We find that Kim, in equity, cannot claim that the material change was ameliorated where she was forced to do so by the chancery court's temporary order and not on her own initiative. SeeStory v. Allen , 7 So. 3d 295, 298-99 (¶21) (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (finding, in the analogous Albright factors analysis, that the court in equity will not allow a party to benefit by that party's own malfeasance in assessing the best interests of the child). As such, we find no manifest error in the chancery court's reliance on these circumstances in finding a material change in circumstances supporting its custody modification with respect to Hannah.
Id. at 257-58 (¶¶34-40). Applying prior precedent of this Court, we held that those two factors could not be weighed in Priscilla's favor because her own misconduct had prevented Adam from providing care to B.H. and had undermined his emotional ties to B.H. Id. (discussing Story v. Allen , 7 So. 3d 295, 298-99 (¶¶21-23) (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) ). Therefore, "equity dictate[d]" that those factors should not have favored Priscilla but, at most, should have been "neutral."
¶ 34. On appeal, Adam argues, inter alia , that the chancellor erred by finding that continuity of care and emotional ties favored Priscilla. He argues that by weighing these factors in Priscilla's favor, the chancellor permitted Priscilla to benefit from her own misconduct. Adam argues that the chancellor's decision was inconsistent with this Court's decisions in Strait , supra , and Story v. Allen , 7 So.3d 295 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008).¶ 35.
And he argues that although he admittedly denied visitation at points, the facts showed Kristy was not diligent in attempting to exercise her visitation rights. ¶ 40. A similar situation arose in Story v. Allen, 7 So.3d 295, 298 (¶ 21) (Miss.Ct.App.2008). In Story, the custodial parent had been with the child most of the child's life.
And he argues that although he admittedly denied visitation at points, the facts showed Kristy was not diligent in attempting to exercise her visitation rights. ¶40. A similar situation arose in Story v. Allen, 7 So. 3d 295, 298 (¶21) (Miss. Ct. App. 2008). In Story, the custodial parent had been with the child most of the child's life.
¶ 32. The Mississippi Supreme Court “has enumerated several factors to help chancellors determine what is in the ‘best interest’ of the child in a custody dispute.” Story v. Allen, 7 So.3d 295, 297 (¶ 13) (Miss.Ct.App.2008) (citing Albright, 437 So.2d at 1005). These include: