Category Archives: Child Custody

Child Custody, Divorce, General Legal, Visitation

Child Custody In Mississippi

11/27/2017 BowTieLawyer 3 Comments

There are 2 types of custody in Mississippi Chancery Courts.

Legal custody refers to the decision-making rights regarding your child’s health, education and general welfare.

Legal custody, most commonly awarded as “Joint Legal Custody,” requires that each parent keep the other parent reasonably informed of the child’s goings on. This includes not only health, education, and general welfare, but also school and activity schedules, medical appointments and any major matter regarding the child’s life

It requires that parents communicate and cooperate when it comes to making decision about the well-being of the child. It certainly includes informing the other parent if a move is anticipated.

Legal custody includes sharing the status of the child’s well-being and location in emergency situations.

If there is going to be a fight in a custody case it will be over Physical Custody.

2.) Physical Custody is different than Legal custody. Physical custody concerns which parent has actual, physical possession of the child.

Within Physical custody there are officially only 2 types;

1) Joint Physical custody which by statute means each parent spends a significant portion of time with the child (though it does not have to be 50/50); and much more common is the second type

2) (Sole) Physical custody to one parent, subject to the other parent’s visitation. This is far more common in Mississippi. A lot of your Agreements may have the term “primary” in the physical custody language and some Judges even insist that it be specified, but “primary” has no statutory significance, meaning it is not a term that carries legal meaning. Lawyers, including myself, still use the term however.

If the parents cannot agree on Custody the Court will conduct what is known as an “Albright Analysis.” Albright v. Albright, 437 So. 2d 1003 (Miss. 1983), is a Mississippi case from the early 1980’s that lists 13 factors that the Court must consider when making an initial custody determination. The specific facts of your case are considered as they relate to each factor and the Court makes a determination as to which factor favors which parent. The Court also determines how to weigh each factor. For instance, the sex of the child while considered, will likely not count as much as the continuity of care for the child. The paramount consideration is “the best interests of the child.”

A court determines that by looking at the following factors:

1. Age of the child.

2. Health of the child.

3. Sex of the child.

4. Continuity of care prior to the separation.

5. Which parent has the better parenting skills and the willingness and capacity to provide primary child care.

6. The employment of the parent and the responsibilities of that employment.

7. Physical and mental health and age of the parents.

8. Emotional ties of parent and child.

9. Moral fitness of the parents.

10. The home, community and school record of the child.

11. The preference of the child at the age sufficient to express a preference by law. (Must be at least 12, and it’s ONLY a preference)

12. Stability of home environment and employment of each parent.

13. Other factors relevant to the parent-child relationship.

For additional information please click Dads Have Rights Too!

**Note, marital fault should not be used as a sanction in custody awards. Relative financial situations should not control since the duty to support is independent of the right to custody. Differences in religion, personal values and lifestyles should not be the sole basis for custody decisions.

Matthew Thompson is a Child Custody attorney in Mississippi and will fight for your custody and visitation rights.

Child Custody, Opinion, Visitation

Pearl Youth Court Update: Still Closed, Help Available…

11/06/2017 BowTieLawyer Leave a comment

In what has been the talk of Family Law Town, the Pearl Youth Court was shuttered last week. It has been permanently closed. In the last week more light has been shined on systemic issues within Pearl Youth Court.

The Judge that resigned, John Shirley, issued a statement on November 1, 2017, alleging political games between the City of Pearl Mayor, Jake Windham, and County Court Judge (and Rankin Youth Court Judge) Tom Broome, both conspiring to oust him. The mayor did so due to “political favors” and budget issues and the other Judge to get his case numbers up for additional grant money, according to Shirley. It is quite the read.

The new allegations include similar conduct alleged in the first instance, that is the Judge preventing a parent from having contact with their child due to unpaid fees. The allegations say this went on for well over a year.

Anyone with a Pearl Youth Court case can email Rankin County Youth Court at youthcourt@rankincounty.org or call at 601-824-2545 for a review of their case.

Matthew Thompson is a Youth Court attorney in Mississippi and can assist you in navigating Youth Court proceedings.

Child Custody, Divorce

Happy Halloween!

Image 10/31/2017 BowTieLawyer Leave a comment

Halloween is the #1 overlooked “holiday” in divorce agreements.

Don’t overlook Halloween.

Matthew Thompson is a child custody attorney in Mississippi and wishes you and yours a special and memorable Halloween.

Child Custody, Divorce, Opinion

Do Not Answer a Question with “Sure.”

10/27/2017 BowTieLawyer Leave a comment

Testifying in Court can be hard. It causes stress, anxiety, and it is seldom a great experience. However, some responses should be eliminated from your vocabulary.

(adjective) surer, surest.

1. free from doubt as to the reliability, character, action, etc., of something:

to be sure of one’s data.

2. confident, as of something expected:

sure of success.

3. convinced, fully persuaded, or positive:

to be sure of a person’s guilt.

(Slang definitions & phrases for sure)

Yes; certainly: Sure, I’ll support you (1842+)

While a slang use for sure could mean yes, it does not sound like it in Court.

NOT GOOD

Q: Mr. Witness, don’t you agree that telling your child that the other parent is a deceitful, hateful train-wreck is inappropriate.

A: Sure.

It sounds dismissive. It could be treated as a “whatever” response. You do not want to create an impression with the Court that you do not take the matter seriously.

BETTER

Q: Mr. Witness, don’t you agree that telling your child that the other parent is a deceitful, hateful train-wreck is inappropriate.

A: Yes, I did. It was wrong. I regret it. I will not discuss grown up things with the child again. I’m sorry for that.

This response is not dismissive. It answers the question. It demonstrates remorse and that the conduct will not repeat itself.

BEST*

Q: Mr. Witness, don’t you agree that telling your child that the other parent is a deceitful, hateful train-wreck is inappropriate.

A: Yes, I agree that would be inappropriate, but I never did that, nor would I.

This response is the best. It answers the question directly and advises the Court you did not do the conduct being complained of. (This response is only possible if it is the truth.*)

Of course you can say the word sure and use it in other responses, but it should likely not be a one-word response.

Matthew Thompson is a Family Law attorney in Mississippi and is sure that you should not answer a question with “sure” most of the time.

Child Custody, Child Support, Opinion, Visitation

Judge gets Benched!

10/26/2017 BowTieLawyer 1 Comment

Pearl Youth Court is closed for business.

The City of Pearl’s Youth Court judge, John Shirley, has resigned and Pearl’s Youth Court has been permanently closed. The abrupt closure comes after a complaint was lodged accusing the judge of entering a No Contact Order against a mother from contacting her 4-month-old child until she paid court-imposed fines and this continued for a period of 14-months.

According to The Clarion Ledger, an order was entered on Wednesday, October 25, 2017, reversing Judge Shirley’s earlier decision and returning the child to the moth

“Judge Shirley said Thursday he couldn’t specifically discuss the woman’s case, but said, whenever he issued a no-contact order, it was due to abuse or neglect of a child that hadn’t been corrected. Also, Shirley said he resigned his Pearl Youth Court judge position because of dispute with the city’s mayor.” Id.

” ‘I didn’t resign because of any pressure,’ ” Shirley said. ” ‘I resigned because I got tired of the policies in that administration.’ “

Judge Shirley was no stranger to criticism, though that is not too uncommon for Judges that rule on matters involving Family Law and Custody. While his resignation was abrupt and the closure of the Youth Court a surprise, to many it was a welcome surprise.

The Rankin County Youth Court in Pelahatchie is hearing the Pearl Youth Court matters that are pending.

Matthew Thompson is a family law and child custody attorney in Mississippi and previously practiced in Pearl Youth Court.

Child Custody, Divorce, General Legal, Opinion

Don’t Put this on FaceBook…

10/10/2017 BowTieLawyer 1 Comment

FaceBook can be used for comparing yourself to others and investigating persons you just met. It can also be used to brag on yourself, your child’s latest, cutest thing and driving up “hits” on your blog. However, it is NOT to air your DIVORCE DRAMA!

“81 percent of divorce attorneys surveyed by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers said they’d seen an increase in the number of cases using social networking evidence in the five years prior. The attorneys said Facebook was the number one source for finding online evidence, with 66 percent admitting they’d found evidence by combing the site.”

What are some of the things NOT to post on FaceBook?

Don’t put the sordid details of your case.
Don’t take cheap shots at the other’s parenting ability.
Don’t post inappropriate pictures of yourself or others.
Don’t call out the Judge or Court system on your page.
Don’t put out false information to garner sympathy.

Matthew Thompson is a Family Law Attorney in Mississippi and recommends you not post your business on FaceBook.

Child Custody, Divorce, General Legal

The WISDOM of Solomon; NOT splitting the baby.

09/19/2017 BowTieLawyer Leave a comment

“Splitting the Baby” is a phrase that is tossed around everyday. Its use refers to making decisions that leave both parties unhappy.

I have even heard a Judge say that if both parties leave unhappy then they must have gotten the result right. There may be some instances where this holds true, however there was no splitting of the baby in the Biblical account of Solomon’s decision. King Solomon’s decision was between two competing mothers embroiled in a custody dispute over a child, each claiming the child to be their own. 1 Kings 3:16 KJV

In the Biblical Custody Battle, King Solomon was faced with one infant and two mothers. Solomon did not know which woman was the child’s real mother, so he arranged a test to see if he could determine the true mother. In Solomon’s case, the real mother was willing to let the other woman have her child in order to spare the child’s life, while the other woman (whose own baby previously died) agreed with King Solomon that the baby should be cut in half, with each woman receiving a portion. The real mother in King Solomon’s court was willing to make the ultimate sacrifice of giving the child up, so that the child would survive. The Holy Bible, King James Version, 1 Kings 3:16.

Splitting the baby may be a solution if it’s not an actual baby. However, the true wisdom of Solomon was that he did NOT split the baby.

Matthew Thompson is a Child Custody attorney in Mississippi and has quoted the Bible as authority in legal arguments.

Child Custody, Divorce

Child Testimony and You

09/08/2017 BowTieLawyer 1 Comment

Whether to use child testimony is a difficult issue to resolve between parents and attorneys involved in child custody cases. Children know more than you think and also may have an opinion. However, child testimony is discouraged in most instances…

“We reiterate that parents in a divorce proceeding should if at all possible refrain from calling any of the children of their marriage, of tender years at least, as witnesses, and counsel should advise their clients against doing so except in the most exigent cases.”- Jethrow v. Jethrow

So, do the children testify or not? For Family Law cases the leading authority is Jethrow vs. Jethrow, 571 So.2d 270 (Miss. 1990). This case lays the groundwork that the Court should use when assessing child testimony. Different Courts and different Judges apply Jethrow in varying ways, but the basic premise is, as follows;

A child witnesses of tender years, 12 and under for testimony purposes, testifying is subject to the discretion of the Judge.
Before allowing such testimony the Judge “should satisfy himself that the child has the ability to perceive and remember events, to understand and answer questions intelligently, and to comprehend and accept the importance of truthfulness.”

Before excluding the testimony of a child witness of tender years in a divorce proceeding, the chancellor at a minimum should follow the procedure required by Crownover v. Crownover, 33 Ill.App.3rd 327, 337 N.E.2d 56 (1975):

The first hurdle is whether the child is competent to testify.
The Judge should confer in camera (meaning in the Judge’s chambers/office) with the child and determine whether or not the child’s testimony should be heard
The Judge has considerable discretion in conducting proceedings of this type, meaning it’s the judge’s decision.
The court should not, however, reject outright proposed testimony of a child in custody proceedings, where the omission of such crucial testimony might be harmful to the child’s best interests.
The trial court should take great pains to have an in camera conference with the child to determine the competency of the child,
as well as the competency of any evidence which the child might present.
The court should also then determine whether the best interests of the child would be served by permitting her to testify, or
Whether the child should be sheltered from testifying and being subjected to a vigorous cross-examination.
The Judge should report the essential material matters developed at the in camera conference on the record.
The Court should state the reasons for allowing or disallowing the testimony of the child, and
The Court should note the factual information which the court developed from the conference with the child which would be considered by the court in its ultimate determinations in the case.