Divorce Cruel And Inhuman Treatment : Are You Stuck | Ocean Springs Divorce Lawyer

Brooke Hoffman and Michael Hoffman end up in chancery court for a divorce.

Brooke files the petition for divorce on  the grounds of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment and constructive desertion.  As a practical matter, there is little difference between these two grounds.

Let me give you the legal mumbo jumbo first.

“In effect, conduct that would qualify as habitual, cruel, and inhuman treatment becomes constructive desertion when the innocent spouse leaves the home rather than remaining.”  Deborah H. Bell, Mississippi Family Law § 4.02[5][d], at 80 (2d ed. 2011).

“Habitual cruel and inhuman treatment is conduct that either: (1) endangers life, limb, or health, or creates a reasonable apprehension of such danger and renders the relationship unsafe for the party seeking relief, or (2) is so unnatural and infamous as to render the marriage revolting to the non-offending spouse, making it impossible to carryout the duties ofthe marriage, therefore destroying the basis for its continuance.”  Farris v. Farris, 202 So. 3d 223, 231 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (quoting Heimert v. Heimert, 101 So. 3d 181, 184 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012)).

“To prove habitual cruelty, the plaintiff must show more than mere unkindness, rudeness, or incompatibility.” Smith v. Smith, 90 So. 3d 1259, 1263 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011). “Although in cases of violence a single incident maybe sufficient for a divorce, generallythe plaintiff must show a pattern of conduct.”

Similarly, “constructive desertion” occurs when the innocent spouse “is compelled to leave the home and seek safety, peace, and protection elsewhere” because the offending spouse has engaged in conduct that “would reasonablyrender the continuance of the marital relation, unendurable or dangerous to life, health or safety.” Griffin v. Griffin, 207 Miss. 500, 505, 42 So. 2d 720, 722 (1949).

“Chancellors should grant a divorce on the ground of constructive desertion onlyin extremecases.” Hoskins v. Hoskins, 21 So. 3d 705, 710 (¶20) (Miss. Ct. App. 2009).

The burden of proof is on the party seeking the divorce to prove her ground by a preponderance of the evidence.  Id. at 707.

Let’s get back to Brooke and Michael Hoffman.

This case went to trial and the chancery court denied the divorce.

It was then appealed to the Mississippi Court of Appeals.

Divorce Cruel And Inhuman Treatment: Don’t Sleep With Your Spouse

The Court says, Brooke failed to prove grounds for divorce.  The chancery court noted that Brooke alleged only one incident of physical violence, which Mike denied.   The court then noted that Brooke’s single allegation of violence was undermined by a police officer’s observation that she exhibited no signs of physical abuse immediately after the alleged injury.  The court also noted that the day following the alleged abuse Brooke wrote in a diary “that the parties made love and that she could ‘really tell that he (Mike) was emotionally present.’”

In other words, if you are claiming your spouse is cruel to you, then why did you sleep with your spouse?

The chancery court also found that Brooke’s allegations related to Mike’s relationship with Matt were not credible.   Mike denied Brooke’s allegations and another witness corroborated his testimony.  Furthermore, the court found that Brooke offered “no proof” of an actual affair or physical relationship.

Some more legal mumbo jumbo for you:

“It requires little familiarity with the institutional structure of our judicial system to know that this Court does not sit to redetermine questions of fact.”  Johnson v. Black, 469 So. 2d 88, 90 (Miss. 1985).  “The chancellor is the finder of fact, and the assessment of witness credibilitylies within his sole province.”  Darnell v. Darnell, 234 So. 3d 421, 423-24 (Miss. 2017) (quotation marks omitted).

“This Court gives deference to a chancellor’s findings in regard to witness testimony, because the chancellor is able to observe and personally evaluate the witnesses’ testimony and the parties’ behavior.” McNeese v. McNeese, 119 So. 3d 264, 275 (¶32) (Miss. 2013) (quotation marks omitted).

Applying our familiar standard of review, we cannot say that the chancery court clearly erred in finding that Brooke’s allegations were not credible.

The same is true of the chancery court’s finding that Brooke’s allegations of emotional abuse were “unpersuasive.”  The court noted that Brooke only testified to “a discreet number of unpersuasive specific incidents.”  And, again, Mike denied Brooke’s allegations that he was emotionally abusive.

It is for the chancellor “alone” to “judge[] the credibility of the witnesses” and weigh any “conflicting evidence.” Irle v. Foster, 175 So. 3d 1232, 1237 (¶32) (Miss. 2015).

This Court does not reweigh conflicting evidence on such issues of fact.
Mayton v. Oliver, 247 So. 3d 312, 322 (¶33) (Miss. Ct. App. 2017).

Suffice it to say there was conflicting evidence with respect to each of Brooke’s various allegations against Mike.  Those conflicts represent issues of fact for the chancery court to decide.

The chancery court summarized its reasons for dismissing Brooke’s
complaint for divorce as follows:

Brooke may very well have determined for herself that she is no longer willing to countenance the ways in which she and Mike seem no longer to get along, especially when considered from the perspective of another man’s arms with whom she may now seem more compatible. However, . . . for a divorce to be granted on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment there must be proof of systematic and continuous behavior on the part of the offending spouse which goes beyond mere incompatibility . . . .
. . . .
The theory of constructive desertion as a grounds for divorce is reserved for extreme cases. Although Brooke’s and Mike’s marriage might reasonably be characterized on the record made as unhappy and unfulfilling, the evidence does not support a finding that it is to be considered unendurable to Brooke.
. . . .
The [c]ourt takes no pleasure in declining to award relief in a circumstance where the parties are separated and one party professes to be so unhappy as to seek to be officially unshackled from the bonds of matrimony.  The [L]egislature, as the policy makers for this [S]tate, have consistently declined to amend the divorce statutes to provide that one party can obtain a divorce from the other spouse without a showing of fault. Our appellate courts have not expanded the definition of cruel and inhuman treatment to include circumstances which would otherwise comprise mere incompatibility.  The court is, therefore, constrained by the evidence presented to it and the record made, and cannot find that Brooke’s and Mike’s marriage was unendurable at the time that Brooke left. Thus, the court cannot find that Mike is guilty of constructive desertion.

Divorce Cruel And Inhuman Treatment – Bottom Line

We find no clear error, legal error, or abuse of discretion in the chancery court’s findings and conclusions.  Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the chancery court dismissing Brooke’s complaint for a divorce.

So, you can make this claim but you better be able to prove it.