Yates v. Yates, No. 47241
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi |
| Writing for the Court | BROOM |
| Citation | 284 So.2d 46 |
| Parties | Larry Lee YATES v. Martha Janice Rowzee YATES. |
| Decision Date | 15 October 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 47241 |
Page 46
v.
Martha Janice Rowzee YATES.
Roy Noble Lee, Thomas D. Lee, Forest, for appellant.
Marcus D. Gordon, Gordon & Henry, Union, for appellee.
BROOM, Justice:
Appellant Larry Lee Yates, hereinafter identified as Larry, appeals from a decree of the Chancery Court of Newton County, Mississippi. It is argued here by Larry that the trial court erred in finding that his former wife Martha, appellee herein, is a fit and proper person to have the custody of their minor child and in granting permanent custody of the child to Martha.
Larry and Martha were married June 19, 1965 and are parents of one child, Thomas Lee Yates, born May 8, 1966, and being five and one-half years of age at the time of the trial. These young parents together with the child, whom they obviously both love with commendable affection, lived in a house trailer near Martha's parents. They separated on April 29, 1971, when Martha vacated their place of abode and began residing in Clinton, Mississippi. Larry sued Martha for child custody and a divorce on the ground of adultery. She denied the averments made against her. By cross-bill she sought child custody and a divorce asserting habitual cruel and inhuman treatment as grounds therefor. The chancellor granted Larry a divorce on the ground of adultery, but narration of the details is not appropriate here. Evidence was presented to the chancellor indicating improper conduct on the part of Larry (which Larry denied) in the presence of his son and Martha. In spite of recriminatory statements made by each parent relative to their respective fitness for child custody, the chancellor made a finding that both parents are fit and proper people to have child custody. Confronted with conflicting testimony, he awarded custody of the child to Martha subject to visitation rights of Larry.
The main argument asserted by Larry is that having been found guilty of adultery, Martha is not fit or entitled to have child custody. He cites the case of Keyes v. Keyes, 252 Miss. 138, 171 So.2d 489 (1965) as authority for his contention that where the wife is found guilty of adultery by competent evidence, she is not entitled to child custody. InKeyes, the wife had an adulterous affair that lasted over two years, and the court found her to
Page 47
be an 'unfit mother' and that in the 'best interest' of the children they should be awarded to the father. No such...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Retzer v. Retzer, No. 89-CA-0589
...489. However, more recent cases have modified this rule and hold that such conduct is only one factor to be considered. In Yates v. Yates, 284 So.2d 46 ( [Miss.] 1973), the Court said: "The rule announced in Keyes is a general rule that a parent guilty of adultry [sic] should not be awarded......
-
SB v. LW, No. 1999-CA-01540-COA.
...(Miss.1985); Kavanaugh v. Carraway, 435 So.2d 697, 700 (Miss.1983); Cheek v. Ricker, 431 So.2d 1139, 1144-5 (Miss.1983), Yates v. Yates, 284 So.2d 46, 48 (Miss.1973); Anderson v. Watkins, 208 So.2d 573, 574 (Miss.1968); Rushing, 724 So.2d at 916; Moak v. Moak, 631 So.2d 196, 198 (Miss. 1994......
-
In re Donna W.
...discretion in the sense that the trial court's custody order was arbitrary, unreasonable, or without evidentiary support); Yates v. Yates, 284 So.2d 46, 47-48 (Miss.1973) (manifest error); In re Marriage of McLean, Mont., 609 P.2d 282, 284 (1980) (clear abuse of discretion); Petersen v. Pet......
-
Donna W., In re
...discretion in the sense that the trial court's custody order was arbitrary, unreasonable, or without evidentiary support); Yates v. Yates, 284 So.2d 46, 47-48 (Miss.1973) (manifest error); In re Marriage of McLean, Mont., 609 P.2d 282, 284 (1980) (clear abuse of discretion); Petersen v. Pet......
-
Retzer v. Retzer, No. 89-CA-0589
...489. However, more recent cases have modified this rule and hold that such conduct is only one factor to be considered. In Yates v. Yates, 284 So.2d 46 ( [Miss.] 1973), the Court said: "The rule announced in Keyes is a general rule that a parent guilty of adultry [sic] should not be awarded......
-
SB v. LW, No. 1999-CA-01540-COA.
...(Miss.1985); Kavanaugh v. Carraway, 435 So.2d 697, 700 (Miss.1983); Cheek v. Ricker, 431 So.2d 1139, 1144-5 (Miss.1983), Yates v. Yates, 284 So.2d 46, 48 (Miss.1973); Anderson v. Watkins, 208 So.2d 573, 574 (Miss.1968); Rushing, 724 So.2d at 916; Moak v. Moak, 631 So.2d 196, 198 (Miss. 1994......
-
In re Donna W.
...discretion in the sense that the trial court's custody order was arbitrary, unreasonable, or without evidentiary support); Yates v. Yates, 284 So.2d 46, 47-48 (Miss.1973) (manifest error); In re Marriage of McLean, Mont., 609 P.2d 282, 284 (1980) (clear abuse of discretion); Petersen v. Pet......
-
Donna W., In re
...discretion in the sense that the trial court's custody order was arbitrary, unreasonable, or without evidentiary support); Yates v. Yates, 284 So.2d 46, 47-48 (Miss.1973) (manifest error); In re Marriage of McLean, Mont., 609 P.2d 282, 284 (1980) (clear abuse of discretion); Petersen v. Pet......