Sistrunk v. Sistrunk, 46044
| Decision Date | 15 March 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 46044,46044 |
| Parties | Dorothy D. SISTRUNK v. Jerry L. SISTRUNK. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Jerry T. Johnston, Brandon, for appellant.
Dannye L. Hunter, Osborn G. Idom, Forest, for appellee.
This is an appeal by Dorothy D. Sistrunk from a decree of the Chancery Court of Rankin County wherein that court modified a former decree awarding Mrs. Sistrunk the custody of her six year old daughter Marilyn Amelia Sistrunk. The decree as modified awarded the custody of the little girl to appellee, Jerry L. Sistrunk, the father. We reverse and render.
On February 26, 1969, Dorothy Sistrunk was granted a divorce from Jerry Sistrunk on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. She was also awarded the custody of Marilyn Amelia Sistrunk, then five years of age. Jerry Sistrunk was required to pay $80 per month for the support of the child.
About six weeks after the divorce Jerry Sistrunk married again and on October 2, 1969, he filed a petition seeking to have the custody decree altered to a award him the custody of the little girl. The petition alleged that there had been a material change of circumstances since the rendition of the decree. It was also charged in general terms that the child was not being physically well cared for and was not being properly trained morally and mentally by the mother. It was also charged that the mother was not furnishing the child with the necessities of life or providing the facilities for a proper education for the child, and that she was not giving the child the love and affection that the child needed.
The petition also charged that since the rendition of the decree that Jerry Sistrunk had married again and now had a good home in a good neighborhood to care for the child.
Mrs. Sistrunk answered the petition and denied that there had been any material change of circumstances since the rendering of the decree and denied that she was guilty of any neglect of the child as charged in the petition.
After a hearing the chancellor found that the child had been neglected by the mother, and such neglect made it to the best interest of the child that she be taken from the mother and awarded custody to the father. The principal fault that the chancellor found with Mrs. Sistrunk was at the time the petition was filed she was leaving the child with a babysitter from the time school was out until 11:15 at night when the child was picked up and carried by Mrs. Sistrunk to the apartment where they lived. The court further found that after the petition was filed Mrs. Sistrunk removed the child from Brandon Public Schools and moved into a rented trailer about three miles from Carthage, Mississippi, and that the child was then attending school in Carthage. The chancellor found that the child had not made the ordinary progress in school that she was capable of making and that the child had not had the benefit of the help in her school work that she should have received from her mother.
The record reflects that at the time Dorothy Sistrunk was awarded the custody of the child she was working as a waitress at a cafe in Brandon. While she worked the little girl was being cared for by Mrs. Gladys Sumrall, who lived directly across the street from the school. Dorothy later secured employment at the Brandon General Hospital where her hours were from 2:30 in the afternoon until 11 p.m. After school began, Dorothy carried the little girl to school in the morning and when school was out in the afternoon, the policeman or a teacher would see her safely across the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cheek v. Ricker
...change in circumstances which adversely affects the child's welfare. O'Neal v. Warden, 345 So.2d 610, (Miss.1977); Sistrunk v. Sistrunk, 245 So.2d 845 (Miss.1971); Sanderson v. Seaney, 224 So.2d 862 (Miss.1969); Brocato v. Walker, 220 So.2d 340 (Miss.1969); Bunkley and Morse's, Amis On Divo......
-
Smith v. Todd
...431 So.2d 1139 (Miss.1983); Bowden v. Fayard, 355 So.2d 662 (Miss.1978); O'Neal v. Warden, 345 So.2d 610 (Miss.1977); Sistrunk v. Sistrunk, 245 So.2d 845 (Miss.1971); Sanderson v. Seaney, 224 So.2d 862 (Miss.1969); Brocato v. Walker, 220 So.2d 340 Also, findings of fact made by a chancellor......
-
Albright v. Albright, 54289
...and Separation in Mississippi Sec. 805, p. 217. These cases refer to this principle as a rule, not a presumption. Cf. Sistrunk v. Sistrunk, 245 So.2d 845 (Miss.1971). However, the rule is not absolute, and where unfitness of the mother is found, then the rule is not applied. Hodum v. Crumpt......
-
Case v. Stolpe, 47712
...that a child of tender years should be with its mother, unless she is an unfit person to have its care and custody. In Sistrunk v. Sistrunk, 245 So.2d 845 (Miss.1971), the little girl was six years The appellant contends that the appellee and cross-complainant did not show any change in the......