Curry v. McDaniel

5 Citing cases

  1. Doe v. Tennessee

    3:18-cv-00471 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 15, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    ) They cite two state court opinions to support this conclusion, one from the Supreme Court of South Dakota, Arneson v. Arneson, 670 N.W.2d 904, 911 (S.D. 2003) (“[N]o authority supports the extension of the ADA into parental custody disputes.”), and one from the Court of Appeals of Mississippi, Curry v. McDaniel, 37 So.3d 1225, 1233 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (“[W]e find no persuasive authority which supports the proposition that the ADA applies or was intended to apply to child-custody determinations.” (citing Arneson, 670 N.W.2d at 911)).

  2. Doe v. Tennessee

    3:18-cv-00471 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 4, 2022)

    County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, 276 F.3d 808 (6th Cir. 2002) (en banc), and argues that the State Defendants' counsel “intentionally never discussed these two cases.” (Doc. No. 148, PageID# 952, 953.) Doe further criticizes the State Defendants' counsel for discussing two state- court cases, Curry v. McDaniel, 37 So.3d 1225 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010), and Arneson v. Arneson, 670 N.W.2d 904 (S.D. 2003). (Doc. No. 148.

  3. Butler v. Butler

    218 So. 3d 759 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 5 times

    Even where the chancellor finds a material change in circumstances has occurred, the chancellor must still additionally determine that the change has adversely affected the child and that a modification of custody is in that child's best interest. Curry v. McDaniel , 37 So.3d 1225, 1229 (¶ 8) (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (citing Tucker v. Tucker , 453 So.2d 1294, 1297 (Miss. 1984) ).

  4. McKechnie v. McKechnie

    23 A.3d 779 (Conn. App. Ct. 2011)   Cited 5 times

    The defendant directs our attention to sibling authority rejecting claims that the ADA applies in the context of custody determinations. In Curry v. McDaniel, 37 So. 3d 1225, 1233 (Miss. App. 2010), the Mississippi Court of Appeals noted that it had found "no persuasive authority which supports the proposition that the ADA applies or was intended to apply to childcustody determinations." The court reasoned that a custody determination was not a service, program or activity contemplated by the ADA, and that it was the best interests of the child that controlled the custody determination.

  5. SANO v. GREENLEE

    No. 02-10-00264-CV (Tex. App. Jun. 16, 2011)   Cited 4 times
    Applying the Holley factors to a trial court's determination of which conservator had the exclusive right to designate a child's primary residence

    And Sano cites Curry v. McDaniel, but in Curry, the court stated, "At the outset, we find no persuasive authority which supports the proposition that the ADA applies or was intended to apply to child-custody determinations," before noting that the physical and mental health of the parents is one of the factors that courts are to consider when determining whose custody would serve the child's best interest. 37 So. 3d 1225, 1233 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (emphasis added). And, although Sano argues in her second issue and in part of her first issue that her due process rights were violated by the trial court's "[b]randing" her as physically disabled and mentally diminished when it did not order assessments of her physical and mental disabilities or expert testimony to determine the extent of any disability and how it would affect her and the child, or afford her the opportunity to rebut such inferences, nothing in the record shows that Sano ever raised this complaint in the trial court.