Clements v. Young, 55153

Citation481 So.2d 263
Decision Date20 November 1985
Docket NumberNo. 55153,55153
PartiesJames Bickham CLEMENTS v. Mary Kathryn Clements YOUNG.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Mississippi

Stanley F. Stater, III, Canton, for appellant.

William R. Barnett, Barnett & James, Jackson, for appellee.


ROBERTSON, Justice, for the Court:


At its core this case tests the limits upon a divorced custodial parent's prerogative to incur substantial expenses for orthodontics care for children and require the supporting non-custodial parent to pay the bill. Absent an agreement to the contrary, sound practical considerations mandate that substantial discretion in such matters be vested in the custodial parent, albeit not unfettered discretion. Here the agreement of the parties, incorporated into the divorce decree, required the father to pay the medical and dental expenses of the children, so long as the care and treatment be reasonably necessary and its cost reasonable in amount. We hold here that the mother has not abused her discretion as the custodial parent to select the orthodontist to care for the children and enforce the prior decree according to its tenor.



James Bickham (Jimmy) Clements and Mary Kathryn Clements (Young) were married in Holmes County, Mississippi, on May 23, 1966. They have two children, Jeremy Branch Clements, born September 17, 1969, and Susan Shea Clements, born September 29, 1972. Jimmy and Mary Kathryn finally separated in December of 1974. On March 14, 1975, in anticipation of obtaining a divorce, they executed a formal written Separation and Property Settlement Agreement. Thereafter, on March 17, 1975, the Chancery Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi, entered a final decree of divorce terminating the marriage. The divorce was granted on grounds of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment of Mary Kathryn by Jimmy. Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 93-5-1 [Seventh] (1972). The divorce decree expressly provided that the Separation Agreement should be incorporated therein. Pursuant thereto, custody of the children was vested in Mary Kathryn.

Each of the children suffers a congenital dental condition known as malocclusion of the teeth or "overbite". These conditions were inherited from the children's father and were known to the parties prior to the divorce. In this state of affairs the parties included in the separation agreement, subsequently court approved, a provision requiring that Jimmy Clements "pay all reasonable and necessary medical and dental expenses of the minor children".

In due course thereafter, each party entered a second marriage. Mary Kathryn has become Mrs. Richard Young.

Two and a half years later the parties were back in court, as Mary Kathryn moved to cite Jimmy for contempt and Jimmy moved the court for an order modifying various provision of the prior decree. On September 12, 1978, the Chancery Court entered its decree denying so much of Jimmy's motion as sought to award him custody but granting his motion to the extent of reducing his child support obligation from $465.00 per month to $350.00 per month, effective September 1, 1978. The Chancery Court refused to cite Jimmy for contempt. The effect of the October 12, 1978 decree was to leave the permanent care, custody and control of the children vested in Mary Kathryn with reasonable visitation rights being reserved to Jimmy.

Round Three between Jimmy and Mary Kathryn was commenced on October 14, 1982. On that date Mary Kathryn filed a motion asking that Jimmy be held in contempt of court for his failure and refusal to pay medical, dental and drug bills she had incurred on behalf of the children. The matter came on for hearing in open court on July 12, 1983, at the conclusion of which the trial judge ruled in substance in favor of Mary Kathryn. By judgment entered on July 21, 1983, the Chancery Court held that Jimmy was in arrears in his medical, dental and drug expense obligations and ordered payment to Mary Kathryn of the sum of $5,633.28 plus costs. This judgment included a $250.00 attorneys fee awarded to Mary Kathryn plus her $30.00 advance for court costs. In addition, the judgment of July 21, 1983, found Jimmy in contempt of court and committed him to the custody of the Sheriff of Hinds County for confinement until he purge himself of his contempt by payment of the aforesaid sum of $5,633.28.

Immediately thereafter Jimmy perfected the present appeal in connection with which the Chancery Court stayed the effect of the judgment rendered by allowing this appeal with supersedeas. The matter is now ripe for our review.


Jeremy Branch Clements and Susan Shea Clements have suffered from malocclusion of the teeth or the inability of the bite of the teeth to meet as it is supposed to meet. This "overbite" or "rabbit teeth" has apparently been inherited from the children's father. This condition has caused Susan to have a severe frontal lisp, a deviant speech pattern, further complicated by tongue thrusting, and a deviant swallow. Susan has been treated by a speech pathologist contemporaneously with orthodontic dental care by Dr. Robert B. Parkes of Jackson, Mississippi. Jeremy has been treated with orthodontic dental care by Dr. Parkes. This treatment appears to have been successful.

Mary Kathryn selected Dr. Parkes to perform the orthodontic dental services for the two children for a variety of personal reasons: Dr. Parkes had treated Mary Kathryn when she was a teenager and had treated other members of her family. She regarded him as a very good orthodontist and has complete faith in him.

Jimmy Clements does not deny that the children were in need of orthodontic dental care. His sole complaint seems to be that Dr. Parkes charges too much. Jimmy offered evidence that during a brief period of time when Jeremy was living with him, Jeremy was treated by Dr. Alex C. Shotts, Jr., another orthodontist practicing in Jackson. It appears that, prior to the performance of much of the orthodontics work at issue, Jimmy and Mary Kathryn discussed the matter. Jimmy well knew Mary Kathryn planned to send the children to Dr. Parkes and he objected. Jimmy countered that he would pay all orthodontic expenses, provided Mary Kathryn would send the children to Dr. Shotts. Jimmy's primary reason for preferring Dr. Shotts was his view that the children could have received the same orthodontic care from Dr. Shotts and for a lot less money. Mary Kathryn's position throughout has been that, under the separation agreement/divorce decree, she has substantial discretion to select the orthodontist to provide the care the children need, notwithstanding any objection Jimmy may interpose. The trial judge accepted this view.


Our law necessarily provides that the award of custody to a parent incident to a separation or divorce vests in the custodial parent the right to make, and responsibility for making, day to day decisions regarding the care and welfare of the children. Except as otherwise agreed by the parties in writing, the custodial parent may determine the child's upbringing, including his education and health and dental care. Such discretion is inherent in custody. It is vested in the custodial spouse though not spelled out in detail in a separation agreement or custody decree.

This authority, however, is not unlimited. The custodial parent's actions, particularly in the context of matters the expense for which is to be assessed against the noncustodial parent, are always subject to challenge on grounds of unreasonableness. Put another way, and having reference to the issue posed in this case, a divorce award of custody to the mother and assessment of medical and dental expenses to the father do not give the mother carte blanche authority to provide wholly elective or marginally necessary care for the children and then require the father to pay great or exorbitant expenses which would have been well beyond the reasonable means of the parties had they remained married.

In this case Jimmy Clements has heretofore been directed to "pay all reasonable and necessary medical and dental expenses of the minor children". Without serious question, the orthodontic care and treatment received by these two children falls within the meaning of the phrase "dental expenses". The March 17, 1975 decree, however, does not command that Jimmy Clements pay all dental expenses, only "reasonable and necessary" dental expenses.

In Smith v. Smith, 405 So.2d 896, 898 (Miss.1981), we faced an aspect of this problem and held that reasonable and necessary orthodontic care is that which

was reasonably necessary for ... [the child's] health and well-being, including mental and physical, and is the proper treatment.

405 So.2d at 898.

Whether the orthodontic treatment a child receives and the expenses incurred in connection therewith are "reasonable and necessary" ordinarily presents questions of ultimate fact which must be determined before the cost is assessed to a divorced parent other than the one ordering the care. Smith v. Smith, 405 So.2d 896, 898 (Miss.1981).


Our context set, we turn to Jimmy Clements' specific assignments of error. First, he complains of the admission of Exhibits P-1 through P-5. These exhibits are bills and prescription receipts evidencing charges made for medical and dental (orthodontic) treatment furnished to the two children, totaling over $5,000.00. Neither Dr. Parkes nor anyone else was called to testify in explanation of any of these bills. Jimmy claims he has thus been deprived of his right of cross-examination.

For more than ten years the rule has been accepted in this state that:

Proof that medical, hospital and doctor bills were paid or incurred because of any illness, disease or injury shall be prima facie evidence that such bills so paid or incurred were reasonable and necessary.

This rule has been codified as Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 41-9-119 (1972). See Jackson v. Brumfield, 458 So.2d...

To continue reading

Request your trial
56 cases
  • Wetz v. State, 56233
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 25 Febrero 1987
    ...motion for a new trial which contained at least two paragraphs challenging the legal sufficiency of the evidence. Cf. Clements v. Young, 481 So.2d 263, 268 (Miss.1985). See also Griffin v. State, 495 So.2d 1352, 1353 (Miss.1986).4 Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 13-1-11 (1972) reads as follows:A convic......
  • Smith v. State, 92-KA-00813
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 1 Diciembre 1994
    ...motion for a new trial which contained at least two paragraphs challenging the legal sufficiency of the evidence. Cf. Clements v. Young, 481 So.2d 263, 268 (Miss.1985). See also Griffin v. State, 495 So.2d 1352, 1353 Wetz, 503 So.2d at 807-08, n. 3. (emphasis added). In the case sub judice,......
  • Sills v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 6 Abril 2023
    ...or sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the judgment against him." Id. (internal quotation mark omitted) (quoting Clements v. Young, 481 So.2d 263, 268 (Miss. 1985)). Rather, "this Court considers the sufficiency of the evidence point on the basis of all the evidence offered." Id. --------- ...
  • Durr v. Durr, No. 2003-CA-01673-COA.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 5 Abril 2005
    ...fees which were being sought pursuant to the defense of the appeal. Id. at 358(¶ 30). In the third case cited, Clements v. Young, 481 So.2d 263 (Miss.1985), a contempt case, the mother moved for an award of attorney fees on appeal. The Mississippi Supreme Court allowed the fees. In the four......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT