Before Prather, C.j., Smith And Mills, JJ.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Prather, Chief Justice
Pittman v. Pittman, 97-CA-00273-SCT
THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION AND MAY NOT BE CITED, PURSUANT TO M.R.A.P. 35-A
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/24/97
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. TIMOTHY E. ERVIN
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: LEE COUNTY CHANCERY COURT
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS
DISPOSITION AFFIRMED - 8/13/98
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
This domestic relations case arises from a modification hearing, and the sole issue is the amount of the child support to be paid by the appellee, James Pittman (hereinafter James) to Deborah Pittman (hereinafter Deborah). The chancellor, in compliance with the statutory guidelines, ordered $339 monthly child support for the parties' two daughters, ages 11 and 13. Deborah contends that James should pay $425 per month, but failed to present evidence to rebut the presumption that a child support award, when made in compliance with the statutory guidelines, is proper. Therefore, the chancellor's ruling is affirmed.
The awarding of child support is within the sound discretion of the chancellor. This Court has on numerous occasions held that it will not disturb a chancellor's determination of child support "unless the chancellor was manifestly in error in his finding of fact and manifestly abused his discretion." McEachern , 605 So.2d at 814; Smith , 585 So.2d at 753; Powers v. Powers , § 568 So.2d 255, 257-58 (Miss.1990). See Miss. Code Ann. 93-5-23 (Supp.1993). Also, "The process of weighing evidence and arriving at an award of child support is essentially an exercise in fact-finding, which ...