Opinion ID: 1878886
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: The stability of home environment and employment of each parent

Text: ¶ 30. The chancellor found, after considering the stability of the home environment and employment of each parent, that this factor favored Tim. This reasoning is inexplicable. Beth's current employment situation, discussed above, is clearly more favorable to child-rearing than Tim's schedule. ¶ 31. By the time the second day of the trial arrived, both Tim and Beth lived with their parents, although Beth stated her intention to move into a house of her own. The trial court seemed to hold this relocation and change in employment against her, although a less than subtle warning offered by the chancellor was the sole reason that Beth initiated the change in living situations. ¶ 32. At the end of testimony on the first day of trial, Tim's attorney, David Roberts, asked Chancellor Watts to enter an injunction against allowing any sexual activity in front of Zach. Beth's attorney, Gary Roberts, offered no objection to this arrangement. Tim's attorney then asked the court, since Beth still maintained custody of Zach, to hold specifically that Beth and Dukes sharing the same bed constituted sexual activity and that they therefore be prohibited from doing so until the conclusion of the trial. Beth's attorney objected. The discussion continued as follows: BY THE COURT: Well, basically what that means is that they [the children] don't have to standing there looking at it. If this lady here [Beth] is in bed with another lady, and the children are there, then she is going to be in contempt of Court. It's just that simple. I want to be sure we understand that now. BY GARY ROBERTS: Well, Your Honor, I certainly would not think, and perhaps I'm mistaken, but I certainly wouldn't think that the Court meant because you're asleep in a bed, that's sexual activity. BY THE COURT: Well howif you sleep in the bed and they say, well, there's not sexual activity? BY GARY ROBERTS: Well, I mean, I certainly engage in a lot of sleeping that's not sexual activity, Judge. BY THE COURT: What does the law presume, though? BY GARY ROBERTS: I certainly don't think that the law presumes, Judge, that because you are in a bed and somebody else is in that bed, that you're engaging in some sort of sexual activity. I don't think that's the BY THE COURT: I think the law says if you have an adulterous inclination and an opportunity to carry it out, then that, in effect, can be grounds for adultery. Now, I'm not saying that we have charges for adultery here. I'm trying to make an analogous situation. Also, one of the things in the back of my mind is, if I do not do that, then I can see how these parties are going to react to what has happened today, in reference to what I may do in the future. And sometimes, it's better just to let them act out their parts, whatever it's going to be, and then rather than order them to do something, and then that be the basis of the reason that they do it. I think what I'm going to do is, before I enter an Order like that, I want to hear from both sides. I think that's what I'm going to do. I'm not going to do that injunction at this time. I'm going to wait and hear from both sides before I do that. The chancellor did not enter the aforementioned order and left Zach in Beth's custody. The above quoted exchange can hardly be read as anything other than a veiled threat to Beth. ¶ 33. After hearing the previous exchange, on advice of counsel, Beth rearranged her living situation during the break in the trial. This change necessarily affected her job, so she immediately found another job, with comparable benefits. Beth moved home with her parents, making her living situation equivalent to Tim's. The trial court noted this move and penalized her for being unstable in her employment and living situation. The chancellor effectively penalized her for responding to his threat, exhibiting classic Catch-22 logic.