Opinion ID: 1820206
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Whether the chancery court erred in modifying Chasity's visitation.

Text: ¶ 20. However, as to visitation: [a]ll that need be shown is that there is a prior decree providing for reasonable visitation rights which isn't working and that it is in the best interests of the children as fostering a positive and harmonious relationship between them and their divorced parents to have custody provisions made specific rather than flexible and attendantly vague.[ [12] ] Cox, 490 So.2d at 869. The chancellor is granted broad discretion in visitation determinations and [t]his Court will not reverse a chancellor's findings of fact so long as they are supported by substantial evidence in the record.  Weigand, 730 So.2d at 587 (citing Tedford v. Dempsey, 437 So.2d 410, 417 (Miss.1983)) (emphasis added). See also Olson, 799 So.2d at 929 ([o]n visitation issues, as with other issues concerning children, the chancery court enjoys significant discretion in making its determination of what is in the best interest of the child.). ¶ 21. The Property Settlement Agreement provided Chasity with visitation every other weekend from 6:00 p.m. on Friday through 6:00 p.m. on Sunday; six weeks of summer visitation in two-week, non-consecutive intervals; holidays alternating yearly; and any other visitation as mutually agreed upon with William. The Property Settlement Agreement added that it would remain in full force and effect unless and until modified by subsequent Agreement of the parties or superseded by a lawful Order of a[c]ourt of competent jurisdiction. The post-hearing resolution of May 2, 2005, constituted such a modification of visitation. That agreement provided for added visitation between Chasity and the minor children each Wednesday night during the school year, as well as increased visitation during the Christmas holiday and spring break. The October 24, 2006, order of the chancery court amounted to a subsequent supersession by a lawful Order of a[c]ourt of competent jurisdiction. That order granted Chasity further visitation, extending weekend visitation to Monday morning when the children resumed school and providing for unlimited telephone access by the children with each parent. ¶ 22. Following the May 30, 2007, hearing, the June 1, 2007, order was entered, sharply reducing Chasity's visitation rights, see footnote 6 supra, without providing an explanation therefor. According to Chasity's undisputed assertion, this decision plainly conflicted with the recommendation of Dr. Nichols that the minor children do need to spend more time with [Chasity.] At the July 2, 2007, hearing on Chasity's Motion for Reconsideration, the chancellor upheld the visitation provided in the June 1, 2007, order, due to [t]he disruption that [Chasity] and [her] family caused in the courtroom, and you continue to discuss these legal proceedings with your children, and the [c]ourt has admonished you time and time again not to. Just prior to that explanation, however, the chancellor noted, I was prepared to give you extended or additional visitation until this happened. ¶ 23. Our Court has held that the best interest of the child is the main concern in determining visitation. Rogers v. Morin, 791 So.2d 815, 820 (Miss.2001) (citing Dunn v. Dunn, 609 So.2d 1277, 1286 (Miss. 1992)). Given the May 2, 2005, modification and the October 24, 2006, order of the chancery court, each granting Chasity additional visitation, along with the recommendation of Dr. Nichols, not contested by the parties, the chancellor's subsequent decision to reduce Chasity's visitation raises a question as to whether that decision was retributive, rather than in the best interest[s] of the child[ren]. Id. Moreover, the record is void of any court order which Chasity openly went against ... all of the time. Accordingly, this Court concludes that the chancellor's findings of fact reducing Chasity's visitation constitute an abuse of discretion, as they are not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Weigand, 730 So.2d at 587. See also Sanderson, 824 So.2d at 625-26.