Rhonda Yeager v. David Kittrell
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2008-CA-01783-COA
RHONDA YEAGER
APPELLANT
v.
DAVID KITTRELL
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
10/21/2008
HON. FRANKLIN C. MCKENZIE, JR.
WAYNE COUNTY CHANCERY COURT
ERIC A. TIEBAUER, JR.
DAVID KITTRELL (PRO SE)
MICHAEL DUANE MITCHELL
CIVIL – DOMESTIC RELATIONS
TRANSFERED CHILD CUSTODY
JURISDICTION TO TEXAS
AFFIRMED – 12/01/2009
BEFORE LEE, P.J., CARLTON AND MAXWELL, JJ.
CARLTON, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Rhonda Yeager appeals the judgment of the Wayne County Chancery Court, which
transferred child custody jurisdiction to Texas under the Uniform Child Custody and
Jurisdiction Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) and denied her motion to reconsider the transfer
of jurisdiction. Finding no error, we affirm the chancery court’s judgment.
FACTS
¶2.
Rhonda and David Kittrell were married in Mobile, Alabama on December 3, 1993.
The couple had two children – Rheygan, who was born in January 1995, and Trevor, who
was born in May 1996. Rhonda filed for divorce on February 15, 1996, in the Greene
County Chancery Court and was awarded full legal and physical custody of the children,
with David having limited visitation rights.
¶3.
Over the next decade, the parties engaged in a tumultuous legal battle, filing numerous
motions for contempt against the other and continuously sparring over visitation rights. On
various occasions, Rhonda refused to abide by the visitation order, and David had to call the
sheriff to pick up the children. On May 11, 1999, Rhonda received a thirty-day suspended
jail sentence, which was conditional upon her future compliance with the visitation order.
Additionally, in September 2000, Rhonda alleged that David had sexually abused Trevor.
A hearing was held on October 28, 29, and 30, 2002, and the court found that no such abuse
ever occurred.
¶4.
According to his brief, David moved to Navarro County, Texas in January 2002. In
September 2003, the parties agreed to move the case to Wayne County Chancery Court. The
parties determined this was a more convenient forum since David lived in Texas and the
children resided in Wayne County with Rhonda.
¶5.
In May 2004, the Waynesboro Police Department and the Mississippi Department of
Human Services removed Rheygan and Trevor from Rhonda’s custody upon learning that
she had been using cocaine while the children were present in the home. In July 2004, the
chancery court granted David temporary physical and legal custody of the children, and the
children moved to Texas with David. After the trial held on August 4, 2005, the Wayne
County Chancery Court determined that due to Rhonda’s erroneous allegations of sexual
2
abuse of Trevor, her constant interference with David’s visitation rights, and Rhonda’s
history of drug abuse, a material change in circumstances adversely affecting the best
interests of the children had occurred, warranting modification of the custody agreement.
The court awarded David permanent legal and physical custody. The final order granting
David permanent custody was filed on December 19, 2005.
¶6.
On June 8, 2006, Rhonda appealed the final order, but her appeal was dismissed by
the Mississippi Supreme Court as untimely filed. Rhonda’s motion to reopen time for appeal
was granted by the chancery court, and she filed a second notice of appeal in October 2006.
The supreme court dismissed this appeal with prejudice, determining that the chancery court
had erred in granting Rhonda’s motion to reopen time for appeal.
¶7.
In February 2007, David filed a motion to transfer jurisdiction of the proceedings
involving the children from Mississippi to Texas. David alleges in his brief that a hearing
was held on March 7, 2007, to consider the matter. He further alleges that on March 27,
2007, he filed a petition to establish jurisdiction in the District Court of Navarro County,
Texas.1 Rhonda did not file an objection to the petition.
¶8.
In an order filed on August 6, 2007, the chancery court found Mississippi to be an
inconvenient forum within the meaning of the UCCJEA,2 specifically Mississippi Code
Annotated section 93-27-207 (Rev. 2004), and thus relinquished jurisdiction to Texas. The
1
The petition does not appear in the record. In her brief, Rhonda states that on March
7, 2007, she received notice of the hearing in the District Court of Navarro County regarding
the transfer of jurisdiction. David asserts, however, that the hearing regarding transfer of
jurisdiction was held on March 7, 2007, in Wayne County, Mississippi. A transcript of the
hearing does not appear in the record.
2
Codified at Mississippi Code Annotated sections 93-27-101 to -402 (Rev. 2004).
3
court further noted that Rheygan and Trevor had resided in Texas for over sixteen months
prior to the date of the order. Additionally, after conferring with the court in Texas, the
chancery court agreed that Texas is a more convenient forum to assert jurisdiction over the
proceedings involving the children.
¶9.
On August 13, 2007, Rhonda filed a motion to reconsider the order releasing
jurisdiction, claiming that the order violates the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act of 1980
(PKPA) and that the UCCJEA is unconstitutional.
¶10.
After a hearing on September 10, 2007, the District Court of Navarro County, Texas,
entered an order establishing its jurisdiction over the children. In the order, the court
modified David’s and Rhonda’s visitation rights, with David maintaining permanent physical
and legal custody. Rhonda did not appear at the hearing. The district court also issued a writ
of capias with pick-up order for Rhonda’s failure to appear and pay child support.
¶11.
On April 22, 2008, a hearing was held in the Wayne County Chancery Court
regarding Rhonda’s motion to reconsider the order releasing jurisdiction. The following
summer of 2008, Rhonda proceeded to exercise her summer visitation in accordance with the
visitation order issued by the Texas court. On October 21, 2008, the Wayne County
Chancery Court denied her motion to reconsider.
Rhonda appeals, arguing that the
chancellor erred in granting the order releasing jurisdiction on the grounds that it was
unlawful under the UCCJEA.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶12.
“Whether the chancery court had jurisdiction to hear a particular matter is a question
of law, to which this Court must apply a de novo standard of review.” In re Guardianship
4
of Z.J., 804 So. 2d 1009, 1011 (¶9) (Miss. 2002).
DISCUSSION
¶13.
Rhonda argues that the order releasing jurisdiction is unlawful under the UCCJEA and
the PKPA. Rhonda specifically asks this Court to determine whether the chancery court
correctly applied the UCCJEA, assuming that the court even applied it at all, to herself and
her parental rights, in a case where original jurisdiction in Mississippi was transferred to
Texas despite her continued domicile in Mississippi. Rhonda submits that the chancellor
failed to make findings of fact as to all of the factors in section 93-27-207(2) and, instead,
ruled that the factors, when taken together, favor David.
¶14.
Jurisdiction over interstate custody disputes is governed by the UCCJEA and the
PKPA. Deborah H. Bell, Bell on Mississippi Family Law § 18:09 at 454 (2005). The
UCCJEA regulates the ability of chancery courts to enforce or modify child custody
judgments entered in another state. Shadden v. Shadden, 11 So. 3d 761, 763 (¶8) (Miss. Ct.
App. 2009).
¶15.
The predecessor of the UCCJEA, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act
(UCCJA), was created to establish uniformity in state decisions and to limit forum shopping
by custody litigants seeking to enforce or modify custody. Bell on Mississippi Family Law
§ 18:09. Some states were slow to adopt the UCCJA, which led Congress to pass the PKPA
in 1980. Id. The PKPA contains requirements almost identical to the UCCJA. Id. Although
the two Acts were created to ensure consistent results in interstate custody decisions, the
differences between the Acts led to confusion. Id. The UCCJEA, promulgated in 2001 and
subsequently adopted in Mississippi in 2004, was intended to bring the UCCJA into
5
compliance with the PKPA. Id.
¶16.
Under the UCCJEA, only one court may assert jurisdiction after an initial custody
order has been entered. See Miss. Code Ann. § 93-27-201 (Supp. 2009). A court issuing an
initial determination has continuing jurisdiction over the parties; no other court may modify
the decree. Id. However, even if only one party remains in the state, a second state may
modify the order if the issuing court finds that neither the child, nor the child and one parent,
have a significant connection with the state, and that substantial evidence is no longer
available in the issuing state. See Miss. Code Ann. § 93-27-202(1)(a). Only the issuing state
may make this determination. Additionally, a court with continuing jurisdiction may decline
to modify custody if another court is a more appropriate forum. See Miss. Code Ann. §§ 9327-203(a) (Supp. 2009); 93-27-207.
¶17.
The PKPA mandates that a state must give full faith and credit to “any custody
determination or visitation determination made consistently with the provisions of this
section by a court of another [s]tate.” The PKPA also directs that:
A court of a [s]tate may modify a determination of the custody of the same
child made by a court of another [s]tate, if –
(1) it has jurisdiction to make such a child custody determination; and
(2) the court of the other [s]tate no longer has jurisdiction, or it has declined
to exercise such jurisdiction to modify such determination.
28 U.S.C. § 1738A(f) (2006).
¶18.
In the present case, Mississippi had jurisdiction to make the initial child custody
determination under section 93-27-201(1)(a) since, at the time of the initial determination,
Mississippi was “the home state of the children on the date of the commencement of the
6
proceeding.” However, section 93-27-207 provides that:
(1) A court of this state which has jurisdiction under this chapter to
make a child custody determination may decline to exercise its jurisdiction at
any time if it determines that it is an inconvenient forum under the
circumstances and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum.
The issue of inconvenient forum may be raised upon motion of a party, the
court's own motion, or request of another court.
(2) Before determining whether it is an inconvenient forum, a court of
this state shall consider whether it is appropriate for a court of another state to
exercise jurisdiction. For this purpose, the court shall allow the parties to
submit information and shall consider all relevant factors, including:
(a) Whether domestic violence has occurred and is likely to continue in
the future and which state could best protect the parties and the child;
(b) The length of time the child has resided outside this state;
(c) The distance between the court in this state and the court in the state
that would assume jurisdiction;
(d) The relative financial circumstances of the parties;
(e) Any agreement of the parties as to which state should assume
jurisdiction;
(f) The nature and location of the evidence required to resolve the
pending litigation, including testimony of the child;
(g) The ability of the court of each state to decide the issue
expeditiously and the procedures necessary to present the evidence; and
(h) The familiarity of the court of each state with the facts and issues in
the pending litigation.
¶19.
In Stowers v. Humphrey, 576 So. 2d 138, 140 (Miss. 1991), the chancellor held that
although Mississippi made the initial determination of the child custody agreement at issue,
Alabama had become the children’s “home state”; thus, Alabama was a more convenient
forum. The chancellor found that: the children had a closer connection to Alabama; they had
7
lived in the state for two and one-half years; and evidence concerning the effects of visitation
with their father was more readily available in Alabama than in Mississippi. Id. at 142.
¶20.
In Bridges v. Bridges, 910 So. 2d 1156, 1157 (¶4) (Miss. Ct. App. 2005), the parties
lived in Louisiana at the time of the divorce, and a Louisiana court entered the original child
custody determination at issue. Subsequently, the mother moved to Arkansas, and the father
moved to Mississippi. Id. An Arkansas court proceeded to assert jurisdiction over the matter
and enforced the temporary custody order set forth by the Louisiana court until a final order
was entered. Id. When the mother refused to return the children during the father’s visitation
period, the Scott County Chancery Court in Mississippi entered an order incarcerating the
mother until she, among other things, reimbursed the father for his costs and expenses
incurred in litigating the matter and insured future compliance with the visitation orders. Id.
at 1158 (¶6). On appeal, this Court noted that the children resided with their mother in
Arkansas for a period greater than six months. Further, other than the presence of their father
and other family members, the children had no connection to the State of Mississippi. Thus,
this Court found that the Scott County Chancery Court did not have jurisdiction over the
matter. Id. at 1159 (¶12).
¶21.
In the present case, the chancery court declined to exercise its continuing jurisdiction
over Rheygan and Trevor based on the determination that Texas is a more convenient forum.
Although the court states in its order transferring jurisdiction that Mississippi is an
inconvenient forum under section 93-27-207, the transcript from the August 3, 2006, hearing
is not part of the record, and we cannot review the chancellor’s application of the factors set
forth in section 93-27-207(2). However, upon our own review of the facts in the present case
8
and application of the factors in 93-27-207(2), substantial evidence in the record supports
the chancellor’s finding that Texas is the most convenient forum to assert jurisdiction over
the children.3
¶22.
In applying section 93-27-207(2)(a) to the present facts, the record before us reflects
that the children suffered domestic violence while in Rhonda’s care. After the trial on
August 4, 2005, the chancellor observed that due to Rhonda’s erroneous allegations of child
abuse, Trevor suffered from “the child abuse of the child abuse allegation . . . being
examined, poked and prodded, questioned by experts in the field of child abuse.” The
chancellor also stated that “Rhonda’s parenting skills led her to use cocaine and [have] illicit
sex in the presence of the children.”
¶23.
Section 93-27-207(2)(b) examines the length of time the children have resided outside
of Mississippi. The children have lived in Texas with David since 2004, only returning to
Mississippi for court-ordered visitation.
¶24.
Section 93-27-207(2)(c) considers the distance between the Wayne County Chancery
Court in Mississippi and the District Court of Navarro County, Texas. Rhonda alleges that
visitation is difficult because of the distance. However, the record reflects that David
consistently drove the roughly eight-hour drive during his visitation weekends to see the
children.
¶25.
When considering section 93-27-207(2)(d), little evidence exists in the record as to
3
We note that Rhonda bore the responsibility of providing the transcript from the
hearing to be included in the record. See Oakwood Homes Corp. v. Randall, 824 So. 2d
1292, 1293 (¶4) (Miss. 2002) (citation omitted).
9
the parties’ financial circumstances. In 2005, Rhonda told the chancery court that she was
studying to be a cosmetologist.4 In David’s brief, he submits that he is an electrician, and his
wife is a teacher. No recent evidence as to the parties’ income appears in the records or
briefs.
¶26.
Regarding section 93-27-207(2)(e), no evidence appears in the record that the parties
are in agreement on any aspect of the case, although David asserts that he submitted various
orders regarding jurisdiction to Rhonda, to which she has not responded.
¶27.
Section 93-27-207(2)(f) examines “[t]he nature and location of the evidence required
to resolve the pending litigation, including testimony of the child.” Here, all of the current
evidence relevant to the determination of custody matters is located in Texas; most
importantly, the children themselves, but also their school and health records, are located in
Texas.
¶28.
Under 93-27-207(2)(g), both the Mississippi and Texas courts proved themselves able
in deciding the issues at hand expeditiously. Finally, 93-27-207(2)(h), which examines
familiarity of the court of each state with the facts and issues in the pending litigation, favors
the court in Texas. Although the Wayne County Chancery Court is familiar with the facts
and issues of the case, the Texas court possessed the current school and health records of the
children.
¶29.
After applying the UCCJEA and PKPA to the case at hand, we find that although the
chancellor had continuing jurisdiction over the case, substantial evidence in the record
4
Upon learning of Rhonda’s cocaine abuse, the Mississippi Board of Nursing revoked
her nursing license.
10
supports his finding that Texas was a more convenient forum than Mississippi. Therefore,
we find that the chancellor properly transferred jurisdiction to Texas under the UCCJEA and
PKPA.
¶30. THE JUDGMENT OF THE WAYNE COUNTY CHANCERY COURT IS
AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE
APPELLANT.
KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE,
ROBERTS AND MAXWELL, JJ., CONCUR.
11
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.