Moody v. Moody, 44943
| Decision Date | 10 June 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 44943,44943 |
| Parties | Charles Brooks MOODY v. Betty Graham MOODY. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Sullivan, Sullivan & Keyes, Jackson, for appellant.
Phillips & Peters, Jackson, for appellee.
Appellee, Betty Graham Moody, filed this suit in the Chancery Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County seeking a divorce from appellant, Charles Brooks Moody, on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. She also sought alimony and custody of and support for the child born to their marriage: a boy, Kenneth Paul Moody, born April 10, 1965, who was two years old at the time of the trial. Appellant answered and denied that he had been guilty of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment and by a cross bill sought a divorce from her on the ground of adultery. He also prayed for the custody of the child.
After a trial on the merits, the chancellor found that the proof on behalf of appellant was sufficient to establish appellee's guilt of adultery and granted appellant a divorce on that ground. The chancellor found that both parents were unfit to have custody of the child and awarded custody to the maternal grandparents, Mr. and Mrs. J. W. Graham. Appellant was required to contribute $50 per month to the child's support. The only part of the decree questioned on this appeal is the finding that appellant was unfit to have custody of the child and the award of custody to Mr. and Mrs. J. W. Graham, who were not parties to the litigation.
Since there is no appeal by Mrs. Moody from that part of the decree awarding appellant a divorce, it is not necessary to detail the facts relative to the divorce issue other than those which touch upon the fitness of appellant to have the custody of his child. The proof was ample to support the finding that the mother of the child was guilty of adultery and unfit to have his custody. The evidence establishes that the parties separated on December 26, 1966. At the time of the separation, appellee left the child in the custody of appellant. He made arrangements with his mother to look after the child during the day while he worked and he kept the child at night in the apartment he was renting. On February 8, 1967, appellant and appellee entered into a separation agreement whereby they settled their property rights and appellee agreed that appellant should have the custody of the child with visitation rights to her. After this agreement was signed, appellee, without the consent of appellant, took possession of the child and carried him to the home of her father and mother, Mr. and Mrs. J. W. Graham, who had the child at the time of the trial. The chancellor approved the separation agreement except that part wherein it was agreed appellant was to have the custody of the child. Practically everyone who testified relative to the issue of custody agreed that appellant loved his child and was attentive to his welfare. All agreed that appellant worked hard at his occupation as a meat cutter. His take home pay is approximately $400 per month. There was no evidence that he was in any way morally unfit to have custody of the child. The only testimony that would tend to support the finding that appellant was unfit to have the custody was to the effect that he had a high temper and at times had much difficulty in controlling it. In fact, he admitted that he had a high temper and did have difficulty in controlling it. However, there was no evidence that his high temper in any way affected his treatment of his child. There was evidence that he slapped his wife on several occasions while they were living together. He admitted he slapped her on one occasion as a result of her accusing him of cheating in a game of Scrabble.
It is within the power of the chancellor in a divorce case, when it is shown that both parents are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v. Davis
...care for it better than anyone else and it is in the best interest of the child to leave it in the custody of a parent." Moody v. Moody, 211 So.2d 842 (Miss.1968). This presumption "may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence that ‘(1) the parent has abandoned the child; (2) the parent......
-
D.M. v. D.R.
...other circumstances which clearly indicate that the best interest of the child will be served in the custody of another.Moody v. Moody, 211 So.2d 842, 844 (Miss.1968). In In Re Dissolution of Marriage of Leverock and Hamby, 23 So.3d 424 (Miss.2009) (citations omitted), we reiterated that: I......
-
In re Custody of MAG
...44, 46 (Miss.1993); Carter v. Taylor, 611 So.2d 874, 876 (Miss.1992); Bubac v. Boston, 600 So.2d 951, 956 (Miss. 1992); Moody v. Moody, 211 So.2d 842, 844 (Miss.1968). In fact, Miss.Code Ann. § 93-13-1 (1994) states in pertinent part: "[I]f any father or mother be unsuitable to discharge th......
-
Garner v. Garner
...that the chancellor erroneously considered the domestic-violence issues as evidence of her unfitness, April relies on Moody v. Moody , 211 So. 2d 842 (Miss. 1968). In Moody , the father "admitted that he had a high temper and did have difficulty in controlling it." Id. at 843. But "there wa......