Beasley v. Scott

4 Citing cases

  1. Owens v. Owens

    2005 CA 866 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 19 times
    Holding that the “chancellor properly found that this factor does not weigh against [the smoking parent] because the evidence strongly indicates that [he] has made great effort to avoid smoking around [the child]”

    ¶ 25. However, in other cases we have affirmed decisions which found that this factor favored a parent who was gainfully employed over a parent who was unemployed or who had sporadic employment. For example, in Beasley v. Scott, 900 So.2d 1217, 1220-21 (¶ 10) (Miss.Ct.App. 2005), we affirmed the decision of a chancellor who found that this factor favored a father who had had stable employment for over ten years rather than a mother who had had sporadic employment during the same time period. In Parker v. South, 913 So.2d 339, 348-49 (¶ 32) (Miss.Ct.App. 2005), we found that a chancellor's determination on this factor was "clearly erroneous" because the chancellor found that this factor favored neither party.

  2. Kimbrough v. Kimbrough

    76 So. 3d 715 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 17 times
    Holding that the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in separating half-siblings

    The issue here is whether a parent's use of prescription medications for depression and anxiety should count against that parent in a custody proceeding when there is no evidence that the medications impair the parent's ability to care for the child. In Beasley v. Scott, 900 So.2d 1217, 1221 (¶ 11) (Miss.Ct.App.2005), the chancellor refused to count the mother's use of anti-depressants to combat post-partum depression against her, and this Court found no error. In Passmore v. Passmore, 820 So.2d 747, 751 (¶¶ 12–13) (Miss.Ct.App.2002), the chancellor awarded custody to a mother who was taking medications for depression and migraine headaches, and this Court found no error. Professor Bell states: “[T]he fact that a parent has experienced mental or emotional problems is not a bar to custody without a showing that the parent's present ability to care for the child is affected.”

  3. Kimbrough v. Kimbrough

    2009 CA 1019 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011)

    The issue here is whether a parent's use of prescription medications for depression and anxiety should count against that parent in a custody proceeding when there is no evidence that the medications impair the parent's ability to care for the child. In Beasley v. Scott, 900 So. 2d 1217, 1221 (¶ 11) (Miss. Ct. App. 2005), the chancellor refused to count the mother's use of anti-depressants to combat post-partem depression against her, and this Court found no error. In Passmore v. Passmore, 820 So. 2d 747, 751 (¶¶ 12-13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2002), the chancellor awarded custody to a mother who was taking medications for depression and migraine headaches, and this Court found no error. Professor Bell states: "[T]he fact that a parent has experienced mental or emotional problems is not a bar to custody without a showing that the parent's present ability to care for the child is affected."

  4. Mayfifld v. Mayfield

    2005 CA 1576 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 7 times
    In Mayfield, this Court found no error in chancery court's finding in favor of a father "who was employed by the same company for eleven years, even though he worked twelve-hour shifts for seven days during a fourteen-day period" over the mother who had a more flexible schedule.

    Although Christina may have more time to spend with the children, this Court has affirmed a chancellor's determination that this factor favors a parent with a stable work history over a parent who works sporadically. In Beasley v. Scott, 900 So.2d 1217, 1220-21 (¶ 10) (Miss.Ct.App. 2005), this Court affirmed a chancellor's determination that this factor weighed in favor of a father who was employed by the same company for eleven years, even though he worked twelve-hour shifts for seven days during a fourteen-day period. We agree with the chancellor that Joel has a more stable employment history; thus, we cannot say that the chancellor's ruling is not supported by the record, simply because Christina's schedule is more flexible.