS T RI AL CO UR T DI S P OS I T I ON: DI VOR CE GR ANT E D ON T HE GR OUND O F H A B IT U A L D R U N K E N N E S S ; VI SI TATI ON SET D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D : 11/ 25/ 2014 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 G R I F F I S, P . J. , M A X W E L L A N D F A I R , JJ. GR I FF I S , P. J . , FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. C hr i s t opherD
. L ee appeal s the j udgm entof di vor ce gr ant ed i n f

avorof N i kki G
. L ee. H e ar gues thatthe chanc el l ore rr ed w hen he f ound thatther e w as s uf

f i ci entevi dence t o gr ant N i kki a di vor ce on the gr ound of ha bi tual drunkennes s , and thatC hr i s w as r equi r ed t o pay f o rtr a n s p o r t a t i o n c o s t s f o rv i s i t a t i o n . W e f

i n d n o e rr o ra n d a f

f i r m. FACTS ¶2. C hr i s and N i kki m et i n 2006 and dat ed f or tw o year s . T hey w er e m arr i ed on M ay 31, 2008. A tthe t i m e, N i kki w or ked atC orr - W i l l i ams, and C hr i s w or ked of f s hor e. ¶3
. T hei rs on, W i l l , w a s b orn on J ul y 31 , 2 00 9. Chr i s h a d a chi l d f r om a pr evi ous

### 2

r el at i ons hi p. Shor t l y af t erW i l l ’ s bi r th, C hr i s change d j obs and s t art ed w or k as a contr act or f orD enbury. T hi s gave hi m m or e t i m e athom e, even though he s t i l l w or ked s even da ys on
an d sev en d ay s o ff. ¶4. O n M ay 3, 2011, N i kki f i l ed a compl ai nt f

or di vor ce on the gr ounds of habi tual cruel and i nhum an tr eatm entand habi tual d runkenne s s . A f t erthe tr i al , the cha ncel l orgr ant ed N ik k i a d iv o rc e o n th e g ro u n d o f h a b itu a l d ru n k e n n e ss . T h e c h a n c e llo r a w a rd e d so le phys i cal cus t ody t o N i kki , “r eas onabl e” vi s i t at i on t o C hr i s , and j oi ntl egal cust ody t o both. T h e ch an ce ll o r al so divid ed th eir p rop erty. B ec au se o f N ikk i’ s plan n ed rel o ca ti o n to W i s cons i n once the di vor ce w as f i nal , the r es pons i bi l i ty of payi ng tr anspor t at i on cos t s f or
v isitatio n e x c h a n g e s b e tw e e n W isc o n sin a n d M iss iss ip p i fe ll t o C h ris. It is f ro m th is j ud gm ent that C hri s now app eal s. STAN DA RD OF REV I EW ¶5. T he scop e of r eview i n do m est i c cases is li m i t ed by the subst anti al evidence/m anif est
e rr o r r u le
. Jundoos i ng v. Jundoos i ng , 826 So. 2d 85, 88 ( ¶10) ( M i s s . 2002) ( ci t i ng Magee
v. Magee , 6 6 1 S o . 2 d 1 1 1 7 , 1 1 2 2 ( M i s s . 1 9 9 5 ) )
. T h i s C o u r tw i l l n o td i s tu rb a c h a n c e l l o r 's f i ndi ngs unl es s they w er e mani f es t l y w r ong orc l ear l y e rr oneous , orthe cha ncel l orappl i ed
a n e rr o n e o u s le g a l s ta n d a rd
. I d. ( ci t i ng Johns on v. Johns on , 65 0 S o. 2d 12 81 , 12 85 (M i ss. 1 9 9 4 )). A N A L Y S IS I. W h e th e r th e c h a n c e llo r c o m m itte d m a n ifes t er ro r in th e g ra n t o f a divorce to Ni kki on the g roun d o f ha bitua ldrun kenn ess. ¶6. C hr i s as s ert s t hati tw as er r orfort he chanc el l ort o gr antN i kki a di vor ce on the gr ound

### 3

of habi tual drunkennes s . C hr i s ar gues t hatN i kki di d notm eetherbur den i n pr ovi ng habi tual drunkennes s . A l t ernat i vel y, C hr i s ar gues thatN i kki ’ s know l edge of hi s dr i nki ng habi t s pr i or to th e ir m a rria g e b a rre d th e su it.

A
. B ur den of

P r oof ¶7. O n appea l , C hr i s ar gues the cha ncel l orerr ed i n f i ndi ng s uf

f i ci entgr ounds f

or di vor ce. “A courtm ay gr anta di vor ce on the gr ound of habi tual drunkennes s i f t he pl ai nt i f f pr oves that : ( 1) the def

endantf r equent l y abus ed al cohol ; ( 2) the al cohol abus e nega t i vel y af f ect ed the mar r i age; and ( 3) t he al cohol abuse cont i nued att he t i m e of the tr i al
. ” Turne rv. Turne r , 7 3 S o . 3 d 5 7 6 , 5 8 3 (¶3 0 ) (M iss. C t. A p p . 2 0 1 1 ). ¶8. I n Spr ol es v. Spr ol es , 782 So. 2d 742, 744-45 ( ¶¶4, 7) (M i s s . 2 00 1), t he courtf ound th a tth e h u s b a n d ’ s h a b i to f d r i n k i n g a c a s e o f

b e e re a c h n i g h t , wh i c h c a u s e d h i m t o b e c o me abus i ve and c r i t i cal , cons t i tut ed gr ounds f ordi vor ce unde rhabi tual drunkennes s . O n the otherhand, i n C ulverv. C ulver , 383 So. 2d 817, 817- 18 ( M i s s . 1980) , the cour tf ound that the hus band’ s habi tof

dr i nki ng f

ourt o f i ve bee r s a ni ghtthatdi d notne gat i vel y i m pactthe
m arr i age fai l ed to supp orta divorce und er habi tual drun ken ness. ¶ 9
. A t tr ia l, N ik k i te stifie d th a t C h ris o fte n m a d e n e g a tiv e c o m m e n ts a b o u t h e r w e ig h t. W hi l e drunk on ce, C hri s t ol d N i kki thathe onl y f i nds herattr act i ve and w ant s t o have s ex
w i th herw hen he i s i nt oxi cat ed. O n a sepa r at e occa s i on, C hr i s w oke N i kki by ur i nat i ng on herl eg, and, w hen N i kki prot es t ed, C hr i s st art ed l aughi ng. C hr i s t es t i f i ed thathe had ne ver hear d of thi s i nci dentunt i l tr i al
. O n anotherni ght , C hr i s and N i kki goti nt o an ar gum ent , and C hr i s t ook W i l l i nt o the hous e s o N i kki coul d cool of f out s i de. W hen N i kki deci ded t o go b a c k in sid e , sh e fo u n d th e d o o r lo c k e d . A fte r s h e c a lled C h ris a n d k n o c k e d o n th e d o o r w ith

### 4

no ans w er , s he w as f

or ced t o c r aw l i ns i de thr ough a ba ck door
. She f ound C hr i s pas s ed out on thei rw at erbed, w i th W i l l f ace dow n and w edged be tw een the cornerof the bed. ¶1 0
. N ikk i t esti fi ed that C h ri s o ft en d ran k fi v e to si x be ers p er da y . C h ri s w o rke d o ffsho re f orext ended pe r i ods of

t i m e. W hen he w oul d r eturn home, he w oul d a l w ays have a l cohol i n hi s hand. N i kki a l s o t es t i f i ed thaton s ever al oc cas i ons , Chri s w oul d pa s s outdrunk and notr emem beranythi ng thathappene d. Fi nal l y, N i kki t es t i f i ed thatbei ng w i th C hr i s af t er
aw hi l e made herdepr es s ed, and w hen they s epar at ed, s he f el thappy aga i n. ¶11. C hr i s cont ends that he di d not dr i nk as m uch as N i kki cl ai m ed he di d. H e ar gues that b e c a u se N ik k i’s te stim o n y w a s n o t co rro b o ra ted b y a n y o th e r w itn e s s, it is “ w ild ly i ncons i s t entatbes t . ” H ow ever , N i kki ' s f ather , T hom as G odl es ke, t es t i f i ed thaton an i cefish in g tri p C h ris d ra n k so m u c h tha t he p a ss e d o u t i n a stra n g e r’s v e h icle
. F u rt h e r, C h ris tes tified th a t h e c o n tin u e d to d rin k a t th e tim e o f th e trial. ¶12. W her e t her e i s conf l i ct i ng t es t i m ony, t he chanc el l ori s the tr i erof f actand adj udi cat es th e c re d ib ility o f e a c h w itn e s s . B ow en v. B ow en , 9 8 2 S o . 2 d 3 8 5 , 3 9 5 (¶4 2 ) (M iss. 2 0 0 8 ). “A n a ppel l at e courti s t o a f f i r m f i ndi ngs of

f actby chanc el l or s i n dom es t i c ca s es w hen they
ar e ‘ s uppor t ed by s ubs t ant i al evi dence unles s the cha ncel l orabus ed hi s di s cr et i on, w as
m ani f es t l y w r ong, cl ear l y err oneous oran err oneous l egal s t andar d w as appl i ed. ’ ” R obis on
v. L an f ord , 841 So. 2d 1119, 1122 ( ¶9) ( M i ss. 2003) ( quot i ng H ol l om an v. H

ol l om an , 691 S o . 2 d 8 9 7 , 8 9 8 (M iss. 1 9 9 6 )). ¶13. I n r evi ew of the re cor d, w e fi nd that the chance l l or had suf f i ci ent evi den ce t o gr ant N i kki a di vor ce on the gr oun d of habi tual drunkennes s : C hr i s ’ s al cohol cons um pt i on, combi ned w i th the nega t i ve i m pacti thad on the f ami l y, and hi s cont i nued dr i nki ng atthe

### 5

tim e o f tria l. A d d iti o n a lly , the c h a n c e llo r, a s th e triero f fa c t, w a s in th e b e st p o sitio n to det erm i ne ea ch w i tnes s ’ s cr edi bi l i ty and t o w ei gh tthe conf l i ct i ng t es t i m ony. B eca us e the evi dence suppor t s the cha ncel l or ’ s f i ndi ngs , w e f

i nd thathe di d notcomm i tm ani f es terr or i n hi s f i ndi ngs on thi s i s s ue. B
. C ondonat i on and A nt enupt i alKnow l edge ¶ 1 4
. N e x t, C h ris a rg u e s th a t N ik k i’ s c o n d o n a tio n o f h is d rin k in g se rv e d a s a d e fe n se to di vor ce on the gr ounds of habi tual drunkennes s . C hr i s , i n the al t ernat i ve, cont ends N i kki knew of C hr i s ’ s dr i nki ng habi t s bef or e mar r i age, s he mar r i ed hi m i n s pi t e of thi s know l edge, and this antenup t i al kn ow l edg e barr ed an y d i vo rce pr oceed i ng s on h abitual drun k en n ess. R e g a rd less of th ese co n tention s, C h ri s fai led to asse rtth ese affi rm ati v e d efe n ses in h is pl eadi ngs orr ai s e them attr i al
. T her ef or e, thi s i s s ue i s barr ed. ¶ 1 5
. C o n d o n a tio n o r a n ten u p tial k n o w led g e , a s a ffirm a tiv e d e fe n se s, m u st b e sp e c ifica lly p le a d e d o r e ls e th e d e fe n s e s a re w a iv e d
. C ar am batv. C ar am bat , 72 So. 3d 505, 511 ( ¶27) ( M i s s . 2011) ( ci t i ng M .R .C .P . 8 (c ); A shbu rn v. Ashb urn , 970 So
. 2d 2 04 , 21 2 (¶23 ) ( M i ss. C t . A pp. 2007) )
. “A f

f i r m at i ve def

ens es thatar e nei therpl ed nort r i ed by cons entar e dee m ed
w a iv e d .” A shbu rn , 970 So. 2d at212 ( ¶23) ( quot i ng G oode v. V i l lage of W oodgr een H om eow ners , 6 6 2 S o . 2 d 1 0 6 4 , 1 0 7 7 (M iss. 1 9 9 5 )). ¶16
. C hri s did no trai se con do nati on o r ant enu pti al k no w l edg e as a n affirm ati ve d efense in h is p lea d in g s. H o w e v e r, p a rties m a y try a n a ffirm a tiv e d e fe n se th ro u g h im p lied c o n se n t. M i ssi ssi pp i R ules of C i vil P rocedu re 15(b) pr ov i des: W hen i s s ues notr ai s ed by the pl eadi ngs ar e tr i ed by expr es s ed ori m pl i ed cons entof

the part i es , they s hal l be tr eat ed i n al l r es pect s as i f they had be en raised in the p lead ing s. S u ch am en d m en t of th e p lead ing s as m ay b e n ec essa ry

### 6

t o c aus e them t o c onf

or m t o the evi dence a nd t o r ai s e thes e i s s ues m ay be m ade upon the mot i on of any party atany t i m e, ev en af t erj udgm ent ; but fai l ure so t o am end do es not af fectthe resul tof the tr i al of these i ssues. See al s o Lahm ann v. H

al lm on , 7 2 2 S o . 2 d 6 1 4 , 6 9 1 (¶1 5 ) (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ). ¶17. I n hi s or der , the chanc el l or f ound that C hri s had w ai ved the af f i r m at i ve def

ens e of condonat i on, beca us e he di d notpl ead i tas an af f i r m at i ve def

ens e. T he cha ncel l orrul ed: “C hr i s di d notpl ead c ondonat i on as a def ens e i n hi s pl eadi ngs . T her ef or e, t o the ext entthat C h ris m a y h a v e b e e n a ttem p tin g to ra ise a d e fe n se o f c o n d o n a tio n , the C o u rt fin d s th a t th is def ens e has been w ai ved. ” The chanc el l ordi d notad dress a def ens e of ant enupt i al k n o w led g e o r if th e p a rties tried c o n d o n a tio n b y e x p re ss o r im p lied c o n se n t. ¶18. F rom the record, ther e is n o i nd i cat i on t he part i es agr eed t o try condonat i on or ant enupt i al know l edge by e xpr es s cons ent . T her ef or e, the ques t i on r emai ns w hetherthe part i es tr i ed the i s s ue t hr ough i m pl i ed cons ent . W hi l e i s s ues notr ai s ed i n the pl eadi ngs m ay be tr i ed by i m pl i ed cons ent , the party r el yi ng on i m pl i ed cons entf ora n i s s ue m ust dem on strat e cert ai n requir em ents . ¶19
. F i rs t , i n order t o fi nd the part i es tri ed the i ssue by i m pli ed con sent , this C ou rtm ust d eterm ine if th e p arti es k n ew “‘tha t a ne w issue w as b e in g liti g ated at tri al. ’” Mabus v. Mabus , 890 So. 2d 806, 814 ( ¶32) ( M i s s . 2003) ( quot i ng Sets er v. P i azza , 644 So. 2d 1211, 1217 ( M i s s . 1994) )
. Fur ther , thi s C our tw i l l notf i nd i m pl i ed cons ent“w her e the ‘ ques t i ons
as ked orthe evi dence pr es ent ed attr i al ar e r el evantt o the i s s ues actual l y r ai s ed i n the pl eadi ngs . ’ ” I

d. (cit ati o n o m itted). ¶20. A ttr i al , the f

ol l ow i ng cr os s - exami nat i on of N i kki occurr ed: Q : Y e a h . T h o se tw o y e a rs b e fo re y o u g o t m a rrie d y ’a ll h a d , y o u a n d C h ris

### 7 had a good r el at i ons hi p? D i d he dr i nk back then? A : Y es. Q : H e di d? A : Y es. Q : D i d he dr i nk a l otback then? A : Y es. Q : D id h e d rin k b a sic a lly th e sa m e a m o u n t y o u ’v e tes tified h e d rin k s to n o w? A : Y es. Q : A n d y o u still m a rrie d h im w ith th a t? A : Y es.

. . . . Q: Be f

o r e y o u g o tma rr i e d [ , ] Ch r i s ’ [ s ] b e h a v i o rwa s p r e t ty mu c h th e s a me a s y o u ’ v e t e s t i f

i e d t o d a y a s d u r i n g th e m a rr i a g e . I twa s th e s a me b e h a v io r p rio r to th e m a rria g e ? I’m talk in g a b o u t g o in g d o w n to h is par ent s ’ hous e and goi ng t o a f r i end’ s house ors om ethi ng l i ke thatand dr i nki ng? A : Y es. Q : H e has n’ tchange d, has he? A : N o. I n r e s po ns e t o he rc r os s - e xa mi na t i on , Ni kk i d i d no tmak e a ny o bj e c t i on s t o thi s l i ne of ques t i oni ng. ¶21
. H ere, the record f ai l s t o dem on strat e that bo th p art i es knew C hri s ass ert ed the defense of condonat i on orant enupt i al know l edge dur i ng tr i al
. A s N i kki ' s t es t i m ony i l l us tr at ed, s he

### 8

knew of C hr i s ’ s habi tual drunkennes s pr i ort o thei rmar r i age, butde ci ded t o go f or th w i th the
m arr i age a nyw ay. H ow ever , N i kki ’ s t es t i m ony r egar di ng Chri s ’ s dr i nki ng ha bi t s s erved as relev an t evid en ce for the asse rt ed g rou n d fo r d ivo rce . T h e li n e o f qu esti o n ing ab o u t C h ri s’s habi tual drunkennes s di d notpl ace N i kki on not i ce of any def ens e and di r ect l y re l at ed t o the al l eged gr ound f

ordi vor ce. B eca us e C hr i s f ai l ed t o pr oper l y r ai s e any de f ens e of
c o n d o n a tio n o r a n ten u p tial k n o w led g e , eith e r th ro u g h h is p lea d in g s o r c o n se n t at tria l, th is iss u e h a s n o m e rit. II. W h e th e r th e c h a n c e llo r c o m m itte d m a n ifes t er ro r in re q u irin gC h ris to bearthe bur den of

al ltr ans por tat i on cos t

s i n exe r cis i ng his vis i tat i on ri gh t s. ¶2 2
. In h is seco n d i ssu e o n ap p ea l, C h ri s arg u es th e c h an ce ll o r erred b y p lacing the e n ti re b u rd e n o f tra n sp o rta tio n c o sts fo r h is v isitatio n o n h im ra th e r th a n d iv id in g th e c o sts . C h ris
as s ert s thatN i kki agr eed i n cour tt o s har e the tr ans por t at i on cos t s and the bes ti nt er es t s of the chi l d nece s s i t at e the di vi s i on of c os t s . N i kki c ount er s thatChri s f ai l ed t o r ai s e the i s s ue at trial a n d th e c h a n c e llo r d id n o t ab u se h is d isc re tio n in re q u irin g C h ris to b e a r th e c o sts o f h is vi s i t at i on. ¶23. T hi s C our tc annotr evi ew a n i s s ue on appe al i f the part i es f

ai l ed t o pr es entthe i s s ue to th e c h a n c e llo r a t tr ia l. In r e D iss o lu tio n o f M a rr ia g e o f D e S t. G e rm a in , 977 So. 2d 412, 418 ( ¶19) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2008) ( ci t i ng Bi r r a g e s v . I l l
. Ce n t . R. R. , 950 S o. 2d 188, 194 ( ¶18) ( M i s s . C t . A pp . 2006))
. H ow ever , an appe l l antm ay pr es erve an i s s ue out s i de of the p lea d in g s, tra n sc rip ts, o r ru lin g s fo r a p p e a l if h e ra ise d th e iss u e in a m o tio n fo r a n e w trial. Mo o re v . S ta te , 1 3 1 S o . 3 d 1 2 2 8 , 1 2 3 1 (¶7 ) (M iss. A p p . C t. 2 0 1 3 ). ¶ 2 4
. W h ile th e iss u e o f c o sts fo r v isitatio n if N ik k i ga in e d p rim a ry p h y sic a l cu sto d y o f W ill

### 9

and r el ocat ed t o W i s cons i n ar os e thr ough N i kki ’ s t es t i m ony, C hr i s di d notaddr es s the i s s ue
a t trial. C h ris, h o w e v e r, a rg u e d a g a in st th e c h a n c e llo r’s ru lin g re g a rd in g tra n sp o rta tio n c o sts i n hi s m oti on to re cons i der , w hi ch the cha ncel l ortr eat ed as a mot i on f ora new tr i al
. T he chanc el l ors ubs equent l y deni ed C hr i s ’ s m ot i on. ¶25. W hen a c hance l l ordeni es a mo t i on f ora new tr i al , thi s C our ts hal l r ever s e the d e c is io n o n ly if

th e c h a n c e llo r c o m m itte d a n a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . Sm i th v. C r aw f or d, 937 So. 2 d 4 4 6 , 4 4 7 (¶5 ) (M iss. 2 0 0 6 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted). ¶26. T he cha ncel l orappl i ed the pr operl egal anal ys i s i n det erm i ni ng thatunderM i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of C i vi l Pr ocedur e 59, C hr i s f ai l ed t o demonstr at e a ba s i s f ora ne w tr i al
. A ddi t i onal l y, the cha ncel l oreval uat ed the mot i on underM i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of C i vi l Pr ocedur e 60, i n the eventC hr i s i nt ended t o s eek r el i ef underthi s rul e, and f

ound no m er i tt o the mot i on under thatrul e as w el l
. T her ef or e, the cha ncel l ordi d notabus e hi s di s cr et i on. ¶27. E ven i f

C hr i s s ucce s s f

ul l y r ai s ed the i s s ue of

the bur den of t ranspor t at i on cos t s on appea l , “[ t ] he chan cel l orenj oys s ubs t ant i al di s cr et i on i n deci di ng vi s i t at i on i s s ues , gui ded
es s ent i al l y by the cons i der at i on of w hatarr angementi s i n t he chi l d' s besti nt er es t s . ” B allard
v. B allard , 843 So. 2d 76, 80 ( ¶15) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2003) ( ci t i ng H a rr e ll v. H

a rr e ll , 231 So. 2d 793, 797 ( M i s s . 1970) )
. W hi l e M i s s i s s i ppi l aw doe s notm andat e the noncus t odi al par ent b ea r th e b u rde n o f tran sp o rt ati o n co sts, a reloc ati o n by th e cu stod ial p are n t do es n o t r eq u ir e
a d iv is io n o f c o s ts . I

d. B allardi s i ns truct i ve f orthi s cas e. ¶28. I n B allard , the noncus t odi al f athers oughta modi f

i cat i on of

the chi l d- vis i t at i on
a rr a n g e m e n ts r e g a rd in g tr a v e l c o s ts to e x e rc is e h is v is ita tio n ri g h ts . I d. at( ¶3)
. A f

t erthe
m otherand chi l d r el ocat ed ac r os s the s t at e, the f atherar gued the vol unt ary re l ocat i on by the

### 10

m o th e rr e q u ir e d h e r t o b e a r a p o rt io n o f t h e c o s ts in c u rr e d b y th e fa th e r. I d. W hi l e the chanc el l oraw ar ded the f atherl i ber al vi s i t at i on r i ght s , the chancel l oral s o f ound that
com pell i ng the m othert o b ear any o f the tr anspo rt at i on cost s w ou l d n ot s up po rtthe b est in te re s ts o f t h e c h ild
. I d. at( ¶12)
. I n af

f i r m i ng the dec i si on , thi s C our tdet erm i ned the chanc el l ordi d notabus e hi s di s cr et i on and thatany contr i but i on t o tr ans por t at i on expens es b y th e m o th e r w o u ld d e tr a c t f ro m h e r f

in a n c ia l s u p p o rto f t h e c h ild
. I d. at (¶1 5 ). ¶29. A l s o, the C our tal l uded t o the pos s i bi l i ty thati f the f athers how ed thatthe expe ns e of ad d it ion al trav el w o u ld p rev en t th e e x erc ise o f his v isi tat ion , then a m od i fi ca ti o n co u ld o cc u r. I d. H ow ever , the f

atheri n B allard , j us tas C hr i s i n thi s cas e, f ai l ed t o demonstr at e thatthe
c o s ts o f tr a n s p o rt a tio n w o u ld a d v e rs e ly a ff e c t h is v is ita tio n ri g h ts . I d. C h ris c laim s th a t in
or dert o exer ci s e hi s r i ght s , he w oul d ha ve t o s pend f ourda ys a nd ove r$1, 000 eac h vi s i t at i on per i od f ortr avel
. W hi l e C hr i s expl ai ns hi s comm er ci al dr i ver ’ s l i cens e l i m i t s the numberof hour s h e c a n dr i ve e a c h da y, whi c h w ou l d po t e nt i a l l y e xt e nd tr a ve l t i me t o a nd f r om W i s cons i n t o f

ourdays, he does notshow how eac h vi s i tw oul d cos t$1, 000. A ddi t i onal l y, C hr i s f ai l s t o show how t hes e cos t s w oul d subs t ant i al l y burde n or pr ecl ude hi s vi s i t at i on or
w oul d go agai ns tthe bes ti nt er es t s of the chi l d. ¶3 0
. B ec au se th e c h a n c ell o r did n o t abu se h is discreti o n in d en y ing C h ri s’s m o ti o n for a
new t ri al , and C hr i s f

ai l ed t o pr ove the tr ans por t at i on cos t s pl ace d an unf ai rbur den on the
e x e r c i s e o f

h i s v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s , we a f f i r m. ¶ 3 1
. T H E JU D G M E N T O F T H E C H A N C E R Y C O U R T O F A D A M S C O U N T Y IS AF F I RMED . AL L CO S T S OF THI S AP P E AL AR E AS S E S S E D T O T HE AP P EL LA NT
. LE E, C. J . , I RVI NG, P . J . , B ARNE S , I S HEE , ROB ER TS , CARLT ON,

### 11

M AXW EL L, F AI R AND J AM ES , J J . , CONCUR.