Cleondra Jasmine Carter v. Mario Robert Ramon Escovedo
2015 Miss. App. LEXIS 494, 2015 WL 5687834, 175 So. 3d 583 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court may restrict a parent from having overnight visitors of an intimate nature while a child is present if there is specific evidence showing that the presence of such visitors poses a substantial detriment to the child's well-being.
Facts:
- Cleondra Carter and Mario Escovedo had a daughter, Kylee, out of wedlock in 2010 when Carter was seventeen.
- Carter's pregnancy was featured on the MTV show 'Sixteen and Pregnant.'
- After living together for the first few years of Kylee’s life, the couple separated and began a dispute over her custody.
- Carter admitted that she allowed men, who were not Kylee's father or her husband, to sleep in the same bed with her and Kylee.
- At the time of trial, Carter lived in a one-bedroom apartment.
- Kylee's therapist, Wendy Ward, testified that Kylee suffered from anxiety and was scared of one of Carter's boyfriends, Michael, who 'made her feel scared and mad.'
- The therapist recommended that neither parent have romantic partners spend the night when Kylee is present due to the child's anxiety.
Procedural Posture:
- Mario Escovedo filed a complaint for child custody against Cleondra Carter in the DeSoto County Chancery Court, the trial court of first instance.
- The chancellor entered an order granting Escovedo sole legal and physical custody, granting Carter specific visitation rights, and imposing a restriction on overnight guests for both parties.
- Cleondra Carter, as the appellant, appealed the chancellor's order to the Court of Appeals of Mississippi, with Mario Escovedo as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a court-ordered restriction prohibiting a parent from having overnight visitors of an intimate nature violate the parent's rights when there is evidence, including a therapist's testimony, that such visits cause the child anxiety and fear?
Opinions:
Majority - Maxwell, J.
No, a court-ordered restriction prohibiting overnight visitors is permissible when there is evidence of a substantial detriment to the child. The court's paramount consideration in all visitation matters is the best interest of the child. While an extramarital relationship is not, per se, an adverse circumstance, restrictions may be imposed where there is evidence of 'something approaching actual danger or other substantial detriment to the children.' In this case, Carter admitted to sharing a bed with her daughter and romantic partners, and the child's therapist testified that the presence of one of Carter's boyfriends was a source of fear and anxiety for the child. This evidence was sufficient to demonstrate a substantial detriment, justifying the chancellor's tailored prohibition to protect the child's well-being.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the principle that a parent's right to privacy and association can be limited when their conduct directly and negatively impacts their child's welfare. The decision clarifies that the 'substantial detriment' standard required to justify such restrictions can be met with evidence of emotional or psychological harm, such as therapist-documented anxiety and fear in a child. The ruling provides a clear example that courts will defer to a trial judge's findings on this issue, especially when supported by expert testimony, making it a significant precedent for justifying lifestyle-based visitation restrictions in family law.
