Opinion ID: 864354
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: whether the chancellor erred by awarding

Text: CHERYL ATTORNEYS' FEES. ¶31. Woodrow cross-appeals contesting the chancellor's award of $2,000 in attorneys' fees to Cheryl. The standard of review of a trial court's decision to award attorneys' fees is abuse of discretion. Miss. Dep't of Wildlife, Fisheries & Parks v. Miss. Wildlife Enforcement Officers' Ass'n, 740 So. 13 2d 925, 937 (Miss. 1999) (citing Bank of Miss. v. Southern Mem'l Park, Inc., 677 So. 2d 186, 191 (Miss. 1996)). ¶32. A chancellor can award attorneys' fees to a spouse who succeeds on his or her petition for contempt of the other's child support obligation. Lahmann v. Hallmon, 722 So. 2d 614, 623 (Miss. 1998). We find that the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in awarding attorneys' fees to Cheryl. Woodrow was delinquent in his child support obligation, and a suit had to be filed to collect it. Woodrow makes the point that Cheryl technically did not prevail because the chancellor awarded a portion of the arrearage to Darren, not Cheryl. However, it remains that a custodial parent can enforce a child support obligation on the child's behalf. This assignment of error is without merit. MOTION TO STRIKE ¶33. In his brief, Woodrow included a motion to strike Issues VII and VIII on the basis that Darren was awarded a money judgment and never appealed; therefore, we would not have jurisdiction to review the money judgment awarded to him. Simply put, Woodrow complains that Cheryl has no standing to pursue those issues which can only be raised by Darren. Since we affirm the chancellor's substantive findings, we deny Woodrow's motion to strike.