Shanna Blakley Hayes v. Jeremy Hayes ( 2019 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2017-CA-01146-COA
SHANNA BLAKLEY HAYES APPELLANT
v.
JEREMY HAYES APPELLEE
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/19/2017
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. FRANKLIN C. McKENZIE JR.
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: WAYNE COUNTY CHANCERY COURT
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: RONALD W. LEWIS
DANA LEIGH BUMGARDNER
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: SHERRY L. LOWE
THOMAS T. BUCHANAN
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - CUSTODY
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 05/07/2019
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
BEFORE BARNES, C.J., WESTBROOKS AND LAWRENCE, JJ.
WESTBROOKS, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. Jeremy Hayes and Shanna Blakley Hayes were divorced in 2015. Following a series
of hearings regarding modification of custody and contempt, the Wayne County Chancery
Court awarded Jeremy primary physical custody of his and Shanna’s daughter, K.H.1 The
chancery court also found Shanna in civil and constructive criminal contempt and sentenced
her to incarceration in the Wayne County Jail and to pay fines; however, the court suspended
execution of the sentence on the condition that Shanna not violate its order. Shanna filed a
motion to amend or correct the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, which
1
We use initials to protect the identity of the minor child.
the trial court denied. Shanna appeals. After review of the record, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2. Jeremy and Shanna were married in February 2013. Their daughter, K.H., was born
in August 2013. Shanna filed for a divorce on fault grounds with an alternative request for
a divorce for irreconcilable differences on October 28, 2014. In November 2014, Shanna
filed a motion for temporary relief. Jeremy filed a motion to determine custody in February
2015. Shanna answered in April 2015. In October 2015, the parties filed a joint motion for
the court to enter a judgment of divorce on the ground of irreconcilable differences and for
the court to decide certain issues. On December 2, 2015, the court entered the judgment of
divorce. The final judgment of divorce indicated that Jeremy had standard visitation and that
Jeremy was to pay Shanna $668 per month in child support. Jeremy was also responsible for
K.H.’s medical costs not covered by health insurance, $59.50 per week for child care, and
$6,500 for Shanna’s attorney’s fees. The attorney’s fees were to be paid at a monthly rate
of $150.
¶3. On December 3, 2015, Jeremy filed a motion to reconsider and requested specific
findings of fact and conclusions of law. On December 14, 2015, Jeremy filed an amended
motion for citation of contempt and a notice of emergency hearing. Jeremy alleged that
Shanna refused some visitations and that she posted negative things about him on social
media. Jeremy asked the trial court to modify primary physical custody of K.H. to him and
requested that law enforcement be allowed to assist him with visitation. On December 15,
2015, the trial court entered an order allowing an officer to be present during the times
2
Jeremy and Shanna exchanged K.H. The trial court also enjoined Shanna from making
negative posts about Jeremy on her social media pages.
¶4. On January 5, 2016, Shanna filed a motion for citation of contempt and requested
specific findings of fact and conclusions of law from the final judgment of divorce. Shanna
alleged that Jeremy was not in compliance with his obligations for daycare payments or
reimbursement of attorney’s fees. As a result, Shanna requested an order for civil contempt
and punitive damages. On February 2, 2016, Shanna filed her second petition for a citation
of contempt, alleging that Jeremy had not paid for daycare or her attorney’s fees as ordered
in the final judgment of divorce. On February 18, 2016, a letter from the chancellor clarified
the obligations for daycare payments and overruled Jeremy’s motion filed in December 2015.
¶5. Also on February 18, 2016, Shanna filed for a preliminary injunction, alleging that
Jeremy did not properly administer K.H.’s medication when she visited him. Shanna also
alleged that Jeremy had been physically abusive to K.H. Shanna reported her allegations of
sexual abuse to the Mississippi Department of Human Services (DHS). In the claim, she
requested that K.H.’s visitation with Jeremy either cease or be restricted. She also requested
that Jeremy pay her attorney’s fees. Finally, Shanna alleged that Jeremy refused to
communicate with her regarding K.H.
¶6. On February 23, 2016, Jeremy filed a motion to dismiss and a motion for sanctions.
Jeremy requested that the trial court dismiss Shanna’s motion for a preliminary injunction
and her petition for contempt. In the motion for sanctions, Jeremy alleged that Shanna had
filed frivolous charges against him and refused some of K.H.’s visits with him. Also on that
3
date, the trial court entered an order granting joint legal custody to the parties and continued
the other claims to an alternative date.
¶7. On February 29, 2016, Shanna filed a response and defenses to Jeremy’s motion to
dismiss and motion for sanctions, essentially denying all allegations. In that document,
Shanna admitted that she reported Jeremy to DHS and had denied Jeremy visitation;
however, she maintained that Jeremy would not communicate with her regarding K.H.
¶8. On March 1, 2016, Jeremy filed a motion for a psychological exam for Shanna,
alleging that she exhibited wild and erratic behavior. On March 21, 2016, Shanna filed a
motion for a psychological evaluation for Jeremy.
¶9. On April 5, 2016, Jeremy filed another motion for citation of contempt and motion
to modify custody alleging that Shanna again refused visitation for K.H. to visit Jeremy. On
April 14, 2016, Jeremy once again filed a complaint for citation of contempt and a motion
for emergency modification of custody. In this complaint, Jeremy alleged that Shanna and
her family asked him to terminate his parental rights. After a hearing, an agreed order was
entered for both parties to undergo psychological evaluations.2
¶10. On June 13, 2016, Shanna filed a motion for emergency relief, alleging that Dr.
Jennifer Whitcomb, a psychologist hired by Shanna, stated that K.H. might have been
sexually abused by Jeremy. But, testimony at that hearing disclosed that DHS’s investigation
regarding similar allegations was closed due to lack of evidence.
2
The guardian ad litem (GAL) noted that Shanna’s psychological exam evinced a
slight anxiety disorder. The GAL did not mention Jeremy’s supposed diagnosis of PTSD
following a drive-by shooting that occurred while he was in his home (that he alleged was
orchestrated by Shanna’s family).
4
¶11. On August 17, 2016, Jeremy filed another complaint for citation of contempt and
motion for emergency modification after he alleged that Shanna left with K.H. and would not
return her. Jeremy requested an order for civil and criminal contempt to be entered against
Shanna and for the trial court to sentence her to serve time in jail until he made up for the
visitation that he missed. Jeremy asserted that Shanna’s constant refusal of visitation was a
material circumstance that was adverse to K.H. As a result, Jeremy maintains that this
material circumstance would allow the trial court to modify custody of K.H. to
him—removing the child from Shanna’s primary custody.
¶12. On September 12, 2016, Shanna filed her answer to Jeremy’s complaint requesting
the appointment of a guardian ad litem (GAL) and other relief. On October 11, 2016, the
trial court appointed Dana Bumgardner as the GAL. In the GAL’s initial report issued in
2016, she noted that Shanna made several reports of abuse to DHS. These reports caused
K.H. to undergo multiple physical exams and interviews. The GAL stated that Shanna
disregarded the effect that those exams and interviews would have on K.H. Additionally,
Shanna took pictures of K.H.’s private parts, which the GAL reported directly influenced
K.H.’s behavior with Jeremy. The GAL believed that Shanna not only failed to foster K.H.
and Jeremy’s relationship, but she also attempted to directly and negatively impact it.
Ultimately, after her investigation, the GAL recommended that the trial court find there had
been a material change in circumstances in Shanna’s home that adversely affected K.H.
Accordingly, she recommended that the trial court find, pursuant to an Albright3 analysis,
3
Albright v. Albright, 437 So. 2d 1003 (Miss. 1983).
5
physical custody be modified to Jeremy and that Shanna should enjoy standard visitation with
K.H., while sharing joint legal custody. The GAL also recommended counseling and
parenting classes for Jeremy and Shanna so that they could learn to effectively communicate.
¶13. On February 16, 2017, the GAL filed a motion requesting that Jeremy take K.H. to
a counselor of his choosing and to deposit funds to the GAL. On February 23, 2017, Jeremy
and Shanna agreed to proceed to a “trial” set for April 28, 2017, in Wayne County to litigate
the outstanding issues before the court.
¶14. On March 1, 2017, the trial court granted the GAL’s motion for relief and ordered
Jeremy to take K.H. to counseling. On March 2, 2017, Shanna filed a motion for
reconsideration regarding Jeremy’s taking K.H. to counseling and failure of the GAL to
communicate with her regarding her motion filed in February.
¶15. At a hearing on April 4, 2017, Jeremy testified that on March 12, 2017, during a
scheduled visitation exchange, Shanna hit him on the chin and he pushed her away. Jeremy
then alleged that Shanna “came at him.” Shanna filed a police report with the Wayne County
Sheriff’s Office. Shanna testified and reported that Jeremy grabbed her hair and attempted
to push her back into her car. Shanna also alleged that Jeremy “violently slung K.H. to the
ground.” Shanna stated that she filed an order of protection following her scuffle with
Jeremy. The trial court ultimately denied Shanna’s request for a domestic protection order
finding that Shanna was the initial aggressor after she admitted that she slapped Jeremy on
the chin first.
¶16. On April 10, 2017, Shanna filed a motion for removal of the GAL and for the
6
appointment of a new GAL. But the trial court denied Shanna’s motion at a hearing on April
18, 2017.
¶17. On June 22, 2017, the trial court entered its findings of facts and conclusions of law
regarding custody modification.4 In that order, the trial court found that there had been a
material change in circumstances that adversely affected K.H. and awarded Jeremy primary
physical custody of K.H., with Shanna having standard visitation rights. The trial court also
ordered Shanna to begin paying Jeremy the equivalent of 14% of her adjusted gross income
and to reimburse Jeremy for 25% of all health care expenses once she obtained employment.
¶18. The trial court also found Shanna in civil contempt and ordered her to reimburse
Jeremy for attorney’s fees in the amount of $5,500 and to pay the outstanding GAL fees in
the amount of $3,781.44. Shanna was also found guilty of constructive criminal contempt
for willfully refusing to allow Jeremy visitation with K.H. on ten separate occasions. As a
result, the trial court sentenced Shanna to incarceration in the Wayne County Jail for a term
of thirty days on each count for a total of 300 days and fined her $100 for each count for a
total of $1,000. But the trial court suspended the execution of the sentence on the condition
that Shanna not violate the trial court’s orders in the future. Shanna filed a motion to amend
or correct the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the trial court. After a hearing, the
chancery court denied Shanna’s motion. Shanna appeals.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶19. In Edwards v. Zyla, 207 So. 3d 1232, 1235 (¶10) (Miss. 2016), the Mississippi
4
The court incorporated those findings of fact and conclusions of law in the final
order of modification entered on July 19, 2017.
7
Supreme Court held that “the Court’s standard of review for chancery court cases is
well-settled: [t]he factual findings of a chancery court will not be disturbed absent a
determination that the chancery court’s findings are manifestly wrong, clearly erroneous, or
an erroneous legal standard was applied.”
¶20. “As for contempt, the standard of review depends on the classification of the contempt
citation.” C.W. v. Lamar County, 250 So. 3d 1248, 1252 (¶9) (Miss. 2018). “On one hand,
‘[i]f the contempt is civil, the proper standard utilized for review is the manifest error rule.’”
Id. “On the other hand, when reviewing a citation for criminal contempt, th[e] [reviewing]
Court ‘will proceed ab initio and will determine on the record whether the person is guilty
of contempt beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Id; see also In re McDonald, 98 So. 3d 1040,
1042-43 (¶4) (Miss. 2012).
DISCUSSION
I. Whether the trial court erred in finding Shanna in constructive
criminal contempt.
¶21. The trial court found Shanna in willful civil contempt and found beyond a reasonable
doubt that she was in constructive criminal contempt by denying Jeremy visitation on ten
separate occasions. Shanna believes this decision to be in error and in violation of her due-
process rights.
¶22. “With contempt matters, we defer to the chancellor’s discretion.” Hanshaw v.
Hanshaw, 55 So. 3d 143, 147 (¶12) (Miss. 2011). “When reviewing a chancellor’s contempt
finding, we first determine whether the contempt is civil or criminal.” Id. In Dennis v.
Dennis, the Mississippi Supreme Court stated the following regarding civil and criminal
8
contempt:
If the primary purpose of the contempt order is to enforce the rights of private
party litigants or enforce compliance with a court order, then the contempt is
civil. The contemnor may be jailed or fined for civil contempt; however, the
contemnor must be relieved of the penalty when he performs the required act.
Criminal contempt penalties, on the other hand, are designed to punish the
defendant for disobedience of a court order; punishment is for past offenses
and does not terminate upon compliance with court order.
824 So. 2d 604, 608 (¶8) (Miss. 2002).
¶23. “There are two forms of criminal contempt: direct and constructive.” Id. at 608 (¶10).
“Direct contempt occurs in the presence of the court and may be dealt with immediately.
Indirect contempt occurs outside the presence of the court, and the defendant must be
provided notice and a hearing.” Id.
¶24. “[C]onstructive contempt involves actions which are committed outside the presence
of the court.” Id. at 609 (¶10). “In the case of constructive criminal contempt, we have held
that defendants must be provided with procedural due process safeguards, including a
specification of charges, notice, and a hearing.” Id. The accused is also “presumed innocent
until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.” Id. at (¶11).
¶25. Shanna alleges that she was not informed of the nature and cause of the accusation of
criminal contempt and she was not given fair notice. “In the case of constructive criminal
contempt, [the Mississippi Supreme Court] ha[s] held that defendants must be provided with
procedural due process safeguards, including a specification of charges, notice, and a
hearing.” Id. at 609 (¶10). Jeremy filed several citations for criminal contempt against
Shanna, and both parties agreed to a trial or hearing to litigate any outstanding issues before
9
the trial court. Furthermore, Shanna never objected at trial, and the first time Shanna raised
a violation of her due process rights is on appeal. Shanna has asked this Court to review this
issue under the plain-error doctrine. Again, this Court is not restricted to review under the
plain-error doctrine in this case.
¶26. The trial court found Shanna in constructive criminal contempt for denying ten
visitations by Jeremy with K.H. and sentenced Shanna to thirty days in jail on each count for
a total of 300 days, suspended, and $100 fine per violation, for a total of $1,000, suspended.
The Mississippi Supreme Court has held that “[o]ne accused of criminal contempt is entitled
to the same protections as any criminal defendant.” Graves v. State, 66 So. 3d 148, 152 (¶15)
(Miss. 2011). “For example, if the punishment is a fine exceeding $500 or imprisonment for
more than six months, the accused is entitled to a trial by jury.” Id.
¶27. After our review of the record, we find that Shanna was not entitled to a trial by jury
even though the aggregate sentence and fine exceeded six months and five hundred dollars
respectively. We do find that she was in a position to request that the trial judge recuse
himself; rather, she waived that opportunity. Shanna admittedly did not object until after the
trial court rendered its decision. In fact, Shanna allowed the trial court to adjudicate her
rights and failed to file a motion asking the judge to recuse. “The failure to seek recusal
generally is considered implied consent to have the judge go forward in presiding over the
case.” Latham v. Latham, 261 So. 3d 1110, 1113 (¶9) (Miss. 2019) (citing Rice v. State, 134
So. 3d 292, 299 (¶16) (Miss. 2014)); see also Tubwell v. Grant, 760 So. 2d 687, 689 (¶8)
(Miss. 2000) (holding where the party knew of the grounds for the motion or with the
10
exercise of reasonable diligence may have discovered those grounds, and where that party
does not move timely prior to trial, the point will be deemed waived). Therefore, we take the
same position as the majority court in Latham and find that because Shanna failed to object
to the judge’s recusal and preserve the issue for appeal, any assignment of error relative to
that issue is waived. See Latham, 261 So. 3d at 1115 (¶20).
¶28. Furthermore, this Court is not required to address issues that are not objected to at trial
and preserved for appeal. See Dennis, 824 So. 2d at 611 (¶18) (holding that the contemnor
waived claims of defective service and violation of due process when he objected for the first
time on appeal); see also EEOC v. Local 28 of the Sheet Metal Workers Int’l Ass’n, 247 F.
3d 333 (2d Cir. 2001) (contemnor waived claim that its due process rights were violated
where it did not raise a due process argument until after court had rendered its decision).
¶29. While we are not bound by the trial court’s decision on appeal or required to review
this issue under the doctrine of plain error, the evidence presented during the hearings
supports a finding that Shanna willfully and maliciously withheld visitation from Jeremy and
filed frivolous complaints against him, resulting in ongoing DHS investigations and hearings.
¶30. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s decision to find Shanna guilty of constructive
criminal contempt.
II. Whether the trial court erred in failing to consider the doctrine of
unclean hands in awarding Jeremy attorney’s fees.
¶31. The chancery court found that Shanna’s evidence was insufficient to justify finding
11
Jeremy in contempt for failure to pay her attorney’s fees5 and failure to pay for his share of
the daycare and medical expenses. Shanna, however, argues that the trial court committed
reversible error because Jeremy came to court with “unclean hands” and was not entitled to
relief.
¶32. In the divorce judgment entered on December 2, 2015, the trial court awarded Shanna
attorney’s fees in the amount of $6,500 to be paid in monthly increments of $150. Jeremy
was also required to pay a percentage of K.H.’s medical and daycare expenses. On February
2, 2016, Shanna filed a second motion for citation of contempt, alleging that Jeremy failed
to pay all daycare expenses, reimburse her attorney’s fees, and pay medical expenses. Jeremy
testified that he had not made any payments to Shanna for her attorney’s fees because of the
way he had been portrayed during the hearings. Shanna asserts that this failure constitutes
unclean hands. “The doctrine of unclean hands provides that ‘he who comes into equity must
come with clean hands.’” In re Estate of Richardson, 903 So. 2d 51, 55 (¶15) (Miss. 2005)
(citing Thigpen v. Kennedy, 238 So. 2d 744, 746 (Miss. 1970)).
¶33. In the order of findings of fact and conclusions of law, the chancery court, while
acknowledging that Jeremy had not made payments toward the attorney’s fees awarded to
Shanna in the judgment of divorce, declined to find Jeremy in contempt. “A chancellor does
not have to hold a party in contempt even if he or she technically violated the law. . . .”
Riddick v. Riddick, 906 So. 2d 813, 824 (¶37) (Miss. Ct. App. 2004). The trial court
5
The chancery court acknowledged that Shanna had a judgment against Jeremy for
the attorney’s fees and that she could collect those fees via a writ of garnishment.
12
ultimately held Shanna in civil6 contempt and found that Shanna’s contemptuous conduct
necessitated Jeremy to incur attorney’s fees and the GAL fees.
¶34. This Court has held that “in contempt actions, attorney’s fees are awarded ‘to make
the plaintiff whole.’” Bounds v. Bounds, 935 So. 2d 407, 412 (¶18) (Miss. Ct. App. 2006)
(citing Rogers v. Rogers, 662 So. 2d 1111, 1116 (Miss. 1995)). “Where a party’s intentional
misconduct causes the opposing party to expend time and money needlessly, then attorney
fees and expenses should be awarded to the wronged party.” Mabus v. Mabus, 910 So. 2d
486, 489 (¶8) (Miss. 2005).
¶35. Accordingly, we agree with the trial court that Shanna’s conduct necessitated the
attorney’s fees and GAL fees that Jeremy incurred. The trial court declined to hold Jeremy
in contempt; however, the holding does not negate the fact that Jeremy was ordered to pay
Shanna’s attorney’s fees. Inasmuch, the trial court found that the appropriate action for
Shanna to take would be to file a writ of garnishment. This Court finds no error.
III. Whether the trial court erred in finding that a material change of
circumstances occurred, justifying a change of custody of K.H.
¶36. Shanna asserts that the trial court’s court modification of custody was against the
overwhelming weight of the evidence and insufficient to support a finding that there was a
material change in circumstances adversely affecting K.H., warranting custody modification.
¶37. Shanna relies on Ash v. Ash, 622 So. 2d 1264 (Miss. 1993), in support of her
6
“If the primary purpose of the contempt order is to enforce the rights of private party
litigants or enforce compliance with a court order, then the contempt is civil.” Dennis, 824
So. 2d at 608 (¶8). “The contemnor may be jailed or fined for civil contempt; however, the
contemnor must be relieved of the penalty when he performs the required act.” Id.
13
argument. In Ash, the Mississippi Supreme court held that “a mother’s continual refusal to
allow a father visitation did not constitute a material change of circumstances justifying a
change in custody.” Id. at 1266. The Court found that “[t]he better rule would be for a
chancellor to enforce contempt orders through incarceration, when necessary, to insure
compliance with custody provisions rather than resorting to a change of custody.” Id.; see
also Blevins v. Bardwell, 784 So. 2d 166, 179 (¶49) (Miss. 2001). “The ‘totality of the
circumstances’ must be considered.” Ash, 622 So. 2d at 1266.
¶38. But in Ash, the supreme court determined that the chancery court found, by clear and
convincing evidence, “that the mother’s interference with the father’s visitation ha[d] been
a material change of circumstances that c[ould not] be corrected by contempt; that it [wa]s
and d[id] adversely affect the child and that it [wa]s in the child’s best interest that he live
with his father.” Ash, 622 So. 2d at 1267. Essentially, the supreme court upheld the custody
modification.
¶39. Further, the Mississippi Supreme Court has held that “[p]arental behavior that poses
a clear danger to [a] child’s mental or emotional health can justify a custody change.”
McDonald v. McDonald, 39 So. 3d 868, 880 (¶37) (Miss. 2010) (citing Morrow v. Morrow,
591 So. 2d 829, 833 (Miss. 1991)). Furthermore, “[i]n determining whether a material
change of circumstances has occurred, a chancellor should look at the overall circumstances
in which a child lives.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
¶40. Here, the trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that Shanna exhibited an
alarming pattern of denying Jeremy’s visitation of K.H. without just cause. The trial court
14
noted that Shanna had also filed multiple misdemeanor criminal charges against Jeremy, filed
a request for a domestic-violence order, and filed two felony charges against Jeremy. The
GAL, after conducting a thorough Albright analysis, found that there had been a material
change in circumstances in Shanna’s home that adversely affected K.H. The GAL noted the
inappropriate and disturbing photos that Shanna sent of K.H., claiming that she had been
abused. The GAL also mentioned that Shanna initiated several DHS claims against Jeremy
alleging that he sexually assaulted K.H. These claims, however, were later proven to be
unsubstantiated. As a result, the GAL recommended that physical custody be modified to
Jeremy, noting that Shanna should enjoy standard visitation with K.H. and the parties
continue to share joint legal custody. It appears that the trial court considered the totality of
the circumstances affecting K.H. since Shanna and Jeremy’s divorce in 2015. The trial court
ultimately found the following:
There has been a material change in the circumstances which adversely affects
the minor child, [K.H.] Shanna has made multiple false accusations that [K.H.]
has been sexually abused by Jeremy, causing [K.H.] to undergo multiple
unnecessary physical examinations, Shanna has wil[l]fully refused Jeremy
visitation with [K.H.] and has done everything she could do to alienate [K.H.]
from Jeremy. It is [in] the best interest of [K.H.] that Jeremy be given her
primary physical custody with Shanna to have this Court’s standard visitation
rights.
¶41. After review of the record, we cannot say that the trial court’s decision was manifestly
wrong in finding Shanna in criminal and civil contempt. We also do not find error in the trial
court’s decision to award Jeremy attorney’s fees. Accordingly, we find that there was
substantial evidence to support the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law and
affirm the custody modification.
15
¶42. AFFIRMED.
BARNES, C.J., CARLTON, P.J., GREENLEE, TINDELL, LAWRENCE,
McCARTY AND C. WILSON, JJ., CONCUR. J. WILSON, P.J., AND McDONALD,
J., CONCUR IN PART AND IN THE RESULT WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN
OPINION.
16