§

Sheridan v. Cassidy

273 So. 3d 783 (Miss. Ct. App. 2018)
Sheridan v. Cassidy

7 Citing cases

  1. Hammons v. Hammons

    289 So. 3d 1214 (Miss. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 8 times

    First, there must be a material change in circumstances of the custodial parent. Sheridan v. Cassidy , 273 So. 3d 783, 786 (¶10) (Miss. Ct. App. 2018). The circumstances presented for consideration must have arisen after the entry of the first custody order.

  2. Vivian Young v. Niblett

    No. 2022-CA-00294-COA (Miss. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2023)

    Under the first prong, the moving party must prove that there was a material change in circumstances involving the custodial parent that arose after entry of the first custody order. Id. (citing Sheridan v. Cassidy, 273 So.3d 783, 786 (¶10) (Miss. Ct. App. 2018)). Under the second prong, the moving party must prove that the material change in circumstances has adversely affected the minor child.

  3. Blagodirova v. Schrock

    No. 2020-CA-01162-COA (Miss. Ct. App. Nov. 1, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    Therefore, to succeed on a request for modification, "the non-custodial party must prove: (1) that a [material] change in circumstances has transpired since issuance of the custody decree; (2) that this change adversely affects the child's welfare; and (3) that the child's best interests mandate a change of custody." Mabus v. Mabus, 847 So.2d 815, 818 (¶8) (Miss. 2003); Sheridan v. Cassidy, 273 So.3d 783, 786 (¶10) (Miss. Ct. App. 2018).

  4. Denham v. Denham

    364 So. 3d 874 (Miss. Ct. App. 2022)

    After our review, we find that the chancellor did not abuse her discretion by not allowing the children to testify. SeeSheridan v. Cassidy , 273 So. 3d 783, 789 (¶25) (Miss. Ct. App. 2018) (affirming a chancellor's decision to exclude the testimony of the children where the chancellor determined that testifying would not be in the children's best interests).

  5. Stewart v. Stewart

    309 So. 3d 44 (Miss. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 22 times
    Granting motion for $6,899.55, which constituted half of the trial court’s award for successful defense of contempt action

    " Kim asserts that given Laura's preference, this factor should have been found in her favor. This Court has recognized that the chancery court is "not bound by the election of a minor child," Sheridan v. Cassidy , 273 So. 3d 783, 788 (¶21) (Miss. Ct. App. 2018) (citation and internal quotation mark omitted), and the chancery court clearly identified the reason it declined to follow Laura's preference. Id.

  6. Garrison v. Courtney

    304 So. 3d 1129 (Miss. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 5 times
    Determining that "the fact that a Rule 81 summons was not re-issued" after the contempt motion was filed did "not change our determination that the chancery court did not abuse its discretion" in "rendering a decision" on contempt

    Thus, "the chancellor is not bound by the election of a minor child .... But, if a chancellor declines to follow a child's preference, he must place the reasons in the record." Sheridan v. Cassidy , 273 So. 3d 783, 788 (¶21) (Miss. Ct. App. 2018) (citation and internal quotation mark omitted). ¶80.

  7. Prestwood v. Prestwood

    285 So. 3d 1213 (Miss. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 3 times

    "This Court will not reverse a chancery court's factual findings ... where there is substantial evidence in the record supporting them." Sheridan v. Cassidy , 273 So. 3d 783, 786 (¶9) (Miss. Ct. App. 2018).DISCUSSION