Opinion ID: 1860448
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: did the trial court err by enjoining the appellant from having his children in the presence of his lover?

Text: Visitation and restrictions placed upon it are within the discretion of the chancery court. Newsom v. Newsom, 557 So.2d 511, 517 (Miss. 1990); Clark v. Myrick, 523 So.2d 79, 83 (Miss. 1988); Cheek v. Ricker, 431 So.2d 1139, 1146 (Miss. 1983). Visitation should be set up with the best interests of the children as the paramount consideration, keeping in mind the rights of the non-custodial parent and the objective that parent and child should have as close and loving a relationship as possible, despite the fact that they may not live in the same house. Clark, 523 So.2d at 83; Cox v. Moulds, 490 So.2d 866, 870 (Miss. 1986). White v. Thompson, 569 So.2d 1181, 1185 (Miss. 1990). In Cox, this Court found that in order for a chancellor to restrict visitation he would have to find something approaching actual danger or other substantial detriment to the children. Id. at 868. This Court in Newsom held that the chancery court could restrict visitation in circumstances which present an appreciable danger of hazard cognizable in our law. Id. at 517. There was no evidence presented that visitation in the mere presence of a lover of Michael's would be detrimental to the children or dangerous in any way. Discussing standards to follow in custody modifications, in Morrow v. Morrow, 591 So.2d 829, 833 (Miss. 1991), we stated: [a]n extramarital relationship is not, per se, an adverse circumstance. Ballard [ v. Ballard ], 434 So.2d [1357] at 1360 [Miss. 1983] defined the inquiry as ensuring against harm to the child, noting parenthetically, whether such [parental] behavior is immoral or not... . See also Kavanaugh v. Carraway, 435 So.2d 697 (Miss. 1983). Absent any evidence that visitation with Michael and his lover would be harmful to the children, the chancellor erred and abused his discretion in placing such a restriction on Michael's visitation. We must reverse the chancellor's decision on this issue and remand to the Chancery Court of Jackson county for a determination not inconsistent with this opinion.