Mississippi Courts have not historically favored Joint Custody. A new Bill would require a presumption of Joint Custody is best for a child, that would have to be overcome if a parent doesn’t agree…
Senate Bill 2484 seeks to amend the current custody statute 93-5-24, as follows: “
(2) * * * (a) (i) There shall be a rebuttable presumption that joint custody and equally shared parenting time is in the best interest of the child. If the court does not grant joint custody and/or equally shared parenting time, the court shall construct a parenting time schedule which maximizes the time each parent has with the child and ensures the best interest of the child is met. (ii) The presumption created in subparagraph (i) of this paragraph shall be rebuttable by a preponderance of the evidence. A court that does not award joint custody with equally shared parenting time shall document the reasons for deviating from the presumption. (b) Upon petition of both parents, the court may grant legal and/or physical custody to one (1) parent.”
This is an interesting Bill and in theory how Custody determinations should begin anyway. However, it goes further than current law in creating a rebuttable presumption and then requiring documenting the reasons for deviating from the presumption if the court does not grant joint physical custody and/or equally shared parenting time.
Matthew Thompson is a child custody lawyer and believes mom and dad coparenting and working together is what’s best for the child. A set schedule based on the child, with flexibility when warranted is what is best…
(a) A person commits an offense if the person takes or retains a child younger than 18 years of age:
(1) when the person knows that the person’s taking or retention violates the express terms of a judgment or order, including a temporary order, of a court disposing of the child’s custody;
(2) when the person has not been awarded custody of the child by a court of competent jurisdiction, knows that a suit for divorce or a civil suit or application for habeas corpus to dispose of the child’s custody has been filed, and takes the child out of the geographic area…without the permission of the court and with the intent to deprive the court of authority over the child; or
(3) outside of the United States with the intent to deprive a person entitled to possession of or access to the child of that possession or access and without the permission of that person.
(b) A noncustodial parent commits an offense if, with the intent to interfere with the lawful custody of a child younger than 18 years, the noncustodial parent knowingly entices or persuades the child to leave the custody of the custodial parent, guardian, or person standing in the stead of the custodial parent or guardian of the child.
(c) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(2) that the actor returned the child to the geographic area…within three days after the date of the commission of the offense.
(c-1) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(3) that:
(1) the taking or retention of the child was pursuant to a valid order providing for possession of or access to the child; or
(2) notwithstanding any violation of a valid order providing for possession of or access to the child, the actor’s retention of the child was due only to circumstances beyond the actor’s control and the actor promptly provided notice or made reasonable attempts to provide notice of those circumstances to the other person entitled to possession of or access to the child.
(c-2) Subsection (a)(3) does not apply if, at the time of the offense, the person taking or retaining the child:
(1) was entitled to possession of or access to the child; and
(2) was fleeing the commission or attempted commission of family violence, as defined by Section 71.004, Family Code, against the child or the person.
(d) An offense under this section is a state jail felony…
What are the penalties for interference with child custody? Up to two years in jail, A fine of up to $10,000, and Loss of custody.
There’s scuttlebutt that MS may consider a parental interference law as a crime in future sessions.
Right now the only real recourse is a contempt action in Chancery court in Mississippi. contempt doesn’t have the same “teeth” that a criminal offense would.
Matthew Thompson is a child custody lawyer in Mississippi and supports custody law changes that protect parents rights and common sense.
Believe it or not, there are not many Mississippi Legislators that are lawyers!
Saturday Night Live compared the Mississippi Legislature to a hissing possum. It was funny…
“Whew!” you say? Not so fast. Our legislators make the laws. This may be the one instance more lawyers could help!!
There is proposed legislation with terminology, words, that do not mean what you (and our legislators) think they mean. Words matter. Legal words matter.
There’s a marked difference between May and Shall in the eyes of the law.
So, legislators, Please contact me at any time about any questions regarding proposed legislation. If i have an opinion I will share it. If I am unqualified to comment I will admit it, and if you ask that our discussion remain confidential I will honor that.
Let’s get this right the first time. Its too important to not to.
Matthew Thompson is a 20-year practicing lawyer, law school professor, author of the family law text book in Mississippi and not afraid to speak out and speak up. Contact him via email or phone. Matthew@ThompsonLaw.ms or (601)850-8000
At least 2 bills are pending to sort of make Mississippi Divorce Law make common sense…
Senate Bill 2018, Brice Wiggins seeks to make 2 tweaks to family law.
Eliminate the willful and obstinate requirements of Desertion/Abandonment. Current law requires; a spouse’s “wilful, continued and obstinate desertion” for a period of a year is grounds for a divorce. Miss Code Ann. § 93-5-1 (2004).
The New proposed law states, Fourth. * * * Continued * * * desertion for the space of one year.
and adds a 13th ground
Thirteenth. Upon application of either party, the court may grant a divorce when the court finds there has been an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage and that further attempts at reconciliation are impractical or futile and not in the best interests of the parties or family.
an Identical House Bill also includes the above revisions. HB0496 sponsored by Representative Denton.
Why is this common sense, sort of? 48 other states have true, no fault divorce statutes. Mississippi does not. You can read why that matters here, here and here…
Why is it common sense? The law and legislature cannot make someone be a spouse or partner regardless of the status of the marriage.
Mississippi has proposed these common sense changes every year since I have been paying attention. It ain’t happened yet….
Matthew is a family law and divorce attorney in Mississippi and is in favor of some common sense changes in the law.
A child testifying is an often discussed issue between parents and attorneys in child custody cases.
When parents are getting a divorce the child usually knows more than their parents think. The child most likely witnessed fights, bad conduct and sometimes even dangerous conduct.
In Mississippi law, 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. 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. (*this tender years is different than the “tender years” doctrine favoring a mother when a child is very young, under 2-3).
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 a judgment call.
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,
and determine the competency of any evidence which the child might present.
The court should 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.
Generally, the testimony of a child called as a witness in a divorce case should not be excluded for reasons other than competency, or evidentiary defects, or for the protection of the child. (24 Am.Jur.2d, Divorce and Separation, A 415). There should not be a summary refusal to inquire as to the competency of the child to testify and also of the competency of the proposed testimony of such child in a change of custody proceeding.
“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. The reason and wisdom behind this precaution need no amplification. We also hold, however, as we must that no parent can be precluded from having a child of the marriage in a divorce proceeding testify simply because of that fact.”Jethrow v. Jethrow, 571 So.2d 270, 274 (Miss. 1990)(emphasis added).
A child testifying should be avoided, however if it cannot be avoided the above process will likely be used by the Court to determine if and how the child will testify.
Matthew Thompson is a Child Custody Litigation Attorney in Mississippi.
CAUTION: Your speakers may burst…and you’ll have a smile on your face.
MRA Softball won in a do or die situation Thursday night at a standing room only crowd at their home campus of Madison Ridgeland Academy.
The Patriots, who have been every thing from the Bad News Bears to the New York Yankees (this season and this game!), shocked Hartfield Academy and silenced their crowd with a stunning come-from-behind victory.
The win by MRA forces a game 3, in the best-of-three series, for the 6A MAIS State Championship!
We all run into problems from time to time and sometimes we are even responsible for those problems…
But, one great practice tip is to not make those problems bigger.
If you are doing the WRONG thing, stop! If you are making bad decisions, make better decisions. If your judgment is compromised, acknowledge it and choose better.
Doubling down on the bad and wrong decisions is not a good path forward.
Also, your decisions may be hurting other people. Think about that. A problem you created or you contributed to may hurt someone else. It may hurt an innocent, unintended person.
(601) 850-8000 - - BowTieLawyer.MS 