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 1 3 6 6 - CO A

RE GI NA DI ANE W EA THE RS AP P EL LA NT

v. S C O T T Y W A D E G U IN APP ELLEE D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 07/ 01/ 2013 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. J OH N A ND REW HA TCH ER CO UR T F RO M W HI CH AP P E AL E D: I TAW AM BA COUNTY CHA NCERY COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: M I CH AEL LEE D ULA NEY A T T O R N E Y S F O R A P P E L L E E : J A M E S R O G E R F R A N K S J R . W I LL I AM RUF US W HEE LE R J R. NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CI VI L - CU S T ODY TRI AL C OU RT D I SP OSI TI ON : M OD I FI ED C USTO DY OF M I NO R CH I LD A N D FO U N D M O TH ER I N CO N TEM PT 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 - 11/ 18/ 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 I R V I N G , P . J. , F A I R A N D JA M E S, JJ. I RVI NG , P. J . , FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1 . A fte r a w a rd in g c u sto d y o f R e g in a W e a th e rs a n d S c o tt G u in ’s m in o r so n , Ja c o b , to R egi na, the C hance r y C our tof I t aw amba C ounty ent er ed a m odi f i cat i on or dertr ans f

err i ng cu stod y o f Jac o b to S co ttan d o rde ri n g R eg ina to p ay ch il d sup p o rtfor Jac o b . T h e c h an ce ry courtl at er ent ered a cont empt or der , f i ndi ng R egi na i n cont empt f orvi ol at i ng the m odi f i cat i on or der . Regi na appea l s f r om the m odi f

i cat i on or der , a r gui ng thatther e w as no b a sis fo r th e c u sto d y m o d ifica tio n b e c a u se n o h e a rin g w a s h e ld a n d sh e d id n o t c o n se n t to

### Sc ott s tyl e d thi s p e t i t i ona s a “ Co m pl a i nt f or M odi f i c at i onand

f or C i t at ion of 1 

### Conte mpt ,”although hedid not as k thechance ry c ourt

to f ind Re gina

in c onte mpt

in t he petitio n. 2 th e ter m s o f th e o rd e r. R e g in a a lso a rg u e s th a t th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt e rre d b y fin d in g h e r in c o n te m p t. ¶ 2 . F o r t h e re a s o n s th a t f o llo w , w e re v e rs e a n d re m a n d fo r f u rt h e r p ro c e e d in g s . FACTS ¶3. R egi na and Scottw er e di vor ced o n D ecem ber 1, 2008. I n the di vor ce de cr ee, the chanc ery courtaw ar ded pr i m ary c us t ody of tw o of Regi na and Scott ’ s m i norchi l dr en, J acob and B r i t t any, t o Regi na, w i th Scottha vi ng vi s i t at i on w i th them. T he cha ncery courtaw ar ded Scot tpr i m ary cus t ody of the thi r d m i norchi l d, C our tney, w i t h R egi na bei ng aw ar ded v is ita tio n . ¶4. O n J une 4, 2013, Scot t f i l ed a compl ai nt i n the chanc ery court , s eeki ng m odi f i cat i on of t he i ni t i al cus t ody or dert o gr anthi m cus t ody of J acob a nd B r i t t any bas ed on s ubs t ant i al a n d m a ter ial c h a n g e s in c irc u m sta n c e s, s p e c ifica lly : (1 ) R e g in a ’s c o n su m p tio n o f a lco h o l in the chi l dr en’ s pr es ence , ( 2) R egi na’ s di s par agi ng s t at ement s aboutScot tt o t he chi l dr en, and ( 3) R egi na’ s threat s t o m ove t he chi l dr en t o anothers t at e. Scot tal s o i ns i s t ed thatR egi na 1 had all ow ed J acob a nd B r i t t any t o s uf f eri nj ur i es , al though he di d nots peci f y the type of in ju ri e s o r h o w th e y o c c u rr e d . ¶5. B y or der f

i l ed Jul y 8, 20 13, w i thout ci t i ng a m at er i al change i n ci r cumst ance s , t he chanc ery courtm odi f

i ed the or i gi nal cus t ody or derand aw ar ded perm anentphys i cal and l egal cust od y o f J acob to S co tt , w i th R egina hav i ng vis i t at i on . T he ch ancery co urtal so

### Reg ina is rep resentedbya different attorn ey o n ap peal. 2 

### Scott a ls o style d thi s pe ti ti on as a “ Compl aint f or Modi fi cati on and f

or Cit ation of 3 

### Conte mpt , ” a l tho ugh hedi d no t a s k thec hanc e ry c ourt

f or a c us t ody m odi f

i c at i onin the petition. 3 or der ed R egi na t o pay chi l d supportforJac ob. Pur s uantt o the modi f i cat i on or der , nei ther Scot tnorR egi na coul d m ove the chi l dr en outof st at e, m ake di s par agi ng r emar ks abouteac h otheri n t he chil dr en’ s pr es ence , cons um e al cohol i n the chi l dr en’ s pr es ence , oroper at e a m o to riz e d v e h icle w ith e ith e r o f th e c h ild re n w h ile u n d e r th e in flu e n c e o f a lco h o l. D e sp ite the l anguage i n t he m odi f i cat i on or ders t at i ng thatthe cha ncery courthad made i t s f i ndi ngs af t er“both part i es [ had] a ppear ed w i th c ouns el ” and thatthe part i es ha d a ppear ed “[ o] n t he dat e and t i m e se tforhear i ng, ” no tr ans cr i pthas been pr ovi ded t o thi s C our ton appea l . T he m odi f i cat i on or derw as appr oved as t o f or m by Scot t ’ s att orney and Regi na’ s att orney. 2 ¶6. A l s o on J ul y 8, 2013, Scottf i l ed a s econd compl ai nti n the cha ncery court , al l egi ng thatRegi na had r ef

us ed t o r eturn J acob t o Scott ’ s c us t ody on Fr i day, J ul y 5, 2013, and that R egi na had m ade di s par agi ng re m arks aboutScot ti n J acob’ s pr es ence . Scot tal s o i ns i s t ed 3 thatR egi na had f

ai l ed t o m eeth erchi l d- s uppor tobl i gat i on and had r ef us ed t o al l ow t he chi l dr en t o s peak w i th Scot tw hen he cal l ed. O n J ul y 22, 2013, R egi na f i l ed a mot i on t o s et as i de the m odi f

i cat i on or der , ar gui ng thats he had ne i theragr eed t o norappr oved the or der and i ns i s t i ng t hatt he or derw as ent er ed w i thouta hear i ng or pr es ent at i on of any pr oof . T he r ecor d r evea l s thatthe cha ncery courtdi d notrul e on the mot i on t o s etas i de i t s m odi f i cat i on o rd e r. ¶ 7 . O n A u g u st 7 , 2 0 1 3 , R e g in a a p p e a led “ to th e S u p re m e C o u rt o f M iss iss ip p i ag a in st .

. . S co tt. . . fr o m th e [o] rde r f il ed on July 8 , 2 0 1 3 . ” O n A u g u st 22 , 2 0 1 3 , the c h an ce ry c o u rt

### Albright v. Albright , 43 7 S o. 2 d 1 00 3 (M iss. 19 83 ). 4 

### 4 f i l ed an or derof

cont empt , f

i ndi ng thatR egi na w as noti n c ont empt f orf ai l i ng t o r eturn J acob t o Scot ton J ul y 5, 2013, butf i ndi ng thatR egi na w as i n cont empt f or f ai l i ng to ful f

i l l her ch il d -sup p o rto b li gati on for Jaco b an d for m ak ing d ispa rag ing rem ark s ab o u t Sc o ttin Ja co b ’s p re s e n c e . ¶8. I n her appea l , R egi na ar gues that the chance ry court err ed by m odi f yi ng cus t ody of J acob w i thoutan agr eementbetw een the part i es ora hea r i ng on the mer i t s t o det erm i ne w hetherScot thad pr oved, by a pr eponder ance of the evi dence , thatt he cus t ody m odi f i cat i on w a s w a rra n ted . S h e in sis ts th a t alth o u g h h e r a tto rn e y a p p ro v e d th e m o d ifica tio n o rd e r a s to fo rm , s h e d id n o t c o n s e n t to its te rm s . ¶9. I n r es pons e, Scot tar gues thatthe cha ncery cour tm ade i t s f i ndi ngs f ol l ow i ng a oneday t r i a l . A c c or di ng t o Sc ott , the c ha nc e ry c ou r ti ns truc t e d Sc ott ’ s a t t orne y t o pr e pa r e t he m o d ifica tio n o rd e r, w h ich w a s late r p re se n ted to , a n d a p p ro v e d b y , R e g in a ’s a tto rn e y . S c o tt i ns i s t s thatthe cha ncery courtm odi f i ed cus t ody of

J acob onl y af

t eri nt ervi ew i ng J acob a nd B r i t t any i n chamber s . A ddi t i onal l y, Scot tar gues thatthe cha ncery courtcorr ect l y appl i ed the A l br ight f

act or s i n det erm i ni ng Jac ob’ s bes ti nt er es t , and t hatbot h the modi f i cat i on or der 4 a n d th e c o n te m p t o rd e r w e re p ro p e r. DI S CU S S I ON ¶ 1 0 . A t th e o u tse t, w e n o te th a t th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt’s fa ilu re to ru le o n R e g in a ’s m o tio n to s etasi de t he m odi f

i cat i on orde rdoes notaf f ectt he val i di ty of thi s appeal , as Regi na’ s m ot i on w as f i l ed more than t en days f ol l ow i ng the entry of

the or derm odi f

yi ng cus t ody, and R egi na fi l ed h er not i ce of app eal w i thin thirty day s of the en try of the m od i fi cat i on order. T hu s,

### 5

R e g in a ’s m o tio n to se t a s id e th e m o d if ic a tio n o rd e r m u s t b e tre a te d a s a R u le 6 0 m o tio n . A R ul e 60 mot i on pur s uantt o t he M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e “doe s notaf f ectt he f i nal i ty of a j udgm entorsus pend i t s oper at i on. ” B anks of E dw ar ds v. C as s i t

y Aut o Sal es I

nc. , 5 9 9 S o . 2 d 5 7 9 , 5 8 2 (M iss . 1 9 9 2 ); see al so M .R .C .P . 6 0 (b )( 6 ). ¶11. W e al s o not e ourl ack of j ur i s di ct i on overi s s ues c oncerni ng the cont empt or derdue t o R egi na’ s fa i l ur e t o prope r l y appeal fr om thatorde r . R ul e 3( a) of the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of A p p ell ate P roc ed u re p rov ides that “[a] n ap p ea l p erm itted b y law as o f ri g h t f rom a tri al co u rt

. . . s h a l l b e t a k e n b y f

i l i n g a n o t i c e o f

a p p e a l wi th th e c l e r k o f th e tr i a l c o u r twi th i n th e t i me al l ow ed by R ul e 4. ” R ul e 4 of the M i ssi ss i ppi R ul es of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e pr ovi des t hat a “not i ce of

a ppeal . . . s hal l be f

i l ed w i th the cl erk of

the tr i al courtw i thi n 30 days af t erthe dat e of entr y of the j udgm entoror derappea l ed f r om . ” H er e, R egi na appe al ed onl y t he m odi f i cat i on or der . T her ef

or e, w e onl y di s cus s t he i s s ues ra i s ed by R egi na conce rni ng t he m o d if ic a tio n o rd e r. I . C hi ld C us t ody ¶12. I n s uppor tof

herar gum entthatthe cha ncery courterr ed by modi f yi ng cus t ody of J a c o b wi th o u ta h e a r i n g a n d wi th o u th e rc o n s e n tt o th e mo d i f i c a t i o n o r d e r , Re g i n a c i t e s t wo c a s e s , K l ei n v. McInt

yre , 966 So. 2d 1252 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2007) , and Sa m p les v . D a v is , 904 So. 2d 1061 ( M i s s . 2004) . B ef or e di s cus s i ng thes e ca s es , w e s houl d poi ntoutthatw e ca nnot as cert ai n f

r om the r ecor d w hetherthe modi f i cat i on orde rw as ent er ed w i thoutt he benef i tof a hea r i ng. ¶1 3. I n R eg i na ’ s de s i gn a t i on of r e c or d, s he a s ke d tha tthe tr a ns c r i ptof the he a r i ng conduct ed on J ul y 1, 2013, be made a partof the r ecor d. Y etn o t ranscr i ptw as pr ovi ded.

### 6

Fur ther , the or dergr ant i ng the modi f i cat i on does notr ef

er ence a hea r i ng on a s peci f i c dat e, al though i tdoes s t at e thatboth part i es appea r ed w i th counse l on t he dat e and t i m e s etf ort he hear i ng. N ot i cea bl y, how ever , the or derdoes nots t at e thatany evi dence w as adduce d att he hear i ng ort hatt he courtm ade i t s f i ndi ngs bas ed on any e vi dence adduce d atthe hea r i ng. A ddi t i onal l y, the docke tdoes noti ndi cat e thata hea r i ng w as s etf orJ ul y 1, 2013, al though an “o rde r of se tt ing ” w as e n tered o n Ju n e 1 8 , 2 0 1 3 , ap p are n tl y sett ing so m ethin g for a h ea ri n g . Itco u ld h av e b ee n a sett ing fo r a h ea ri n g o n the m o ti o n fo r m o d if icati o n , b u t w e a re unabl e t o as cert ai n f

r om the r ecor d i f

thatw as t he cas e. W i th t hi s sai d, w e r eturn t o the ca s es cit ed b y R eg ina a n d d iscu ss the m in rev erse o rde r. ¶1 4. I n Sa m

ple s , f ol l ow i ng a di vor ce a nd af t erthe part i es had ent er ed i nt o a cons ent j udgm entgoverni ng the cus t ody and mai nt enanc e of thei rchi l dr en, the pa r t i es s ought m o d if ic a tio n s o f t h e ju d g m e n t. Id . at 10 6 2 -63 (¶¶ 1 -5). T h e p arti es w en t befo re the ch an ce ry cou rtfora heari ng , bu tno heari ng w as hel d du e t o a p ossi ble s et t l em ent of the p art i es’ i ssues. Id . at1063 ( ¶6) . T he part i es l at erw entbef or e the cha ncery courta s econd t i m e w i th a s e tt le m e n t a g re e m e n t, w h ic h th e a p p e lla n t r e fu s e d to s ig n . Id . at 10 6 6 n . 2 . T h e c h an ce ry c o u rt la te r e n te re d th a t ju d g m e n t a s a p u rp o rt e d c o n s e n t ju d g m e n t. Id . Th e M i ssi ssi ppi Supr eme C our tf

ound t hatbeca us e nei therthe appe l l antnor his att orne y had s i gned the p u rp o rte d c o n se n t ju d g m e n t an d b e c a u se th e ter m s o f th e ju d g m e n t w e re n o t an n o u n c e d in o p e n c o u rt a n d re c o rd e d b y a c o u rt re p o rte r, th e re w a s n o t su b sta n tial c re d ib le e v id e n c e to s u p p o rt th e ju d g m e n t. Id . at1065 ( ¶14) . T he f act s of thatcas e ar e di s t i ngui s habl e f r om the c a s e b e fo re u s . H e re , th e m o d if ic a tio n o rd e r i s n o t a p u rp o rt e d c o n s e n t ju d g m e n t. ¶15. I n K lein , the cha ncery courten t ered a c ons entj udgm entas w el l as a j udgm entt hat

### 7

w as notc ons ent ed t o by the part i es , both of w hi ch w er e s i gned by the cha ncery courtand the p a rt ie s ’ a tto rn e y s . K le in , 966 So. 2d at1254 (¶4). T here w as no tr ans cr i ptof any pr i or h e a ri n g s h e ld b e fo re th e ju d g m e n ts w e r e e n te re d . Id . a t 1 2 5 6 (¶ 1 4 ). T h e ju d g m e n ts cont ai ned s pace s , w hi ch w er e des i gnat ed f orthe part i es ’ att orneys ’ s i gnatur es and w hi ch i ndi cat ed thatthe j udgm ent s w er e “A ppr oved as t o For m . ” Id . at1254 ( ¶4) . H ow ever , w hen s i gni ng the j udgm ent s , t o m ake i tcl earthatthe appel l antdi d notagr ee t o the s ubs t ance ther eof , the appe l l ant ’ s at t orney m ade a handw r i t t en not at i on neart he spa ce de s i gnat ed f or hi s s i gnatur e, i ndi cat i ng thatthe j udgm ent s w er e “A ppr oved as t o F or m O nl y. ” Id . at( ¶¶4- 5) . O n appea l , the pr o s e appe l l ants ubm i t t ed a s t at ementf r om heratt orney i n w hi ch the a tto rn e y sta ted : I have e ncl os ed copi es of the agr eed j udgm enta nd of the j udgm entr ef

l ect i ng th e r e c e n tru l i n g b y th e J u d g e i n y o u rc a s e . Yo u wi l l n o t e th a tI s i g n e d th e m, buts t at ed they w er e appr oved as t o f or m onl y[ , ] w hi ch m eans thatyou do not agree w i th the con t ent of the o rder s. Id . at( ¶6) . A l s o on appea l , the appe l l antar gu ed t hat t he cha ncery courterr ed by ent er i ng b o th jud g m en ts be ca u se sh e h ad n o t agre ed to the irco n tents, as in d ict ed b y h er a tt o rne y ’s h a n d w ri tte n n o ta tio n s . Id . at1255 ( ¶8) . A s t o the cons entj udgm ent , thi s C our tf ound t hat t he appel l anthad notexpr es s ed f ul l agr eementbeca us e s he had a gr eed t o the f or m of t he c o n se n t or d e r, bu t no t t o it s s u b s ta n c e . Id . a t 1 2 5 6 (¶ 1 5 ). A s to th e o rd e r th a t w a s n o t a con sentj ud gm ent, this C ou rtfound that “[ i ] f . . . the order w as not the resul tof the p art i es’ agr eement , the [ chanc ery court ] w as r equi r ed t o make s peci f i c f i ndi ngs of

f actt o s uppor tt he m odi f i cat i on[ . ] ” Id . a t 1 2 5 8 (¶ 2 0 ). K l ei n i s di s t i ngui s habl e fr om the cas e now bef or e us beca us e t hi s cas e does noti nvol ve a cons entj udgm ent . A s pr evi ous l y i ndi cat ed, ther e i s no

### 8

l anguage i n the modi f

i cat i on or derthats ugges t s thatS cottand R egi na had r eac hed an agr eementon the i s s ues pr es ent ed t o the chanc ery c our ti n Scott ’ s f i r stpeti t i on. C o n se q u en tl y , b efo re e n teri n g the m o d if icati o n o rde r, the c h an ce ry c o u rtw as re q u ir ed to m ake f actual f i ndi ngs t o s uppor tthe modi fi cat i on. T he modi f i cat i on or derm akes no fi nd i ng s. ¶16. I ti s w el l e s t abl i s hed that“ [ c] hancel l or s a r e af for ded w i de lat i tud e i n fas hioni ng e q u itab le r e m e d ies in d o m e stic re latio n s m a tters , a n d th e ir d e c isio n s w ill n o t b e re v e rse d if the f i ndi ngs of

f actar e s uppor t ed by s ubs t ant i al cr edi bl e evi dence . ” T i dm ore v. T

i dm ore , 114 So. 3d 753, 757 ( ¶8) ( M i ss. C t . A pp. 2013) ( quot i ng W i l s on v. W i l s on , 79 So. 3d 551, 560 (¶37) ( M i ss. C t . A pp . 2 01 2)) . “A ch ancell or’ s fi nd i ng s of factw i l l no tbe d i sturbed u nles s m ani f es t l y w r ong or cl ear l y er r oneous . A chanc el l or ’ s concl us i ons of l aw ar e r evi ew ed de novo. ” M

cD o n a ld v . M cD o n a ld , 39 So. 3d 868, 879 (¶33) (M i ss . 2010) ( ci t i ng Low er y v. L ow ery , 2 5 S o . 3 d 2 7 4 , 2 8 5 (¶ 2 6 ) ( M is s . 2 0 0 9 )) . ¶17 . “W hen con si deri ng a m od i fi ca ti o n o f ch il d cu st od y, the proper app roach i s t o fi rs t i dent i f y t he spe ci f

i c change i n ci r cumst ance s , and t hen anal yze and appl y the A l br ightfac tors i n l i ghtof

thatchange . ” Mar t erv. Mar t er , 914 So. 2d 743, 746 ( ¶5) ( M i s s . 2005) ( quot i ng S tu r g is v . S tu r

g is , 792 So. 2d 1020, 2025 ( ¶19) ( M i s s . Ct . A pp. 2001) ) . “I n d et erm i ni ng w hethera ma t er i al change of ci r cumst ance s has occurr ed, a cha ncel l ors houl d l ook at‘ the over al l ci r cumst ance s i n w hich a chi l d l i ves . ’ ” McD o n a ld , 3 9 S o . 3 d a t8 8 0 ( ¶ 3 7 ) . “ [ A] c h a n c e llo r’s fa ilu re to m a k e sp e c ific f in d in g s a s to e a c h in d iv id u a l A lb rig h t fa c to rs is r ever s i bl e err or . ” D a v id so n v . C o lt , 899 So. 2d 904, 911 ( ¶18) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2005) ( ci t i ng P ow el lv. A yars , 7 9 2 S o . 2 d 2 4 0 , 2 4 9 (¶ 1 8 ) ( M is s . 2 0 0 1 )) .

### 9

¶1 8 . G en era ll y , ab sen t a rec o rd ind icati n g othe rw ise, w e ass u m e tha t a c h an ce ry c o u rt ’s o rd e r w a s b a s e d o n a d e q u a te e v id e n c e . See T h o m p so n v. Miss . D e

p ’t o f H u m a n Se rv s. ex re l. Sur ber , 8 5 6 S o . 2 d 7 3 9 , 7 4 1 (¶8 ) (M iss. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 3 ). A d d it ion all y , an ap p ell ate c o u rt “w i l l notr ever se a [ c] hance r y [ c] our t ' s f actual f i ndi ngs , be they of

ul t i m at e f

actorof e v id e n tia ry fa c t, w h e re th e re is s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd s u p p o rt in g th e s e fi n d in g s .” B r yan v. H ol z er , 589 So. 2d 648, 658 ( M i ss. 19 91 ) ( ci t i ng Mu lli n s v . R a tcliff , 515 So. 2d 1 1 8 3 , 1 1 8 9 (M is s . 1 9 8 7 )) . ¶ 1 9 . H e re , the re c o rd re v e a ls th a t in th e m o d ifica tio n o rd e r, th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt c o m p lete ly f ai l ed t o i dent i f

y a mat er i al change i n ci r cumst ance s w arr ant i ng m odi f i cat i on bef

or e f i ndi ng thati tw as i n J acob’ s bes ti nt er es tt o gr antScot tcus t ody of J acob. T he or ders i m pl y pr ovi des that“i ti s i n the bes ti nt er es tof [ J acob] f or[ the chanc ery c our t ] t o a w ar d perm anentphys i cal and l egal cus t ody of

[ J acob] to [ Scot t ] w i th [ R egi na] havi ng vi s i t at i on as pr evi ous l y s et out [ . ] ” The r emai ni ng pr ovi s i ons of the or derconce rn chi l d s uppor t , f i nan ci al obl i gat i ons of R egi na and Scott , and beha vi or al r es tr i ct i ons pl aced on Regi na and Scott . B eca us e the chanc ery courtf

ai l ed t o i dent i f

y a mat er i al change i n ci r cum st ances w arr ant i ng cus t ody m o d if icati o n , the m o d if

icati o n o rde r i s insu ffi cien t f o r us to d eterm ine th e c h an ce ry c o u rt ’s b a sis fo r th e c u sto d y m o d ifica tio n . M o re o v e r, th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt fa iled to m a k e sp e c ific fin d in g s a s to e a c h in d iv id u a l A lb rig h t f act or . A ccor di ngl y, w e r ever s e the modi f i cat i on o rd e r a s to th e c u s to d y m o d if ic a tio n a n d re m a n d fo r f u rt h e r p ro c e e d in g s . II . C hild Su

pp ort ¶20. Pr i ort o t he entry of t he m od i fi cat i on orde r , Scot tw as obl i gat ed t o pay $250 per m o n th in c h il d su p p o rtfor Ja co b . H o w ev er, i n the m o d if icati o n o rde r, the c h an ce ry c o u rt

### 10

t erm i nat ed Scott ’ s chi l d- s uppor tobl i gat i on and i m pos ed chi l d s uppor ton R egi na, f orJ acob, in th e a m o u n t o f $ 1 0 0 p e r m o n th . ¶ 2 1 . W e a re a w a re th a t o u r la w p re su m e s th a t a n o n c u sto d ial p a re n t w ill p a y c h ild su p p o rt. S e e g e n e r a lly B r e w e rv . H o llid a y , 135 S o. 3d 117, 120- 21 ( ¶14) ( M i s s . 2014) ( f i ndi ng t hat “[ n] oncus t odi al par ent s pay chi l d supportt o cus t odi al par ent s f orthe bene f

i tof the chi l d, not the p are n t, an d that su p p o rtb elon g s to the ch il d , n o t th e c u stod ial p are n t”). H o w ev er, beca us e w e r ever s e the m odi f i cat i on or dera s t o chi l d cus t ody, w e pr et erm i tdi s cus s i on of t he chanc ery court ’ s i m pos i t i on of chil d supporton R egi na, and w e r ever s e the modi f i cat i on o rd e r a s to c h ild s u p p o rt , p e n d in g re s o lu tio n o f t h e c u s to d y -m o d if ic a tio n is s u e . ¶ 2 2 . T H E J U D G M E N T O F T H E IT A W A M B A C O U N T Y C H A N C E R Y C O U R T IS RE VE RS E D, AN D T HI S C AS E I S RE M AN DE D F OR F UR T HE R P RO CE E DI NG S CONS I S TE NT W I TH T HI S OP I NI ON. AL L C OS TS OF THI S AP P EA L A RE A S S E S S E D T O T H E A P P E L L E E . LE E, C. J . , GRI F F I S , P. J . , I S HEE , ROBE RT S , CARLT ON, M AXW EL L A ND FAI R, J J . , CO NCU R. BARNES, J . , CO NCU RS I N PART AND I N THE R ES ULT W I THOUT S EP ARAT E W RI TT EN OP I NI ON. J AM ES , J . , CONCURS I N P ART W I THOUT S EP ARAT E W RI TT EN OP I NI ON.