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 5 - CA- 0 2 2 7 0 - S CT S ANDRA FAYE F

LOYD
v. NICKI E FL OYD
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 11/ 23/ 2005 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. J
. L AR RY BU F F I NGT ON COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: S I M P S ON COU NTY CHANCERY COURT ATT ORNEY F OR APP EL LANT: S HERRI M URI EL F LOW ERS ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLEE: NI CK I E FLOYD ( PRO SE) 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 - 02/ 15/ 2007 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 SM I T H , C . J. , E A SL E Y A N D G R A V E S, JJ. S M I TH, CH I EF J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1
. T h is c a se c o m e s to th is C o u rt o n a p p e a l b y d e fe n d a n t S a n d ra F a y e F lo y d . S h e a p p e a ls f r om an or derof

the C hance ry C ourtof

S i m ps on C ounty denyi ng herm ot i on f orm odi f i cat i on of the cus t ody of

thei rm i norchi l d, bas ed upon al l egat i ons of abus e and the chi l d’ s el ect i on to liv e w ith h is m o th e r. ¶2. W e hol d that the chanc el l or err ed i n fai l i ng t o i ncl ude hi s r eas ons f or r ej ect i ng the gu ardi an ad l i t em ’s recom m end at i on i n the cou rt ’s fi nd i ng of f actand con cl usi on s. A ccor di ngl y, w e r ever s e and r emand f orpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th thi s opi ni on.

### 2 FACTS AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶3. O n M ay 16, 2001, the part i es , Sandr a and N i cki e Fl oyd, r ece i ved a Fi nal D ecr ee of D i vor ce on the gr ounds of i rr econc i l abl e di f

f er ence s . T he dec r ee i ncl uded a Sepa r at i on and P ro p e rty S e ttl e m e n t A g re e m e n t, w h ich a w a rd e d th e p a rties jo in t cu sto d y o f th e ir ten -y e a r o ld chi l d, s peci f

i cal l y gi vi ng phy s i cal cus t ody t o N i cki e dur i ng the w eek a nd t o Sandr a on the
w eeke nds and duri ng the summ er . O n F ebruary 12, 2003, N i cki e f i l ed an A m ended M ot i on fo r M o d ifica tio n re q u e stin g th a t th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt re stric t S a n d ra ’s v is ita tio n w ith th e ir chi l d, base d on a subs t ant i al and mat er i al change i n the ci r cumst ance s of the part i es s i nce the
or i gi nal decr ee w as ent er ed. O n J ul y 30, 2003, the courtdeni ed the r eques tf orm odi f i cat i on butupon i t s ow n m ot i on modi f i ed vi s i t at i on. The court ’ s or derr educe d Sandr a’ s vi s i t at i on to ev ery o ther w ee k en d an d g ran ted N ickie a t l ea st on e w ee ko f visit ati o n d u ri n g the s u m m er. ¶4. O n A ugus t 2, 2004, N i cki e f i l ed a pet i t i on t o hol d Sandr a i n cont empt and a M ot i on fo r E m e rg e n c y a n d O th e r R e lief, w h ich w a s b a se d o n S a n d ra ’s a lleg e d re fu sa l to re tu rn th e ir ch il d at th e e n d o f th e su m m er a n d he r enro ll m en t o f him in an o ther sc h o o l distri ct. S an d ra
su b seq u en tl y fi led a C o u n ter C lai m for C o n tem p t an d F o r M o d if icati o n b ase d o n the c h il d ’s el ect i on t o l i ve w i th he ra nd a n a gr eementbe tw een the part i es w hi ch s he bel i eves pe rm i t s the chi l d t o choos e w hi ch s chool h e w i l l att end upon r eac hi ng the age of 12. O n A ugus t24, 2 0 0 4 , the c h an ce ry co u rtg ran ted N ickie’s M o ti o n fo r E m erg en cy R eli ef a n d o rde red S an d ra t o i m m edi at el y r eturn the chi l d t o hi s f ather ’ s c us t ody. T he i s s ue of cus t ody w as cont i nued f ora l at erhear i ng. A tthi s hear i ng, the cha ncery c ourtr ef err ed thi s cas e t o the D epartm ent
o f H u m a n S e rv ice s (D H S ) b e c a u se o f alle g a tio n s o f a b u se , w h ich w e re m a d e b y th e c h ildin a l ett ert o D H S. O n J anuary 10, 2005, the cha ncery court , act i ng o n i t s ow n m ot i on,

### 3

a p p o in ted a g u a rd ian a d litem fo r th e c h ild . O n A p ril 6 , 2 0 0 5 , the g u a rd ian a d lit e m filed h is
r eportw i th the cha ncel l or , i n w hi ch the guar di an conc l uded thatthe chi l d w as m atur e and
c a p a b l e o f

e l e c t i n g h i s c u s t o d i a l a rr a n g e me n ta n d th a th e d e s i r e d t o l i v e wi th h i s mo th e r . On N ovember23, 2005, the cha ncery courtdeni ed Sandr a’ s M ot i on f orM odi f i cat i on. Feel i ng
a g g rie v e d b y th is d e c isio n , S a n d ra a ss e rts th e fo llo w in g tw o iss u e s o n a p p e a l: I . W HET HER T HE CHAN CE LL OR COM M I TT ED REVERSI BLE E R R O R I N R U L I N G CO N T R A R Y T O T H E RECO M M ENDATI ON S OF THE G UA RDI AN A D LI TEM W H IL E F A IL IN G T O L IS T A N D A D D R E S S T H E G U A R D IA N ’S Q U A LIFI C A TIO N S A N D R EC O M M EN D A TIO N S. I I . W HE T HE R T HE CH AN CE L L OR AB US E D H I S DI S CR E T I ON I N F AI L I NG T O MAKE AN ON - T HE - RE CO RD F I NDI NG OF THE ALBRIGH T AND/ OR M A R T IN F AC T OR S W HE N H E AWARD E D C US T OD Y O F T HE M I NOR CHI L D T O T HE FATHER O VER TH E M OTH ER
.

DI S CUS S I ON ¶5
. T h e stan d ard o f rev iew in c h ild c u stod y ca ses is li m it ed
. R ev ersa l o cc u rs o n ly if a
c h a n c e llo r i s m a n if

e s tly w ro n g o r a p p lie d a n e rr o n e o u s le g a l s ta n d a rd
. P o w e ll v. Ay a r d s, 792 S o. 2d 24 0, 243 ( M i ss. 200 1). T his C ou rtw i l l not rever se a chan cery court ' s factual f i nd i ng s,
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 su p p o rt in g th e s e fi n d in g s o f f a c t. Cooper
v. Cr abb , 5 8 7 S o . 2 d 2 3 6 , 2 3 9 (M is s . 1 9 9 1 ). ¶6. Sand ra ci t es S. N . C . an d J . H . C . v. J. R . D . , Jr. in supp orto f he rar gum ent that the c h an ce ll o r co m m itted re v e rsible e rror b y fail ing to ad d ress the g u ard ian a d li tem ’s
re c o m m e n d a tio n s . S. N . C . a n d J. H

. C . v. J . R . D . , Jr. , 7 5 5 S o . 2 d 1 0 7 7 (M iss . 2 0 0 0 ). W h ile S. N . C . v. J. R . D . , Jr. i s f

actual l y di f

f er entfr om the pr es entcas e, as thatcas e i nvol ves the

### 4

term ination o f a pa rty ’s pa ren tal ri g h ts, the p o rt ion o f th is de cisi o n reg ard ing a c h an ce ll o r’s
re q u ir e d fi n d in g s o f f

a c t is a p p lic a b le to th is c a s e . I d . ¶7. C ourt s ar e r equi r ed by s t atut e t o appoi nta guar di an i n cus t ody cas es w her e al l egat i ons of abus e and ne gl ectar e made. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 93- 5- 23 ( Supp. 2 00 6)
. W hi l e the ch an ce ll o r pro p erly a p p o inted a g u ard ian to inv esti g ate the all eg ati o n s o f ab u se th at w ere
m ade by the chi l d, he f

ai l ed t o addr es s ori ncl ude a s um m ary of the guar di an’ s qual i f

i cat i ons
o r r e c o m m e n d a tio n s w h e n h e re n d e re d th e d e c is io n to d e n y m o d if ic a tio n . ¶8. T hi s C ourthas hel d thata chance l l orshal l atl eas ti ncl ude a s um m ary r evi ew of the
rec o m m en d ati o n s of th e g u ard ian in the co u rt ’s fi n d ing s o f fact w h en the a p p o intm en t of a g u a rd ia n is r e q u ir e d b y la w . S. N . C . v. J. R . D . , Jr. , 755 So. 2d at1082. Fur therm or e, i f the
c o u rt re jec ts th e re c o m m e n d a tio n s o f th e g u a rd ian , the c o u rt’s f in d in g s m u st in c lu d e its
re a s o n s f o r re je c tin g th e g u a rd ia n ’s re c o m m e n d a tio n s . I d. W hi l e a c hance l l ori s i n no w ay bound by a guar di an’ s r ecomm endat i ons , as um m ary of thes e r ecomm endat i ons i n addi t i on t o hi s r eas ons f

ornota dopt i ng the r ecomm endat i ons i s r equi r ed i n the cha ncel l or ’ s f i ndi ngs of f act a n d c o n c lu s io n s o f l a w . Id ., He ns arling v. He ns arling , 82 4 S o. 2d 58 3, 58 7 (M i ss. 2002)
. A s the cha ncel l or ’ s op i nion lacked both of thes e el ement s , w e r ever s e and r emand thi s i s s ue t o the cha ncery courtw i th i ns truct i ons t o m ake s peci f i c f i ndi ngs w i th r egar d t o the g u a rd ia n ’s re p o rt . ¶9. Secondl y, Sandr a al l eges that the chanc el l or abus ed hi s di s cr et i on i n f ai l i ng t o m ake
on- the- r ecor d f

i ndi ngs of

the Albri ght fa c to rs w h e n h e a w a rd e d c u s to d y to N ic k ie
. Albri ght
v. Albri ght , 437 So. 2d 1003, 1005 ( M i s s . 1983)
. San dra ci t es P ow el l v. Ayards fo r its

### 5

ho l di ng that a de term ination of ch il d cu stod y w il l b e h eld e rron eo u s w h ere a ch an ce ll o r is
n o t th o rou g h in h is discu ssion , fac tor b y fac tor, o f Albri ght
. P o w e ll , 7 9 2 S o . 2 d a t 2 4 9
. ¶10. T he p oles t ar con si derat i on i n chi l d cus t ody cas es i s the bes ti nt er es tof the chi l d. Albri ght , 437 So. 2d at1 00 5. T he t es tf ora modi f

i cat i on of

chi l d cus t ody i s : ( 1) w hether ther e has been a m at er i al c hange i n c i r cumst ance s w hi ch adver s el y a f f ect s the w el f

ar e of the
c h ild a n d (2 ) w h e th e r th e b e s t in te re s t o f th e c h ild re q u ir e s ac h a n g e o f c u s to d y . W e i ga nd
v. Houghton , 73 0 S o . 2d 58 1 , 58 5 (19 9 9 ). In co n side ri n g suc h ch an g es, th e c h an ce ry c o u rt
s h o u ld v ie w th e e v id e n c e w ith in th e to ta lity o f th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s . Spa in v. Hol land , 483 So. 2 d 3 1 8 , 3 2 0 (M iss . 1 9 8 6 ). O n c e a m a ter ial c h a n g e is fo u n d , a m o d ifica tio n o f c u sto d y is
w a rr a n te d o n ly if

it w o u ld b e in th e b e s t in te re s t o f th e c h ild
. W e i ga nd , 730 So. 2d at585. In or der f or this C ou rtt o fi nd that a chanc el l or has notabu sed his dis cret i on i n these m att ers , there m ustbe suff

i ci ent evi den ce t o sup po rthis con cl usi on s. I d. ¶11. I n H

ayes v. R ounds , the C ourtre ver s ed and r emanded a cus t ody det erm i nat i on f or the chanc ery courtt o m ake s peci f i c f i ndi ngs of

f act , empl oyi ng the A lb rig h t fa c to rs. H ayes v. R ounds , 6 5 8 S o . 2 d 8 6 3 , 8 6 6 (M iss . 1 9 9 5 ). In d o in g so , the C o u rt sta ted : W h ile w e c a n n o t sa y th a t th e c h a n c e llo r's c o n c lu sio n is s o lac k in g in e v id e n tia ry s u p p o rta s to b e m a n if e s t e rr o r, i n the abs ence of s peci f i c f i ndi ngs w e cannot

af f i rm w i th conf

i dence thatthe bes t

r es ul thas been r each ed
. B ecaus e i ti s uncl earhow the courtf ound thatthe bes ti nt er es tof [ ] w as s erved b y p lac in g c u sto d y in [] , the c o u rt a llu d e d to a n in a p p ro p ria te a n a ly sis r e ga r di ng aba nd on ment , a ndthe r e a r e n o s pe c i f i c f i nd i ng s app l yi ng the A lb rig h t fa c to rs, w e co n c lu d e tha t th e b e st c o u rse is to re v e rse a n d re m a n d th is cas e f orthe cha ncel l ort o pr ovi de s peci f i c f i ndi ngs of

f actand conc l us i ons of la w u s in g th e A lb ri g h t a n a ly s is . (C ita tio n o m itte d )( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). I d . A l though the cha ncery courtpr oper l y appoi nt ed a gua r di an t o i nves t i gat e the al l egat i ons
o f a b u se , th e c h a n c e llo r d idn o t ad d re ss w h e th e r th e re h a d b e e n a m a ter ial c h a n g e in

### 6

ci r cumst ance s oranal yze the evi dence underthe Albri ght f act or s i n denyi ng Sandr a’ s m ot i on for m o d if

icati o n o f cu stod y . Ith as b ee n w ell -es tab lish ed that b o th o f th ese elem en ts are
re q u ir e d w h e n c o n s id e ri n g a re q u e s t f o r m o d if ic a tio n . W

e i ga nd , 7 3 0 S o . 2 d a t 5 8 5 ; Sm ith
v. Jo n es, 654 So. 2d 480, 486 ( M i s s . 1995)
. T her ef or e, w e r ever s e the chanc el l or’ s or der denyi ng m odi f

i cat i on and r emand thi s cas e f orthe chanc el l ort o pr ovi de s peci f i c f i ndi ngs of f act , addr es s i ng eac h A lb rig h t fa c to r. ¶12. A ddi t i onal l y, w hi l e the al l egat i ons of abus e and negl ecta s w el l a s the chi l d’ s el ect i on t o l i ve w i th hi s m otherar e i n the r ecor d, the cha ncel l oraddr es s ed onl y the chi l d’ s el ect i on i n hi s or derdenyi ng a modi f i cat i on of cust ody. W e have hel d thatm odi f i cat i on bas ed on al l eged abus e r equi r es pr oof of conductby the cus t odi al par entthatcr eat es a genui ne dange r to th e c h ild
. R ob ison v. L an gford , 84 1 S o. 2d 11 19 , 11 23 -24 (M i ss. 20 03 ). W e hav e al so hel d thata chi l d’ s pr ef

er ence t o change cus t ody does noti n i t s el f det erm i ne thathi s des i r ed
c u s to d ia l a rr a n g e m e n t is in th e c h ild ’s b e s t in te re s t. W es t br ook v. Ogles bee , 606 So. 2d 1142, 1147 ( M i s s . 1992). W hi l e the cha ncel l ori s notbound by the el ect i on of a mi norchi l d,
w h e n d e c lin in g to fo llo w a c h ild ’s e lec tio n , the c h a n c e llo r is re q u ire d to m a k e sp e c ific fi n d in g s e x p la in in g th e re a s o n s fo r th e re fu s a l. M is s . C o d e A n n . § 9 3 -1 1 -6 5 (2 0 0 6 ). T he p e rtin e n t p o rtio n o f th is s tatu te s tate s: [ I ] f the courtshal l f

i nd thatboth part i es ar e f i tand pr operper s ons t o have cus t ody of

the chi l dr en, a nd thate i therpa rty i s abl e t o adequa t el y pr ovi de f or the car e and mai nt enanc e of the chi l dr en, the cha ncel l orm ay cons i derthe p re fe re n c e o f a c h ildo f tw e lv e (1 2 ) y e a rs o f a g e o r o ld e r a s to th e p a re n t w ith w ho m the chil d w ou l d pref er t o l i ve i n determ i ning w hat w ou l d b e i n the best in te re s t a n d w e lf

a re o f th e c h ild
. The c hancellors hal lplace on the r ecord the re a so n o r r e a so n s fo r w h ic h th e a w a rdo f cu sto d y w a s m a de a n d

ex p la in in detai lw hy the w is hes of any chi ld w er e orw er e not honor ed . (E m p h a sis a d d e d ).

### 7

I d. ¶13. I n P o lkv. P o lk , the C o u rt re v e rs e d a n d r e m a n d e d a c u sto d y m o d ifica tio n c a se to f urthercons i derthi s i s s ue, hol di ng that“w hen the cha ncel l or denies a chi l d hi s choi ce of
cus t odi al par entunder§ 93- 11- 65, then the cha ncel l orm us tmake on- the- r ecor d f i ndi ngs as to w h y th e b e s t in te re s t o f th e c h ild is n o t s e rv e d .” P o lkv. P o lk , 58 9 S o. 2d 12 3, 13 0 (M i ss. 1 9 9 1 ). I n the pr es entcas e, the court ’ s or ders i m pl y acknow l edges the chi l d’ s el ect i on and concl udes that“the appe al l at e [ s i c] C ourt s have rul ed thatthi s coul d notbe the sol e bas i s f or a cha nge i n cus t ody and thatbas ed on the evi dence pr es ent ed thatthe mot i on f or
m odi f i cat i on s houl d be de ni ed. ” Thi s va gue f i ndi ng doe s notadequa t el y expl ai n the r eas ons f orr ej ect i ng the chi l d’ s el ect i on t o l i ve w i th hi s mothera s r equi r ed by thi s C ourt ’ s di r ect i ve i n P o lk. T h e re fo re , w e rem a n d to th e ch a n c e ry c o u rt w ith sp e c ific in stru c tio n s to a d d re ss th is iss u e w ith th e sp e c ificity re q u ire d b y § 9 3 -1 1 -6 5 a n d to m a k e fin d in g s o n th e re c o rd in
s u p p o rto f i ts d e c is io n . CO NC L US I ON ¶14. B as ed on the f

or egoi ng r eas ons , w e r ever s e and r emand f ornew tr i al w i th i ns truct i ons to m a k e th e re q u ir e d o n -th e -r e c o rd fi n d in g s c o n s is te n t w ith th is o p in io n . ¶ 1 5
. RE VE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D. W AL LE R, P . J . , DI AZ , EA S LE Y, CARL S ON , GRAVES , DI CKI NS ON AND RA ND OL P H, J J . , CO NC UR . CO B B , P . J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .