litem. However, the chancellor "shall include at least a summary review of the qualifications and recommendations of the guardian ad litem in his findings of fact and conclusions of law" when the appointment of a guardian ad litem is statutorily required. J.P. v. S.V.B., 987 So. 2d 975, 982 (¶20) (Miss. 2008) (citing S.N.C., 755 So. 2d at 1082 (¶18)). Further, "if the court rejects the recommendations of the guardian, the court's findings must include its reasons for rejecting the guardian's recommendations." Id. (citing Floyd v. Floyd, 949 So. 2d 26, 29 (¶8) (Miss. 2007)). This issue came up in Borden v. Borden located here which was decided by the Court of Appeals on January 21, 2014. I tend to agree with the dissent more in this case. The chancellor rejected the recommendations of the guardian ad litem in the custody determination. The only thing the chancellor said about the guardian ad litem's opinion was the following:
"I've also considered the . . . guardian ad litem's recommendations here. To some extent,
I disagree with those, and to some extent, I've agreed. But I find under the circumstances
and based on these factors under Albright that the primary physical care, custody and control of
these two minor children will be and the same is hereby awarded to the father."
The majority of the Court of Appeals said this was enough under the limited standard of review. The dissent stated this is inadequate as no specific reason was given for rejecting the guardian ad litem report. Rehearing has been filed on this case. If I were to make an educated guess, I believe there is a good chance this case will go up on certiorari. A copy of the rehearing motion is located here.
No comments:
Post a Comment