THOMAS E. ETHRIDGE, III APPELLANT
CHRISTY WARD ETHRIDGE APPELLEE
OF JUDGMENT: 01/05/2016
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED FORREST COUNTY CHANCERY JUDGE HON.
M. RONALD DOLEAC TRIAL JUDGE.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT DIANNE HERMAN ELLIS
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE S. CHRISTOPHER FARRIS
IRVING, P.J., FAIR AND WILSON, JJ.
IRVING, P. JUDGE.
Thomas Ethridge III appeals the judgment of the Forrest
County Chancery Court, arguing that the court erred in
awarding Christy Ethridge physical custody of their minor
child and in not awarding him a new trial after learning of
Christy's alleged perjured testimony.
Finding no error, we affirm..
Thomas and Christy were married February 20, 2015, and one
child was born to the marriage. Thomas and Christy filed
competing complaints for divorce, and the chancery court
consolidated the complaints. The parties later withdrew all
fault grounds and agreed to a divorce on the ground of
irreconcilable differences, leaving the issue of custody,
among other issues, to be determined by the chancery court.
At the conclusion of the trial, the court conducted an
on-the-record Albright analysis to determine custody and
visitation. The court awarded physical custody to Christy and
joint legal custody to Christy and Thomas.
After the court's ruling, Thomas filed a motion for
reconsideration pursuant to Mississippi Rules of Civil
Procedure 59 and 60, arguing that Christy perjured herself
during her testimony and, given the Albright
analysis, he should have been awarded custody of the child or
more extensive visitation. He contended that the failure of
the trial court to award custody to him was based solely upon
the court's excessive reliance upon the tender-years
doctrine and was therefore an abuse of discretion.
Thomas's motion was denied, and this appeal followed.
"In reviewing a child custody decision, we will affirm
unless the chancellor was manifestly wrong, [the decision]
was clearly erroneous, or [the chancellor] applied an
erroneous legal standard. Error arises if the
chancellor's decision is not supported by substantial
evidence in the record." Limbaugh v. Limbaugh,
749 So.2d 1244, 1246 (¶9) (Miss. Ct. App. 1999).
Before discussing the issues raised by Thomas, Christy has
raised an issue that requires addressing. She argues that
Thomas's notice of appeal states that he is appealing
from the April 26, 2016 ruling on his motion for a new trial.
The notice does not state that he is appealing from the
judgment of divorce and custody that was entered by the court
on January 5, 2016. Therefore, she argues the ...