Opinion ID: 1870865
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Continuous Social Commentary by the Circuit Court

Text: Davis accuses the circuit court of continuously making social commentary. Davis provides no cite to the abstract, or any cite whatever, to allow this court to even consider the assertions. However, we note the following comments by the circuit court in the September 11, 2002, final order on custody and support: Ms. Davis testified that she used her savings to move to Fayetteville this summer. Ms. Davis has not handled the money given to her in an exemplary manner as argued by counsel, nor has Ms. Davis had to be thrifty and was just getting by on $5000 per month as argued. It is apparent that the circuit court was concerned about the use of money in caring for Chasen, and there is nothing presented by Davis to show bias, or indeed imply anything beyond concern for the use of funds. Ms. Davis, however, further argues: The court in questioning even comments that it might be okay for Mr. Williamson to spend $1000.00 on shoes but it certainly was not alright for Ms. Davis to purchase a $3000 TV on her salary. The court is dictating the social and financial climate Chasen Williamson is to grow up in. Davis refers this court to page 189 of the abstract in support of this claim where we find the following questioning of witness Cheryl Shuffield by the circuit court: Q. My other question is did you do any sort of analysis here? You have Mr. Williamson who makes a lot of money and you know, he spends maybe a $1,000 on a pair of shoes and that might sound bad. A. Uh-huh. Q. But when you look at how much those shoes are versus how much money he's making, it's a little different. A. Sure. Q. Where you have Ms. Davis who makes less but she goes out and spends $2000 on a TV when she was not even making, well, she was making $35,000 at that point, I just wondered if there's some analysis that has been done to compare the two sorts. We're talking a lot about standard of living and that would be helpful, but you haven't done that analysis? A. No, Your Honor, I haven't. Contrary to Davis's argument, this is hardly a comment by the circuit court that it is okay for Williamson to pay $1000 for a pair of shoes but improper for Davis to spend $2000 on a television. It is obviously a question by the circuit court in an attempt to determine what analysis had been undertaken on the issue of standard of living.