Presidents’ Day, officially Washington’s Birthday at the federal governmental level, is a holiday in the United States celebrated on the third Monday of February. It is often celebrated to honor all those who served as presidents of the United States and, since 1879, has been the federal holiday honoring Founding FatherGeorge Washington, the first U.S. president, from 1789 to 1797. – Wikipedia.
Some Fun Presidential family law facts, include:
America has only had two divorced presidents, while two widower presidents moved on to second wives while in office. And one president never got married at all.
Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump were the two presidents who divorced prior to taking office.
John Tyler and Woodrow Wilson both lost their wives during their presidency, and remarried during their term, respectively.
John Tyler had 15 children, the most of any other US president. He had eight children with his first wife, Letitia Christian Tyler, and seven with his second wife, Julia Gardiner Tyler.
James Buchanan was unmarried at the time he was in office.
Matthew Thompson is a family law attorney in Mississippi, wishing you a Happy President’s Day!
The irony is it’s only triggered when a court awards “paramount” custody to one parent over the other. “Paramount” custody does not legally exist, not in Mississippi Statutory Code.
Paramount is not a commonly used term in custody agreements and does not appear often in reported or appealed cases.
I know a judge who will ignore this law completely as he does not award “paramount” physical custody.
I get the intent of the law, but execution will be misapplied, not applied or create unintended consequences…as words matter in the law.
(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
House Bill 1304 seeks to amend section 93-5-24 to allow JOINT CUSTODY to be awarded in any type of divorce, requires the court to make written findings on the record regarding its custody decision, and order parenting time that favors both parents equally.
I say weird because, #1 the court already makes written findings in contested custody matters, #2 if its agreed/settled there’s no need for written findings, #3 if the court finds one parent is the better parent and therefore better for the children this law still requires equal time… what’s the point in the custody determination? #4 The statute states if a parent is awarded “paramount” physical custody. There is no “paramount” physical custody under our law.
Perhaps, this is a misunderstanding or intentional, I am unsure…
Below is the specific language.
(2) Joint custody may be awarded where irreconcilable differences or any other ground is the ground for divorce * * *.
(3) * * * After a trial on the merits where custody is in dispute, the court shall make a finding on the record, if the court awards either parent paramount physical custody over the other parent, the court shall order a parenting time schedule that favors both parents equally subject to the best interests of the child.
My prediction? This BILL is DOA. Dead on Arrival.
Matthew Thompson is a child custody lawyer and handles matters regarding physical custody and perhaps even “paramount” physical custody…
Senator Bradford Blackmon introduced a bill, known as the “Contraception Begins at Erection Act.”
This proposal makes it a crime “for a person to discharge genetic materials without the intent to fertilize an embryo”
Penalties escalate from a first offense warranting a $1,000.00 fine to the third and subsequent offenses warranting a $10,000.00 fine, per (dis)charge.
The law excepts donations/sales to facilities for future fertilization and for discharges with the use of contraceptive measures…
Blackmon provided WLBT News a statement, “All across the country, especially here in Mississippi, the vast majority of bills relating to contraception and/or abortion focus on the woman’s role when men are fifty percent of the equation. This bill highlights that fact and brings the man’s role into the conversation. People can get up in arms and call it absurd but I can’t say that bothers me.”
Senate Bill 2319
AN ACT TO ENACT THE CONTRACEPTION BEGINS AT ERECTION ACT; TO DEFINE TERMS; TO PROVIDE THAT IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON TO DISCHARGE GENETIC MATERIAL WITHOUT THE INTENT TO FERTILIZE AN EMBRYO; TO PROVIDE FOR CRIMINAL PENALTIES; TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI:
SECTION 1. (1) This section shall be known and may be cited as the “Contraception Begins at Erection Act.”
(2) It shall be unlawful for a person to discharge genetic material without the intent to fertilize an embryo.
(3) Upon conviction of a violation of this section, a person shall be fined:
(a) One Thousand Dollars ($1000.00) for a first offense; (b) Five Thousand Dollars ($5000.00) for a second offense; and
(c) Ten Thousand Dollars (10,000.00) for a third or subsequent offense.
(4) This section shall not apply to the discharge of genetic material:
(a) Donated or sold to a facility for the purpose of future procedures to fertilize an embryo; and
(b) Discharged with the use of a contraceptive or contraceptive method intended to prevent fertilization of an embryo.
SECTION 2. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after July 1, 2025.
Clearly, this is not a serious bill and was done to generate discussion.
Matthew Thompson is a family law and civil litigation attorney in Mississippi and keeping an eye on the 2025 Legislative session.
There is proposed legislation to allow the Sheriff’s department to have the use of radar. It may come as a surprise that most Sheriff’s departments do not and are not allowed to use radar speed sensing devices.
The propsoed legislation seeks to AMEND SECTION 63-3-519, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO AUTHORIZE ANY COUNTY SHERIFF OR DEPUTY SHERIFF TO UTILIZE RADAR SPEED DETECTION EQUIPMENT UPON THE APPROVAL OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.
The Current law states;
63-3-519. It shall be unlawful for any person or peace officer or law enforcement agency, except the Mississippi Highway Safety Patrol, to purchase or use or allow to be used any type of radar speed detection equipment upon any public street, road or highway of this state. However, such equipment may be used:
(a) By municipal law enforcement officers within a municipality having a population of two thousand (2,000) or more according to the latest or a previous federal census upon the public streets of the municipality, but in no case where the latest federal census population for the municipality is less than one thousand five hundred (1,500) * * *.
(b) By any college or university campus police force within the confines of any campus wherein more than two thousand (2,000) students are enrolled * * *.
(c) By municipal law enforcement officers in any municipality having a population in excess of fifteen thousand (15,000) according to the latest federal census on federally designated highways lying within the corporate limits
…
Proposed, new legislation includes:
(e) By any county sheriff or deputy sheriff upon the county roads of their respective county with board of supervisors approval. Such approval shall be voted on and approved by a majority vote, and the approval shall be spread upon the board minutes of the county.
…
SECTION 2. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after July 1, 2025.
Will this pass? Is this about public safety and protecting and serving? Is this necessary? Or, is this about generating revenue? Will it be abused if passed?
Matthew Thompson is a family law and civil litigation attorney in Mississippi and is keeping an eye on proposed legislation this session.
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 