Senate Bill 2484, seeking to create a presumption of joint custody died yesterday, March 12.
This Bill which passed the Senate initially, then amended in the House, passed and sent back was ultimately not voted on and died a calendar death on 3/12/25.
It sought to require Joint Physical Custody and equal parenting time in every custody case unless the Court found a compelling reason to not grant shared parenting.
It necessarily would have put the every other weekend schedule as “standard” as outdated…
It also sought to amend child support determinations in the event joint custody was granted.
But, alas, it’s for naught. The scuttlebutt was there was an upswell of concerns about how far this proposal really went and that judges and even some family law attorneys had concerns.
Regardless, there will be no significant changes in family law this session…
Matthew Thompson is a child custody and child welfare attorney in Mississippi.
A new bill in Mississippi will require Joint Physical Custody & EQUAL Parenting TIME, unless the Court finds a compelling reason not too…
Senate Bill 2484 requires that, “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 grants joint custody and 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) To calculate child support for joint custody with equally shared parenting time, unless the court determines a deviation from this paragraph is in the best interest of the child, the court shall:
(i) Calculate a child-support award under the guidelines of Section 43-19-101 for each parent as if each parent was the obligor;
(ii) Calculate the difference in the two (2) awards by subtracting the lesser award from the larger award; and
(iii) Order the difference in the two (2) awards to be paid by the parent who has the higher adjusted gross income to the parent with the lower adjusted gross income.
(c) Upon petition of both parents, the court may grant legal and/or physical custody to one (1) parent without documenting a reason for deviation.
This is a potential monumental change in child custody law, primarily the requirement for equal parenting time. If signed into law this does away with the every other weekend visitation schedule…
Additionally, it drastically changes the child support landscape and can have “mom” paying “dad” dependent upon the math.
This made its way through the legislature with little fanfare and virtually zero input from practitioners and judges.
Matthew Thompson is child custody attorney and believes children do best with both parents as involved as possible.
Courts usually grant custody to one parent or the other and the non-custodial parent exercises his time at places and locations he sees fit…
However, sometimes the Court needs an unusual solution to an unusual problem.
Consider the Birds Nest custody arrangement.
In a birds nest, the children stay in the “nest” aka the marital home and mom and dad take turns coming and going from the home.
During mom’s time she has custody to the children and the home, to the exclusion of dad.
During dad’s time he has exclusive custody of the kids and home and mom is excluded.
This is a good solution when the child has a unique need and having that structure of home base is in their best interest.
It’s also a viable solution when use of the home is needed by a party for work as the “home office” or tools of the trade are kept on the property.
This is not an often used remedy as it requires potentially 3 temporary residences, but can be an effective tool in the tool belt of solutions in limited circumstances.
Matthew Thompson is a child custody attorney and recommends the birds nest in unique cases.
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.
Secondly, a Joint Custody bill was proposed. There were several iterations of this legislation, but the gist of it was that the Court was to assume that Joint Physical Custody was in the best interest of the child when parents could not agree (and, even if they could) and if the Court found Joint Physical Custody was not in the best interest of the child it had to state why. (There were some issues with the proposed legislation as it was drafted, but this Bill found some traction and was discussed and bandied about for weeks…ultimately to no avail).
(2) * * * (a) There shall be a presumption, rebuttable by a preponderance of evidence, 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 ensuring the best interest of the child is met. (b) Upon petition of both parents, the court may grant legal and/or physical custody to one parent.
Both bills failed and there are limited changes to MS Family Law. A blog for another day.
Matthew Thompson is a Family Law Attorney in MS and is in favor of some common sense changes in Mississippi Law.
A parent has a moral and legal duty to promote a healthy, affectionate relationship between the child and the other parent!
What? You justify your conduct by saying, “I am not bad-mouthing him.” But, just not bad-mouthing him is not enough. You have an affirmative duty to promote a good relationship. (With rare exceptions for the health and safety of the child.)
Encourage, promote and truly desire a good relationship between your child and the other parent. Your child will benefit!
Matthew Thompson is a Family Law & Divorce Attorney and reminds you that a child with two parents that get along and are involved is better than the alternative.
I hear this often,”…but I have Joint Custody!” However, the Court Order determines what you have.
There are 2 types of Custody in Mississippi Law. Legal Custody and Physical Custody.
Legal Custody is the decision-making right regarding the child related to their health, education and general welfare. It requires the parents to keep the other reasonably informed of the child’s goings-on. It is commonly Joint Legal Custody, but this has no bearing on the schedule.
Physical Custody is where the child resides on a primary basis. Within Physical Custody there are typically 2 types. 1) One parent has Physical Custody subject to the other parent’s rights of visitation, or 2) Joint Physical Custody. Joint Physical Custody does not require it be a 50/50 time split, however it is defined as each parent spending a substantial amount of time with the child.
Joint Legal allows access to information and creates an obligation for consultation regarding issues concerning the child. Joint Physical is “Joint Custody.”
Matthew Thompson is a Mississippi Child Custody attorney.
Follow the blog: BowTieLawyerYou may also contact Matthew with your family law case, question or concern at (601) 850-8000
With High School and College Football in full action it reminded me of some of the lighter, or at least non-traditional, custody battles that I have been involved in.
Season Football Tickets– I was involved in a case where the parties were arguing over who got the season football tickets.
The tickets were secured by one party who had been getting them for years, but were paid for by the other party, so both felt they had a legitimate claim. Additionally, both genuinely wanted the tickets. It was not posturing by the wife to get a better deal or more support. The solution was joint custody.
Each picked certain games that they would attend each year and on the games that both wanted to attend they agreed to alternate even years and odd years. Another interesting aside was that there were 2 tickets for each game. Who the guest would be was also an issue. Neither wanted the other to be able to take a bf/gf. The compromise was that the other ticket would be used by a family member or a minor friend of the children. (Minor meaning under 21, not just small). The custody of the tickets was one of the last issues to get resolved. It really did matter.
Dogs– In a similar vein, I have handled several cases involving pets. Pets, under Mississippi law are considered personal property (like an item or thing), however the parties are free to treat pets as members of the family should they so elect, and many do.
The parties ultimately agreed on a week-on, week-off custody arrangement for the dog to be with each “parent.” The agreement also addressed the expenses associated with the dog, including food, care and vet bills. Don’t forget those items!
Almost anything can be negotiated.
Matthew Thompson is a Family Law Attorney in Mississippi and reminds you not to forget about those season football tickets and pets in your divorce agreement.
Follow the blog: #BowTieLawyer Visit the website: #Thompson Law Firm You may also contact Matthew with your family law matter or question at (601) 850-8000 or Matthew@bowtielawyer.ms
With the Super Bowl imminent it reminded me of a case I was involved in where there was a serious custody battle. The fight was not over the children, nor the house or the retirement accounts. The fight was over SEC Season Football Tickets! (certainly worth fighting for)
The tickets were secured by one party who had been getting them for years, but were actually paid for by the other party. So, both felt they had a legitimate claim, additionally both genuinely wanted the tickets. It was not posturing by the wife to get a better deal or more support.
The solution? Joint custody.
Each picked certain games that they would attend each year and on the ones that both wanted to attend they agreed to alternate even years and odd years to determine who got to go. Another interesting aside was that there were 2 tickets for each game. Who the guest would be was also an issue, as they obviously would not both go at the same time! Neither wanted the other to be able to take a bf/gf. The compromise was that the other ticket would be used by a family member, or a minor friend of the children. (Minor meaning under 21, not just small). The custody of the season tickets was one of the last issues to get resolved. It really did matter.
Matthew Thompson is a family law attorney that will handle your custody case, whether it be over Children, the House, Accounts, SEC Season Football Tickets or the Dog! Trust the Bow Tie.
(601) 850-8000 - - BowTieLawyer.MS 