Opinion ID: 1138826
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: ISSUE: Whether the Chancellor Erroneously Awarded Nancy Custody of Their Two Children

Text: Nancy retained custody of the two children, Kathryn (14 years old) and Michael Jr. (8 years old), after Mike left her in July, 1987. About a year later, the chancellor awarded Nancy permanent custody of the children. The chancellor's opinion, upon which he based his decision, is a lengthy one: Having determined that the plaintiff is entitled to a divorce the Court must now address the issue of custody of the two minor children of the parties. With the exception of testimony indicating immoral conduct in the form of extra-marital sexual activity on the part of both parents, most evidence indicated that both parents are suitable and dedicated parents.... Mr. Retzer testified that Mrs. Retzer abused alcohol and that she was a pathological liar. There was also evidence that in connection with the hostility of the divorce she made some attempt at suicide which raises some question about her emotional stability. In addition, the evidence seems clear that she is a very poor financial manager for she regularly spends without regard to her ability to repay and her husband is forced to come to her aid and satisfy the obligation she has made that she can not meet. As to the allegations of alcohol abuse, no one testified to this other than Mr. Retzer and until the child custody dispute arose over the divorce, apparently it was no problem. There is also no evidence of pathological lying except from the husband and there is no evidence of this being a problem until the child custody heated up. The facts further reveal that during recent years the mother has primarily been a housewife with the principal responsibility for rearing the children. She has, however, had a full time maid and apparently the maid has provided a large part of the care of the children. The evidence also reveals she has some plans to resume her career after the divorce is resolved. The father has apparently played a bigger role than the average father in rearing the children for he has often transported them to and from school and carried them to the doctor. He, however, has been the principal breadwinner with the responsibility for operating a very substantial business. His business is at the point that he has sufficient managerial help to permit him substantial flexibility in his schedule. In addition, the father has been very active in politics and he obviously spends a good amount of time away from his home in political activities. On some of these political travels the mother has accompanied him. Under these facts the Court must determine to whom custody should be awarded. The father argues that because of the mother's adultry [sic] she is not entitled to custody and there are cases in Mississippi so holding. Winfield v. Winfield, 35 So.2d 443; Keyes v. Keyes, 171 So.2d 489. However, more recent cases have modified this rule and hold that such conduct is only one factor to be considered. In Yates v. Yates, 284 So.2d 46 ([Miss.] 1973), the Court said: The rule announced in Keyes is a general rule that a parent guilty of adultry [sic] should not be awarded child custody, but there are exceptions to this rule.  In 1985, in Carr v. Carr, 480 So.2d 1120, the Court said: This Court holds that the fact of adultry [sic] alone does not disqualify a parent from custodianship, but that the pollstar [sic] consideration in original custody determinations is the best interest and welfare of the minor child. It further went on to say that the guidelines set forth in Albright v. Albright, 437 So.2d 103 [1003 (Miss. 1983)] should be followed in custody determinations. In Albright the Court provided guidelines for determining custody by stating as follows: We affirm the rule that the pollstar [sic] consideration in child custody cases is the best interest and welfare of the child. The age of the child is subordinated to that rule and it is but one factor to be considered. Age should carry no greater weight than other factors to be considered such as: Health, and sex of the child; a determination of the parent that has had the continuity of care prior to the separation; which has the best parenting skills and which has the willingness and capacity to provide primary child care; the employment of the parent and responsibilities of that employment; physical and mental health and age of the parent; emotional ties of parent and child; moral fitness of parents; the home school and community record of the child; the preference of the child at the age sufficient to express a preference by law; stability of home environment and employment of each parent, and other factors relevant to the parent-child relationship. Marital fault should not be used as a sanction in custody awards. Relative financial situation is not controlling since the duty to support is independent of the right to custody. Differences in religion, personal values, and lifestyle should not be the sole basis for custody decisions. This Court has sought to apply these criteria to the facts here and as to some of the factors such as emotional ties to the child or preference to the children, it has no evidence. On the other factors such as willingness and capacity it finds little difference between the two. It also finds limited difference between them as to moral fitness since both have admitted adultry [sic] and both are apparently accustomed to stretching the tax laws such as their buying all appliances for their home through Retzer and Retzer. There are, however, some of the factors wherein the Court can make a distinction. The Court is of the opinion that in normal circumstances a 12 year old girl and a 5 year old boy would be better off with their mother. The mother has also been the principal custodian up to this point in their lives and leaving them with her would provide continuity of care. At this point the mother has no employment and would be available to care for them. The Court recognizes that she has made some statement about employment, but she has taken no action along these lines at this point. On the other hand the father has the responsibility for substantial business activity and still has his involvement with politics. He testified that he has a flexible schedule and can arrange it so he can care for the children, but he still has all the business responsibilities and the Court concludes that this factor favors the mother. The lack of responsibility in managing her financial affairs and her attempt at suicide clearly cause the father to be favored insofar as emotional or mental strength of the parties is concerned. In addition to these factors the father argues that the mother will be a bad role model for the children because of her adultry [sic] and her financial irresponsibility. This Court is of the opinion that with the testimony and admissions that have occurred in this Court and with the likelihood of widespread publication of this in the community in light of their community standing, that the example set by both parents as to sexual conduct will greatly jeopardize the children without regard to who has custody for all will know who their parents are and all will likely know of the conduct of their parents and this will put pressure on the children. As to her fiscal irresponsibility, this Court can not put all the blame for this on her for the evidence is that he, too, has been an extravagant spender with the big difference being he controlled the purse strings and could limit the availability of her funds. For example, he complained of her spending for clothes and jewelry, but does not complain of the expensive parties he wanted, his salaries, or one-quarter million dollars spent in remodeling their home. Having considered these factors the Court concludes that it is in the best interest of the children that custody be awarded to the mother. Vol. II, at 197-201 (emphasis added). Mike rejects the chancellor's opinion and reiterates, for the most part, that Nancy is unfit to have custody due to her acts of infidelity and, under the general rule in Mississippi, a parent who is guilty of infidelity is not entitled to the custody of the children. See Appellant's Brief at 27 (quoting Carr v. Carr, 480 So.2d 1120, 1121 (Miss. 1985)). Nancy counters that Mike admitted committing adulterous acts with several women, including a next-door neighbor, in the Retzers' marital home. Nancy adds that Mike really did not want custody of the children and that he simply wanted to use [them] as a pawn to negotiate with Nancy the monetary aspects of the divorce.
As evinced in the preceding subsection, the chancellor extensively analyzed the evidence and applicable law. He began by noting that, with the exception of testimony indicating immoral conduct ... on the part of both parents, most evidence indicated that both ... are suitable and dedicated parents. He then weighed other relevant factors  specifically those enunciated in Albright v. Albright  and found that it is in the best interest of the children that custody be awarded to the mother. See also Carr v. Carr, 480 So.2d 1120, 1123 (Miss. 1985) (From this Court's view of the entire opinion, it concludes that the chancellor applied the rule of best interest and welfare of the children to his custody determination.) (citing Albright, supra. ) The record supports the chancellor's fact-finding  with which the parties virtually did not dispute during oral arguments before this Court. This Court is bound by those findings unless it can be said with a reasonable certainty that those findings were manifestly wrong and against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Id. at 1123-24 (citing Torrence v. Moore, 455 So.2d 778 (Miss. 1984)); but see Appellant's Brief at 28-29 (where Mike seems to suggest, erroneously, that this Court's standard of review is: whether there has been a material change of circumstances) (citing and quoting Smith v. Todd, 464 So.2d 1155, 1157 (Miss. 1985), and McRae v. McRae, 381 So.2d 1052, 1056 (Miss. 1980)). In sum, perusal of the record, briefs, and chancellor's opinion leads this Court to hold that no manifest error is evident. The chancellor's determination concerning custody of the children, who have been living with their mother now for over three years, is affirmed.