Amis, Divorce and Separation in Mississippi § 8.05, at 217 (1957) A child of 7 has been held by this Court to be long past the age prior to which it requires attention of such character from the mother. Torrence v. Moore, 455 So.2d 778, 780 (Miss. 1984). ¶ 16.
1983). We held in Torrence v. Moore, 455 So.2d 778 (Miss. 1984) that although the chancellor discussed only some of the Albright factors, it should not necessarily be presumed that he ignored those factors he did not discuss. This Court has held since 1848 that we will not disturb the finding of a Chancellor unless he is clearly wrong. Carr v. Carr, 480 So.2d 1120, 1124 (Miss.
We have held that a child of seven is long past the age that requires this type of special care from her mother. Torrence v. Moore, 455 So.2d 778, 780 (Miss. 1984)( citing Duncan v. Duncan, 119 Miss. 271, 80 So. 697 (1919)). Not only can other people care for Dusty as well as her mother, but the record reflects that Steve Mercier does care for Dusty as well as or better than her mother.
In a similar case, this Court upheld a chancellor's finding that "the advent of school age was a material change in circumstances that rendered the split custody of the child useless and even harmful to the child." Torrence v. Moore, 455 So.2d 778, 780 (Miss. 1984). In the instant case, there is no single incident that required a modification of custody.
1987); Harkins v. Fletcher, 499 So.2d 773, 775 (Miss. 1986); Torrence v. Moore, 455 So.2d 778 (Miss. 1984). Section 93-16-3 of the Mississippi Code Annotated states, in pertinent part:
Veselits v. Cruthirds, 548 So.2d 1312, 1316 (Miss. 1989); Torrence v. Moore, 455 So.2d 778, 780 (Miss. 1984). Finally, we note in hindsight that the decision appears to have been a good one.
This Court is "bound by those findings unless it can be said with a reasonable certainty that those findings were manifestly wrong and against the overwhelming weight of the evidence." Id. at 1123-24 (citing Torrence v. Moore, 455 So.2d 778 (Miss. 1984)); but see Appellant's Brief at 28-29 (where Mike seems to suggest, erroneously, that this Court's standard of review is: "whether there has been a material change of circumstances") (citing and quoting Smith v. Todd, 464 So.2d 1155, 1157 (Miss. 1985), and McRae v. McRae, 381 So.2d 1052, 1056 (Miss. 1980)).
This court's scope of review is limited by the substantial evidence or manifest error rule. Dunaway v. Busbin, 498 So.2d 1218, 122 (Miss. 1986); Torrence v. Moore, 455 So.2d 778 (Miss. 1984). Therefore, the Chancellor's decision to modify child custody by awarding primary custody of Justin to Mr. Phillips, cannot be overturned unless "manifest error" is shown.
1986); Carr v. Carr, 480 So.2d 1120, 1123-24 (Miss. 1985); Torrence v. Moore, 455 So.2d 778 (Miss. 1984). Therefore, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed on direct appeal.
This Court has held since 1848 that we will not disturb the finding of a Chancellor on conflicting evidence unless he is clearly wrong. Torrence v. Moore, 455 So.2d 778 (Miss. 1984) and other cases too numerous to cite here. No purpose would be served by reciting the sordid and unfortunate facts offered in this record. Suffice it to say that upon the issue of custody the Chancellor was not manifestly wrong and his determination of the custody of these two children is affirmed.