For whatever reason, I have been following the controversy surrounding the accidental drowning of Nolan Wells with great interest... While I feel great sympathy for Christine Wells ("there but by the grace of God go I" - when Zach was going through his Maximum Overdrive Party Phase, I often held myself braced for that phone call. Was it going to be an overdose, (another) car accident, or simple alcohol poisoning?) - both sides of our Great Cultural Divide have been wrong in the extreme, with one side attacking Christine for her perceived maternal deficiencies, the other piling on Sarah for trying to unearth truthful evidence...
I’ll just post Sarah’s complete essay, cringing in unpleasant memories of my own trial by fire in Texas family courts… Z’s father likewise went scorched-earth on me - preferring to attack me in custody battles & psych evaluations rather trying to work together to get Zach through his teenage reckless experimentation phase. (in which he prevailed, having hired the better attorney, a born-again Christian GAL who believed that fathers should hold the ultimate authority, & incompetent student psych evaluators - a trifecta of tragedy!) Zach was working through this whole nonsense again Sunday afternoon**, during a prolonged “phone consultation” - Mom doesn’t seem to be able to do much to help him except serve as his sounding board!
** for whatever reason, Z had tried to establish contact with his father again - which turned out to be a frustrating 10-min phone conversation
Sarah Fields is an investigative journalist who also reported on the Karmelo Anthony case
RUMORS VS. RECORDS: The Truth About Christine Wells’ 12-Year Custody CaseThere are a LOT of rumors and speculation circulating about Nolan Wells’ mother, Christine Wells, and an old custody case involving her children. Some of the posts I have seen take a few pieces of the court docket and then fill in the blanks with assumptions. I have now obtained multiple actual court documents spanning more than a decade of this case, from the original custody litigation in 2007 through the final agreement in 2019.
So instead of repeating rumors, I’m going to walk you through what the records actually show, what was merely alleged, what we still do not know, and how this case ultimately ended. Buckle Up.
Before I get into any of it, I need to make one thing VERY clear because I keep seeing people attempting to drag Nolan into this custody case: NONE OF THIS INVOLVED NOLAN WELLS. This case involved Christine Wells and her three older children with James E. Briscoe Jr. Nolan was not one of the children involved in these custody proceedings. Nothing I have reviewed establishes that any allegation made in this case involved Nolan or that anything alleged regarding these three children ever happened to Nolan. There is plenty contained in these records to investigate without inserting him into a custody case that had nothing to do with him.
I have also seen claims that the “State of Mississippi” has been leaking Christine’s court documents. I have found nothing supporting that allegation. The docket being circulated online comes from the Jackson County Chancery Court case inquiry system, and the screenshot itself is marked PUBLIC. Someone obtaining records from a public court system is not evidence that the State of Mississippi is secretly leaking someone’s records. All records I have obtained are public record and subject to open record request.
I will say that, even though these are public records, I stay ethical in my reporting, and I have redacted all minor’s names and private information.
Another claim being repeated is that Christine was judicially declared an “unfit mother.” I have not found an order saying that either. What I HAVE found are some very serious allegations made against Christine by the natural father of these three children. There is a huge difference between allegations contained in one parent’s court filing and findings made by a judge, and I am going to make that distinction throughout my article.
The original case began in January 2007, and one detail immediately corrects part of the narrative circulating online: Christine was actually the plaintiff. She initiated the custody action. James E. Briscoe Jr. responded in February 2007 with an Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim seeking custody himself.
Briscoe acknowledged that he was the natural father of all three children: a daughter born in December 2004 and twin boys born in April 2006. The pleadings state that Christine and Briscoe had never married. They also give us some information about the family’s living arrangements. According to Briscoe’s filing, before October 2006, the infant twins had lived with both Christine and James at an apartment in Pascagoula. Their older daughter had been living with her paternal grandmother. By approximately October 2006, according to Briscoe, all three children were living with Christine in Moss Point.
This is where Briscoe’s counterclaim becomes much more concerning. And before anyone takes these quotes and runs with them, I want to be perfectly clear: these are allegations made by James Briscoe in a court filing. I am NOT representing them as proven facts or judicial findings.
Briscoe alleged that “urgent and necessitous circumstances” existed. He claimed Christine “will not allow visitation between the Defendant and the minor children herein.” But his allegations went well beyond a father complaining that he wasn’t being allowed to see his children.
Briscoe specifically alleged, “The Plaintiff, CHRISTINE C. WELLS, is unstable.” He further stated, “The Plaintiff has unstable housing, unstable employment and an inadequate place for the children to live among other things that are detrimental to the minor child.” He then said that “The said circumstances do not serve the best interest of the children and the said circumstances are detrimental to the minor children.”
Those are serious allegations, particularly when you understand just how young these children were at the time. When Briscoe filed his counterclaim in early 2007, the oldest child was barely two years old, and the twins were only around nine months old. These were babies and toddlers.
Briscoe wasn’t simply asking for more visitation. He specifically asked the court to give him “the legal care, custody and control of the minor children,” with Christine receiving reasonable visitation. He alleged that he was “a fit and proper person to have custody” and argued that placing the children with him would serve “the best interest of the minor children.” He also asked that Christine be required to pay child support and a portion of the children’s uninsured expenses.
Again, Briscoe making those allegations does NOT establish that they were all true. But it establishes something important that shouldn’t be ignored: concerns about Christine’s stability, housing, employment and the children’s living circumstances were being raised by the children’s father in court in 2007. These allegations weren’t created on social media after Nolan’s death.
Then we get to what I consider one of the most interesting portions of this entire case.
On August 22, 2007, the parties entered an Agreed Temporary Order giving Christine and Briscoe joint legal AND physical custody of the children. At the same time, attorney Wendy C. Hollingsworth was appointed Guardian ad Litem, commonly called a GAL.
A Guardian ad Litem is brought into a custody case to focus on the interests and welfare of the children. Considering that these were three extremely young children and that serious allegations had already been made regarding their circumstances, the GAL’s involvement is important.
Then, on September 13, 2007, the docket shows a Motion for Extension of Time to File Guardian ad Litem Report. In other words, there was a GAL report being prepared, and additional time was requested to file it.
Exactly three weeks later, on October 4, 2007, another Agreed Order was entered.
This time, James E. Briscoe Jr. was established as the natural father of the three children, Briscoe received legal custody and Christine received visitation.
So, sequence of events - Christine and Briscoe have joint legal AND physical custody. A Guardian ad Litem is appointed. A GAL report is being prepared. Additional time is requested to file that report. Exactly three weeks later, the father has legal custody and Christine has visitation.Considering the ages of these children, I find that outcome noteworthy. Their oldest child wasn’t even three years old, and the twins were approximately a year and a half old. Ultimately, the court entered an arrangement placing legal custody with their father instead of continuing the joint legal and physical custody arrangement that had existed only weeks earlier.
I DO consider that a loss for Christine. She went from joint legal and physical custody to the father having legal custody while she had visitation. But there is an extremely important detail that needs to be included if we’re going to report this accurately: the October order was an AGREED ORDER.
That means I cannot tell you that a judge conducted a contested custody trial, heard all of the evidence, declared Christine unfit and independently stripped her of custody. The documents I have reviewed do not say that. They establish that an agreed order was entered giving Briscoe legal custody and Christine visitation.
And frankly, that leaves me with an even bigger question: What happened between August 22 and October 4 that resulted in Christine going from joint legal AND physical custody of three very young children to agreeing to an arrangement where their father had legal custody and she had visitation?
Sitting directly in the middle of that period is the Guardian ad Litem investigation. And sitting exactly three weeks before the custody change is a request for additional time to file the GAL report.
Do I find that interesting? Absolutely. Do I want to know what Wendy Hollingsworth found? Absolutely. But I do not currently have that GAL report, and therefore I am not going to pretend I know what it says. I cannot tell you that the GAL found Christine dangerous, abusive, neglectful or unfit. I cannot tell you that the GAL substantiated Briscoe’s allegations. And I cannot tell you that the GAL recommended that Briscoe receive custody.
On November 28, 2007, the docket shows an order concerning the Guardian ad Litem’s fees and expenses. Then, in March 2008, the case came back before the court for a review hearing pursuant to the October 4 Agreed Order.
The March 27, 2008 Agreed Judgment states that Christine and Briscoe reached an agreement regarding the remaining issues of child support, medical insurance, dental insurance, life insurance and other related matters. Christine was ordered to pay Briscoe $66 per week in child support for the three children, beginning April 4, 2008. They were also ordered to equally share uninsured medical, dental, pharmaceutical, ocular, psychological, psychiatric and other related medical expenses.
Then! Almost a decade later, in 2017, James Briscoe returned to court seeking an increase in the $66-per-week child-support obligation Christine had been ordered to pay him. He alleged a “substantial and material change in circumstances,” including what he described as a significant increase in Christine’s salary. This was likely related to the fact that Christine was now a licensed nurse. He also argued that the children’s expenses had increased as they grew older, specifically mentioning expenses involving food, clothing, band, sports, instruments and uniforms.
Briscoe asked the court to increase Christine’s child support and sought additional insurance-related relief. He also signed the petition under oath. I don’t think the 2017 support dispute needs to be sensationalized. Its importance to this timeline is that nearly a decade after the 2008 judgment, Briscoe was still litigating under the existing arrangement in which Christine paid him child support.
Then, 11 years after the original custody change, the case took ANOTHER turn.
In 2018, Christine sought to modify custody and initially obtained an order giving her custody of the three children. The court subsequently determined that James Briscoe had not been properly served with the required Rule 81 summons. Because of that procedural problem, the June 2018 custody modification was set aside, the prior arrangement was reinstated, and the children were ordered returned to Briscoe until a trial could be held on the remaining issues. The court also ordered the children to remain in the Ocean Springs school system because it found doing so was in their best interests.
This is honestly sad to me. This means they went from his household, to her household, then back to his household. Being jerked around in the system is never a good life for children.
The order giving Christine custody was set aside because of a procedural/service problem. I have not seen evidence that the judge vacated it because the court made a new finding that Christine was unfit or that Briscoe was the superior parent.
And then we finally get to the end of the story.
In January 2019, Christine and Briscoe reached an Agreed Final Order providing for joint legal AND joint physical custody of all three children. Under that agreement, the children would alternate between Christine and Briscoe on a week-to-week basis. Neither parent would pay child support because each parent would be responsible for the children’s expenses during his or her respective custody periods.
That ended matters.
If someone tells you Christine “lost her children in 2007” and stops the story there, they are spreading misinformation to sensationalize this story. I fully understand that accusations and horrific threats have been made so far in this case, but we do not need to lower ourselves to their standard by spreading more misinformation. She did lose the joint custody arrangement she had in 2007 when Briscoe received legal custody and she received visitation. That arrangement remained significant for years, and Christine was still paying Briscoe child support under the 2008 judgment when he sought an increase in 2017. But Christine later sought custody again, and by January 2019, the parents ultimately agreed to equal joint legal and physical custody.
So after going through the records, here is where I land.
Yes, the father of Christine’s three older children made serious allegations against her involving instability, housing, employment and what he described as circumstances detrimental to their very young children.
Yes, Christine went from joint legal and physical custody to an arrangement giving the father legal custody and giving her visitation.
Yes, a Guardian ad Litem was appointed shortly before that happened, and the timing of the GAL report and subsequent custody change is interesting.
Yes, Christine was subsequently ordered to pay the father child support, and that arrangement was still being litigated nearly a decade later.
But NO, I have not found an order declaring Christine an “unfit mother.”
NO, I do not have evidence establishing that every allegation Briscoe made against her was true.
NO, I do not know what the Guardian ad Litem ultimately found or recommended.
And most importantly, NO, NONE OF THIS INVOLVED NOLAN WELLS.
Nolan was not one of the children involved in this custody case. These proceedings concerned Christine’s three older children with James Briscoe. Trying to take allegations made regarding those children in 2007 and retroactively attach them to Nolan is not good reporting. We are above that.
No comments:
Post a Comment