Opinion ID: 1743563
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the chancellor erred in granting a divorce to appellee on the grounds of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment.

Text: ¶ 9. The ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment may be established by a preponderance of the evidence, rather than clear and convincing evidence, and the charge `means something more than unkindness or rudeness or mere incompatibility or want of affection.' Id. at 888 (citing Daigle v. Daigle, 626 So.2d 140, 144 (Miss.1993)). Evidence sufficient to establish habitual, cruel and inhuman treatment should prove conduct that: either endanger[s] life, limb or health, or create[s] a reasonable apprehension of such danger, rendering the relationship unsafe for the party seeking relief or, in the alternative, be so unnatural and infamous as to make the marriage revolting to the offending[ed] spouse and render it impossible for that spouse to discharge the duties of the marriage, thus destroying the basis for its continuance. Id. ¶ 10. Justice requires that the chancellor's primary inquiry must be into the ground for divorce with a dual focus upon 1) the conduct of the offending spouse and 2) the impact of that conduct upon the plaintiff. Id. at 890. The requirement of physical violence or threats of such for a claim of cruel and inhuman treatment to lie apply only when those are the acts alleged in the complaint. Id. at 889. This Court no longer requires that a specific act must be the proximate cause of a separation before a divorce may be granted on grounds of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. It is, instead, habitual or continuous behavior over a period of time, close in proximity to the separation, or continuing after a separation occurs, that may satisfy the grounds for divorce. Id. at 890. ¶ 11. Mr. Fisher contends that his wife did not present sufficient testimony and evidence to show that she was entitled to a divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment, relying on Potts v. Potts, 700 So.2d 321, 322 (Miss. 1997). However, Potts is distinguishable on its facts, with the only similarity being that Mr. Potts did sleep in a separate bedroom and would return when he wanted to have sexual relations with his wife. There was no evidence that Mr. Potts was seeing other women, which appears to be the primary basis for the chancellor's decision in the case sub judice, nor that Mr. Potts ever hit Mrs. Potts. In the present case, testimony revealed that Mr. Fisher had indeed hit his wife, and shoved her on numerous occasions even though he alleged that he hit her in self-defense, and that he had been seeing other women on a regular basis for quite some time. ¶ 12. This Court finds that Mrs. Fisher's allegations that she can no longer live with her spouse on account of his conduct are justified. Testimony revealed that Mr. Fisher often came home late and when Mrs. Fisher would stand in the doorway to block his entry into the home, he would push her out of the way. Their daughters testified that they had witnessed their father strike their mother and push and shove her out of the way on numerous occasions. On cross-examination as to whether her father ever pushed her mother down on the floor, in response to counsel's question He never pushed her down on the floor or anything, did he? He just pushed her aside; isn't that correct?, one of the daughters stated: No, they have fought; they have fought. ¶ 13. The chancellor also found credible evidence convincing her that uncondoned adultery had occurred and stated for the record that the divorce was being awarded on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment which would also include the manner and the relationships which the defendant had throughout the course of the marriage. Mr. Fisher's conduct was habitual and/or continuous behavior over a period of time, sufficient to satisfy the requirements for divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. Thus, the chancellor was not in error. This issue is without merit.