Opinion ID: 1127049
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the visitation rights of sheila chamblee granted by the chancellor were unduly restrictive.

Text: According to Newsom v. Newsom, 557 So.2d 511 (Miss. 1990), The chancellor is charged with the responsibility to protect the children and determine what visitation is in their best interest; great deference is given to the chancellor's decision on these matters. Id. at 517. This sentiment is echoed in Harrell v. Harrell, 231 So.2d 793 (Miss. 1970), a case similar to the one at bar. In that case, Audrey Nell Harrell was granted a divorce from her husband on the grounds of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. At the time of the trial they had a five-year-old son. The chancellor there limited visitation after the time the child was old enough to enter school to the third Sunday of each month, one week during the summer, and alternate Christmas days. The trial court enjoys a large amount of discretion in making its determination of what is for the best interest of the child... . Though appellant's argument was ably presented and is persuasive, we are of the opinion that the determination was primarily one for the trial court and we should not disturb it. Id. This was one of the chancellor's independent findings so we need not use our jaundiced eye. Accordingly, there is nothing in the record of this case that would indicate that the chancellor's decision was manifestly in error, either as to the facts or to the law. His opinion on this issue should therefore be affirmed.