Opinion ID: 1098463
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: did the chancellor err in his january 12, 1988 decision?

Text: This decision addressed five post trial motions. (1) The Motion by the Guardian Ad Litem to re-open the record under MRCP 60(b), for newly discovered evidence, the testimony of Ireland, discussed above. (2) The Motion of Guardian Ad Litem for the allowance of additional fees for services rendered post trial. (3) The Motion of Guardian Ad Litem to freeze funds in an account entitled Kathryn Newsom, minor, or Adam Newsom, minor. (4) The Motion by Karen Newsom to reopen the record under MRCP 60(b) for newly discovered evidence, the deposition of Dr. George Cowan, M.D., the physician who examined the children in New Orleans after the August 3rd ruling. (5) A Motion by Karen Newsom to modify the Court's order regarding her restricted visitation as ordered on October 13. The Chancellor's ruling on Ireland's testimony was discussed previously. The rulings on the motions for allowance for additional fees and to freeze funds are apparently uncontested. The Chancellor reopened the record, as requested in Karen's 60(b) motion, for the purpose of considering Dr. Cowan's deposition. We set out his finding below: 2. The Court entertains serious doubt that this newly discovered evidence is such that it truly falls within the purview of Rule 59 and 60, M.R.C.P., particularly newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered, etc. Nevertheless, out of an abundance of precaution the Court has determined to receive into evidence this `noncompliance, ex parte, so-called expert' testimony. 3. The examination done by Dr. Cowan was on August 12, 1987. The last time that defendant had been alone with his children, or either of them, was the visitation at the end of January 1987. The only other visitation was for a part of an afternoon, in late June, 1987, and the record is conclusively clear that Defendant was at no time alone with either of the children during that short visitation. Therefore, it is beyond question that at the time of Dr. Cowan's examination of the children on August 12, 1987, it had been more than six (6) months since Defendant Gene Newsom could have had any opportunity to do anything to or with his children, or either of them. 4. Only in light of that set forth in the next above preceding paragraph must Dr. Cowan's following testimony be evaluated: Katy's vulva swollen and erythematous, red and injected and inflamed  page 10, Cowan deposition periurethral area very red and very inflamed  page 13, Cowan deposition, and page 3 of Exhibit 5, Cowan deposition and therefore the Court is caused to say: Quare? If those observations are manifestations of some type of molestation, by what stretch of the imagination could Defendant, who had not been alone with the children for more than six months, be declared to be the perpetrator? 5. Dr. Cowan's testimony adds nothing toward Plaintiff's burden to show (1) by clear and convincing evidence that sexual molestation has taken place, and (2) that, assuming `arguendo' or having proven such, the second and equally important fact of WHO DID IT: ..... 6. Dr. Cowan deals with the highly pertinent subject of Katy's statements relating to good and bad touching (see, Cowan deposition, page of Exhibit 5), and with candor speaks of Katy's ... limited grasp of those concepts, and what is developed by Dr. Cowan on that subject does not serve to bolster Plaintiff's cause as asserted through Dr. Meeks, but quite clearly contradicts Dr. Meeks theory and presentation  a fact which can only serve to diminish the effect of Dr. Meeks testimony. 7. Dr. Cowan's references to Katy's limited grasp of those concepts bring into sharp focus the great amount of the testimony of Dr. Meeks at the trial in chief, i.e., Dr. Meeks repeated hearsay testimony of statements made by Katy to her  hearsay which was admitted into evidence by the Court over the objection of Defendant. However, the Court, in admitting that hearsay was not unmindful of the source  a child of the age of two and one-half to three and one-half years. ..... 8. Dr. Cowan's testimony lends absolutely nothing to the already failed case of Plaintiff ... The restricted visitation was based on the chancellor's, the Guardian's, and the father's fear that Karen would escape with the children given the opportunity. The Chancellor took judicial notice of activist groups who encouraged disobedience to court orders; we can see no way he could have avoided such notice as these persons have used press coverage in other cases and in this case as a tactic in attempting to force decisions favorable to their views. The record shows that the allegations of sexual abuse commenced about two months after the divorce, and one month after the post-divorce sexual episode Katie observed. The charges continued over a long period. Yet, while the charges were being continuously made, Karen offered to drop them all if Eugene would remarry her. On at least two occasions she engaged in sexual relations with him. In November, 1987, she requested that he keep the children for a month. The Chancellor cannot be said to be manifestly in error for not endorsing the history of sexual abuse she gave to the physicians. The last straw, or the final nail, depending on one's metaphor, was the last medical examination, at least six months after the father's last possible opportunity to touch the children. The same symptoms appeared. It appears that there was no sexual abuse. If there was the Chancellor was clearly not manifestly wrong in saying it was not the father who did it. AFFIRMED. ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., HAWKINS and DAN M. LEE, P.JJ., and PRATHER, ROBERTSON, ANDERSON and PITTMAN, JJ., concur. SULLIVAN, J., not participating.