For information on supporting the work of legal services organizations in Mississippi, please visit our donation pages:. L aw H elp. Hide Visit. Text size: A A A. Search for resources and organizations in this language Advanced Search. Your family's income should be at or below the following percentage of the federal poverty level Is this organization accessible by wheelchair? Yes Does this organization provide access for the hearing impaired? No Eligibility Restrictions This program does not serve: Prisoner.
David testified that other than one job, Tammy never held a job for more than two or three years, while he had held numerous jobs at one time to support the family.
He stated that he contributed at least two-thirds of the money to the marriage. According to David, when Tammy quit, the employer stopped paying and attempted to have Tammy pay back the money. He stated that he paid this amount until he and Tammy separated, at which time he turned the payments over to Tammy. David disagreed with Tammy's contention that she had provided the majority of the care of the children prior to the couple's separation. He stated that he, Tammy, and his mother took care of the children's basic needs on a daily basis prior to the separation.
According to David, he was the one who did the grilling when the family would grill outside. He acknowledged that Tammy did most of the laundry, and although he and Tammy took turns bathing the children when they were young, he did not feel that he should be bathing them once they got older. David testified that he took them to school some of the time, and also his mother and a family friend took them to school sometimes. David testified that he tried to have the children in bed by eight o'clock, and he helped them with their homework.
David further testified that he kept in touch with the children's teachers. According to David, if he were to be awarded custody of the children, his mother would take care of the children on a daily basis while he was at work. Similarly, if he was again deployed to Iraq, his mother would take care of the children. David testified that he provided the majority of the family's income.
He further stated that his mother predominantly took care of the children with the exception of when Tammy was at the house. David denied that his multiple jobs kept him away from home and the children all the time. He stated that he lived in a three-bedroom home in an older, established neighborhood, and the children had friends in the neighborhood.
According to David, Tammy had moved with the children four or five times since he went to Iraq, and the children had four or five different babysitters since then. David denied that he ever put a gun to his head as Tammy claimed. He admitted running up the stairs with a knife, but he denied that he did so in a manner indicating that he was going to attack anyone. David also admitted to having an affair with another woman in or while he and Tammy were married and Tammy was living in Wyoming.
He stated that Pittman was only a friend, and he did not have an affair with her. David's mother, B. Morris, testified that she stayed with David for part of the week, and the other part of the week she stayed at the house of a man for whom she was the caretaker.
She stated that she had her own room at the man's house. According to B. She testified that during that year, while the children were attending school at Sacred Heart, she picked them up from school almost every day, although Tammy sometimes had Robert Edwards, described as the children's godfather, pick them up and take care of them after school.
Child Support serves children and families that need help with financial, Case Number; Mail to: MDHS/SDU, P.O. Box , Jackson, MS We've already processed over a million payments for customers just like you! of Child Support E. County Line Road, Suite# G Ridgeland, MS Child Support. Customer Service. SNAP/TANF Support. Economic Assistance County Office Locations.
She stated that Tammy never checked on the children during these weekends. David's sister, Chris Craft, testified that David was a good parent and that he provided more primary care for the children than Tammy. She further stated that B. Craft testified that she was willing to help David take care of the girls if he were awarded custody.
Following the hearing, the chancellor issued findings of fact and conclusions of law dividing the marital and non-marital assets between David and Tammy. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the chancery court. Jundoosing, So. Henderson, So. Johnson, So. State, So.
Whether the chancellor erred in awarding custody of the minor children to Tammy by not properly applying the Albright factors and by discriminating against David for his military service. David first contends that the chancellor erred in awarding custody of the children to Tammy.
He contends that the chancellor punished him on account of his military service and misapplied certain Albright factors. In determining the issue of child custody, the chancellor utilized the twelve factors set forth in Albright v. Albright, So. We reaffirm the rule that the polestar consideration in child custody cases is the best interest and welfare of the child. The age of the child is subordinated to that rule and is but one factor to be considered. The chancellor in this case found seven factors to be neutral, four to favor Tammy, and one to favor David.
Hollon v. Hollon, So. Each of these factors will be discussed in turn below. The chancellor found that while both David and Tammy had a sincere willingness and desire to gain custody, this factor favored Tammy due to the fact that David was on full active military duty and had previously been deployed to Iraq. David contends that this finding was error on account of his testimony that the military would work with him in establishing a parenting plan and would not allow him to deploy without such a plan. He also notes that his job is basically a day job.
However, while David did testify that his hours for work with the military were a. Moreover, he had been deployed overseas two times since the birth of his oldest child, and it remained possible that he could be deployed again, in which case his mother would take care of the children. Given these facts, we find no error in the chancellor's finding that Tammy was more capable of providing primary care to the children. David relies on Divers v. Divers, So. However, Divers is readily distinguishable from this case.
In Divers, the trial court had found that the employment and employment responsibility factor favored the mother because daycare would be provided at the mother's work but not the father's, since the father was in the military and stationed at Edwards Air Force base, and also on the ground that the father did not know where he would be assigned in four years. Therefore, the Court found that the employment factor favored the father. We also note that the Divers Court, when discussing the stability of the home environment factor, stated that the father had a regular office job, not a deployment position.
David, on the contrary, is always on call and may again be deployed overseas. Accordingly, while we commend David's service to our country, we find that there is substantial evidence supporting the chancellor's conclusion that this service has limited his capacity to provide primary care to his children under the circumstances of this case. The chancellor found that this factor favored Tammy over David because David's work for the Hattiesburg Police Department sometimes required him to work odd hours and on account of David's active military service.
David contends that this finding was erroneous due to the fact that Tammy had only been at her current job for two weeks at the time of trial and her employment record was not stable, while he had worked in the same job for twenty years. We, however, find no error in the chancellor's finding that this factor favored Tammy.
Belding, So. Moak, So. While Tammy's job history may not have been the most stable, 10 Tammy testified that in her current job she worked regular business hours, Monday through Friday from a. Moreover, again, David was on active military duty and could be deployed at any time. Accordingly, the chancellor's finding that this factor favored Tammy is supported by substantial evidence and will not be disturbed. David argues that the chancellor erred in finding that this factor favored neither party. The chancellor noted that David had admitted to having had an affair in the early s and that after the separation, but prior to the divorce, Tammy had been dating another man.
David contends that this factor should have favored him because his affair occurred years ago, and he was forgiven by Tammy, while Tammy left him while he was at work and immediately began an affair with Rutland. We disagree. In the instant case, the chancellor made no finding as to whether Tammy had a sexual affair with Rutland or whether David had a sexual affair with Pittman. From our review of the record, there is no stronger evidence of Tammy's affair than there is of David's. The only adultery admitted in the record is David's affair years before the couple's separation.