Opinion ID: 1814233
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Cook's move to California

Text: ¶ 33. Pierce contends that Cook presented evidence that he is no longer able to see his children as a result of Pierce; however, Pierce was prohibited from cross-examining Cook about the fact that he chose to move to California. Pierce asserts that he was not allowed to question Cook as to why he visits his children only three times a year; why Cook almost always returns the children early; or why Cook sold his home in Madison to move to California. Pierce cites Bland v. Hill, 735 So.2d 414, 419 (Miss.1999), for the proposition that this Court has held that in alienation-of-affection cases, the defendant must show that the alienation was caused by other factors, even the plaintiff's own conduct. Based on Bland, Pierce contends that he should have been allowed to show the jury Cook's own actions and/or inactions with regard to parenting his children. Pierce avers that because he was prohibited from showing Cook's own actions and/or inactions, he was deprived of a fair trial and was unduly prejudiced. ¶ 34. On the other hand, Cook argues that Pierce has mischaracterized the trial court's rulings. Pierce was given wide latitude to question Cook about his relationship with his children before the adulterous affair between Pierce and Kathleen. However, Pierce also attempted to question Cook regarding his relationship with his children after the adulterous affair, on such matters as how Cook's sale of his Madison home and his move to California affected his relationship with his children. ¶ 35. We agree with Pierce that this Court has held that defendants in alienation cases must be allowed to attempt to prove that they were not the cause of the plaintiff's divorce, but Pierce was given ample opportunity to cross-examine Cook about his marriage with Kathleen. Bland, 735 So.2d at 419. Additionally, Pierce was permitted to cross-examine Cook as to his relationship with the children before the adulterous affair. In fact, Pierce was permitted to question Cook as to his relationship with his children even after the divorce. During Pierce's cross-examination of Cook, the following occurred: Q. Well, since January of 2006, how many times have you been back to Mississippi to visit your three children? [ATTORNEY FOR COOK]: Object to relevance. THE COURT: Overruled. A. I believe twice. Q. And when were those two times, since January of this year? A. One was in February for Ernie's birthday around the 14th; and I believe the other time was sometime in March, I want to say. Q. Now, you have the right under the property settlement and custody agreement to visit your children every other weekend. [ATTORNEY FOR COOK]: Your Honor, we're going to object to any testimony out of the judgment of divorce or the property settlement and object to the relevance as to when he has a right to visit his children. THE COURT: Sustained MR. PIERCE: Your Honor THE COURT: The objection is sustained. The testimony about which Pierce complains today was irrelevant to the matter at hand and was properly denied by the trial court inasmuch as this evidence concerned Cook's conduct long after the commencement of the adulterous affair between Pierce and Kathleen.