Opinion ID: 1098463
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: did the court err in modifying the august 3, 1987, judgment of modification?

Text: The August 3rd judgment awarded custody of the children to Eugene, subject to reasonable visitation by Karen. After Karen refused to deliver the children, she was jailed for contempt of court, from late August until October 1987. On delivering the children and purging herself of contempt, the Chancellor's order of October 12, 1987, restricted Karen's visitation to allow visitation not more than once per week, for no more than one and one-half hours, in Eugene's home. These conditions of visitation were made permanent in the January 12, 1988, Memorandum Opinion on Post Trial Motions. Appellant contends that the chancellor erred in modifying her visitation rights without a motion by Eugene to modify the August 3rd judgment, citing Cox v. Moulds, 490 So.2d 866 (Miss. 1986). In Cox, the issue before the court involved the authority of the Chancery Court to place restrictions upon a non-custodial parent's exercise of visitation rights. The chancellor restricted visitation based solely on the fact that the daughter aged 13 would not have her own room on the nights she visited her father. In reversing the chancellor, this court found ... no substantial evidence supporting the proposition that such overnight visitation would present any appreciable danger of hazard cognizable in our law. 490 So.2d at 871. The court stated in a footnote that this is not to suggest that there will never be such circumstances justifying the restriction of visitation rights. Id. This footnote suggests, and we hold that the chancery court has the power to restrict visitation in circumstances which present an appreciable danger of hazard cognizable in our law. In this case Karen Newsom had proven that she was capable of secreting the children in defiance of the court ordered change of custody. This could certainly be considered a cognizable danger. The disobedience to the Decree of August 3, 1987, by Karen Newsom is a material change in circumstances which justifies the chancellor's modification of her visitation. The safety and welfare of the minor children compelled the chancellor to act in their best interest, protecting them from abduction by Karen. By deposition, Karen Newsom admitted that after she learned of the order changing custody she was advised by her attorney to hide the children. While in hiding the children were taken by Karen to New Orleans to be examined by Dr. Cowan. Garnett Harrison, then her attorney, prepared a press release which included reports and statements of Drs. Whiting, McCrary, Meeks and Haygood. These materials, released on August 14, contain detailed and explicit references to the alleged abuse. By no stretch of the imagination could the publication of these reports be said to benefit the children. On August 20, Karen told the court that she was the only person who knew the whereabouts of the children, when in reality, Harrison and her staff and several others knew, including Dr. Whiting and Dr. Meeks. Approximately one week later, Karen's mother took control of the children because she was concerned that the situation had gotten out of Karen's control. 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. Spain v. Holland, 483 So.2d 318 (Miss. 1986); Pellegrin v. Pellegrin, 478 So.2d 306 (Miss. 1985); Albright v. Albright, 437 So.2d 1003 (Miss. 1983); Carr v. Carr, 480 So.2d 1120 (Miss. 1985); Tucker v. Tucker, 453 So.2d 1294 (Miss. 1984); Baneck v. Baneck, 455 So.2d 766 (Miss. 1984); Crowson v. Moseley, 480 So.2d 1150 (Miss. 1985); Sparkman v. Sparkman, 441 So.2d 1361 (Miss. 1983). Karen's apparent instability and previous abduction of the children in defiance of the court order was ample justification for the restricted visitation. Accordingly, we find that the Chancellor did not err in severely restricting Karen's visitation. Indeed, he would have been remiss had he not done so.