## Facts

- Divorced parents had two minor daughters; the mother had primary physical custody and the father had agreed overnight visitation on alternate weekends and certain holidays.
- After the divorce, the father began cohabiting with his girlfriend outside marriage while teaching the children Christian principles discouraging premarital sex.
- The mother petitioned to modify visitation, alleging the father’s living arrangement and related moral messaging confused and harmed the children.
- Evidence included testimony about isolated incidents in which the girlfriend allegedly used harsh or inappropriate language toward one child and that the children understood the father and girlfriend lived together.
- The record also indicated the children willingly visited their father, enjoyed the visits, and would be upset if visitation were reduced.
- The chancellor modified visitation to daytime only, barred the children from being in the girlfriend’s presence during visits, and prohibited the father from discussing the girlfriend with the children.

## Issues

1. Whether limiting the father to daytime-only visitation and restricting contact with his cohabiting girlfriend was an abuse of discretion absent substantial evidence that the arrangement adversely affected the children’s welfare.
2. Whether the court could prohibit the father from discussing his girlfriend with the children as a condition of visitation.

## Decision

- The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed the modification order and remanded for entry of an order consistent with its opinion.
- The Court held the severe limitation of visitation was unreasonable and an abuse of discretion because it lacked substantial evidence that overnight visitation harmed the children or was contrary to their best interests.
- The Court vacated the restrictions excluding the girlfriend from the children’s presence during visits.
- The Court held the prohibition on the father discussing the girlfriend with the children exceeded the court’s authority and was unenforceable.

## Legal Principles

- Visitation may be modified only upon a material change in circumstances that adversely affects the child’s welfare, and any change must be supported by substantial evidence and guided by the child’s best interests.
- A parent’s nonmarital cohabitation, without evidence of resulting harm to the child, does not justify major visitation restrictions such as eliminating overnight visitation.
- Moral disapproval of a parent’s lifestyle or perceived inconsistencies between conduct and religious teachings cannot substitute for proof of detriment to the child.
- Courts may regulate visitation conditions to protect child welfare, but broad restrictions controlling parent–child speech (such as banning discussion of a romantic partner) are improper absent a showing of harm.

## Conclusion

The court restored the father’s original overnight visitation because the record did not show that cohabitation or related moral concerns caused concrete harm to the children, and it struck the order barring the father from discussing his girlfriend as beyond the permissible scope of visitation regulation.


Harrington v. Harrington, 648 So. 2d 543 (Miss. 1994)