Opinion ID: 1882329
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether the lower court erred in allowing the testimony of brenda donald.

Text: ¶ 19. The grandparents assert that Brenda Donald's testimony should not have been allowed because she was biased in Jeff's favor. The grandparents contend that this bias was evidenced through her heavy reliance on the information provided by Jeff and the child and her disregard of the information provided by the grandparents. Further, they assert that she ignored Dr. Eicke's reports and that she disregarded certain facts about Jeff, including his history of drug use, a drug conviction, and evidence of violence toward the mother. ¶ 20. In Murphy v. Murphy, 631 So.2d 812, 816 (Miss.1994), a child custody case, we stated that the chancellor's duty is to determine what is in the best interest of the child. As such, chancellors should consider any and all evidence which aids them in reaching the ultimate custody decision. In J.C. v. Natural Parents, 417 So.2d 529, 531 (Miss.1982), we held that [t]he chancery courts may order an investigation as to whether the prospective adopting parents are suitable for the child; however, such reports are certainly not conclusive on the courts if deemed not to be in the child's best interest. ¶ 21. The chancellor in the case sub judice appointed a guardian ad litem to select a therapist who was not connected to either party. The parties agreed to the order appointing the guardian ad litem and his instructions to procure an independent therapist to conduct the evaluation. The guardian ad litem stated in a letter to the court that Donald has extensive experience in dealing with children of this age and under similar circumstances. We will not hold the chancellor in error for following the recommendations of a licensed, experienced, independent therapist procured by another independent party, the guardian ad litem. ¶ 22. The grandparents fail to cite any portion of the record indicating that Donald was actually biased against them and in favor of Jeff. Their attempts to show her bias prove to be inaccurate. For instance, they assert that Donald ignored certain facts regarding Jeff's history of drug abuse and his admitted violence toward the mother. The record indicates that Donald did not disregard this information, but, to the contrary, expressed concern about these facts. However, she went on to conclude, notwithstanding these certain concerns, that Jeff should be allowed to take an active role in the child's life. It appears to us that the grandparents deem Donald biased simply because she did not give them a report favorable to their interests. ¶ 23. The grandparents' primary desire appears to be that Jeff be excluded from the child's life. Otherwise, they would be satisfied with the chancellor's ruling giving them primary custody with visitation rights for Jeff. The chancellor stated, The troubling prospect for which the Court cannot seem to find an adequate solution is the likelihood that, if allowed to adopt [the child], the grandmother would not foster, nor even allow, a continuing relationship between Jeff and [the child]. Neither Donald nor the chancellor found the exclusion of Jeff from the child's life to be in the best interest of the child. ¶ 24. The chancellor did not commit manifest error in considering Donald's testimony and reports. Thus, we find no merit to this assignment of error.