modification hearing in Mississippi

2024Regardless of whether the order was temporary or final, the supreme court has held that when determining whether to modify child custody, “[a] chancellor must allow full and complete proof with respect to all circumstances and conditions directly or indirectly related to the care and custody of the children, existing at the time of the original divorce decree [or custody order] and at the time of the modification hearing.” Smith v. Todd, 464 So. 2d 1155, 1157 (Miss. 1985); see Powell v. Powell, 976 So. 2d 358, 363 (¶21) (Miss.

2021This court relied on Smith v. Todd, 464 So. 2d 1155, 1157 (Miss. 1985), where the Mississippi Supreme Court stated that [i]n considering modification of child custody, the chancellor must allow full and complete proof with respect to all circumstances and conditions directly or indirectly related to the care and custody of the children, existing at the time of the original divorce decree and at the time of the modification hearing. ¶46.

2003McGehee v. Upchurch, 733 So.2d 364, 369 (Miss.Ct.App.1999).

2002McGehee v. Upchurch, 733 So.2d 364, 369 (Miss.

2003Julie argues that while less factors weighed in her favor, these factors are "not the equivalent of a mathematical formula" and are "not an exact science." Lee v. Lee, 798 So.2d 1284, 1287 (Miss.2001). "[T]he chancellor must allow full and complete proof with respect to all circumstances and conditions directly or indirectly related to the care and custody of the children, existing at the time of the original divorce decree and at the time of the modification hearing." Smith v. Todd, 464 So.2d 1155, 1158 (Miss. 1985) (citing Marascalco, 445 So.2d at 1382 ).

2002Julie argues that while less factors weighed in her favor, these factors are “not the equivalent of a mathematical formula” and are “ not an exact science.” Lee v. Lee, 798 So.2d 1284, 1287 (Miss. 2001). “[T]he chancellor must allow full and complete proof with respect to all circumstances and conditions directly or indirectly related to the care and custody of the children, existing at the time of the original divorce decree and at the time of the modification hearing.” Smith v. Todd, 464 So.2d 1155, 1158 (Miss. 1985) (citing Marascalco, 445 So.2d at 1382 ).

2003Julie argues that while less factors weighed in her favor, these factors are "not the equivalent of a mathematical formula" and are "not an exact science." Lee v. Lee, 798 So.2d 1284, 1287 (Miss.2001). "[T]he chancellor must allow full and complete proof with respect to all circumstances and conditions directly or indirectly related to the care and custody of the children, existing at the time of the original divorce decree and at the time of the modification hearing." Smith v. Todd, 464 So.2d 1155, 1158 (Miss. 1985) (citing Marascalco, 445 So.2d at 1382 ).

2002Julie argues that while less factors weighed in her favor, these factors are “not the equivalent of a mathematical formula” and are “ not an exact science.” Lee v. Lee, 798 So.2d 1284, 1287 (Miss. 2001). “[T]he chancellor must allow full and complete proof with respect to all circumstances and conditions directly or indirectly related to the care and custody of the children, existing at the time of the original divorce decree and at the time of the modification hearing.” Smith v. Todd, 464 So.2d 1155, 1158 (Miss. 1985) (citing Marascalco, 445 So.2d at 1382 ).

2024Waller v. Waller, 754 So. 2d 1181, 1184 (¶¶14-16) (Miss. 2000) (finding that res judicata did not apply to an order concerning child custody that made no determination “as to the best interest of the child in deciding custody . . . but simply restated the status quo”).

2024Regardless of whether the order was temporary or final, the supreme court has held that when determining whether to modify child custody, “[a] chancellor must allow full and complete proof with respect to all circumstances and conditions directly or indirectly related to the care and custody of the children, existing at the time of the original divorce decree [or custody order] and at the time of the modification hearing.” Smith v. Todd, 464 So. 2d 1155, 1157 (Miss. 1985); see Powell v. Powell, 976 So. 2d 358, 363 (¶21) (Miss.

2018By the time of the modification hearing, all four children were one year older. 2 Albright v. Albright, 437 So. 2d 1003, 1005 (Miss. 1983). 2 on February 3, 2017.

2018Albright v. Albright , 437 So.2d 1003 , 1005 (Miss. 1983).

2014The Mississippi Supreme Court adopted the Daubert 1 standard and the modification of the rule in Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 , 119 S.Ct. 1167 , 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999) 2 in Mississippi Transportation Commission v. McLemore, 863 So.2d 31, 35 (¶ 5) (Miss.2003).

2014See Steiner, 788 So.2d at 776 (¶ 16). ¶ 25.

2014Tunica Cnty. v. Matthews, 926 So.2d 209, 213 (¶ 6) (Miss.2006). ¶ 10.

2013See Allgood v. Allgood, 473 So.2d 416, 423 (Miss.1985) (citations omitted) (“As a prerequisite to obtaining review in this Court, it is incumbent upon a litigant that he not only plead but press his point in the trial court.”).

2011The tender-years doctrine has traditionally provided that if a “child is of such tender age as to require the mother’s care for his or her physical welfare, he or she should be awarded to the mother’s custody....” Montgomery v. Montgomery, 20 So.3d 39, 44 (¶ 22) (Miss.Ct.App.2009) (quoting Gilliland v. Gilliland, 969 So.2d 56, 66 (¶ 32) (Miss.Ct.App.2007)).

2011The tender-years doctrine has traditionally provided that if a “child is of such tender age as to require the mother’s care for his or her physical welfare, he or she should be awarded to the mother’s custody....” Montgomery v. Montgomery, 20 So.3d 39, 44 (¶ 22) (Miss.Ct.App.2009) (quoting Gilliland v. Gilliland, 969 So.2d 56, 66 (¶ 32) (Miss.Ct.App.2007)).

2011Indeed, a "chancellor must allow full and complete proof with respect to all circumstances and conditions directly or indirectly related to the care and custody of the children, existing at the time of the original divorce decree and at the time of the modification hearing." Johnson, 859 So.2d at 1013 (¶ 34) (quoting Smith v. Todd, 464 So.2d 1155, 1158 (Miss. 1985)). ¶ 45.

2011Indeed, a “chancellor must allow full and complete proof with respect to all circumstances and conditions directly or indirectly related to the care and custody of the children, existing at the time of the original divorce decree and at the time of the modification hearing.” Johnson, 859 So.2d at 1018 (¶ 34) (quoting Smith v. Todd, 464 So.2d 1155, 1158 (Miss.1985)). ¶ 45.

2008The Mississippi Supreme Court has held that "[a] divorce agreement is `no different from any other contract, and the mere fact that it is between a divorcing husband and wife, and incorporated in a divorce decree, does not change its character.'" Ivison v. Ivison, 762 So.2d 329, 334 (¶ 14) (Miss.2000) (quoting East v. East, 493 So.2d 927, 931-32 (Miss.1986)).

2008The Mississippi Supreme Court has held that "[a] divorce agreement is `no different from any other contract, and the mere fact that it is between a divorcing husband and wife, and incorporated in a divorce decree, does not change its character.'" Ivison v. Ivison, 762 So.2d 329, 334 (¶ 14) (Miss.2000) (quoting East v. East, 493 So.2d 927, 931-32 (Miss.1986)).

2006In Fletcher v. Shaw, 800 So.2d 1212, 1215 (¶ 8) (Miss.Ct.App.2001), this Court held that where parties enter a court approved custody agreement, the modification standard applies to subsequent custody disputes.

2006Id. at 1215 (¶ 8). ¶ 51.

2005Sanford v. Arinder , 800 So.2d 1267 , 1272 (¶ 16) (Miss.Ct.App. 2001).

2005Sanford v. Arinder, 800 So.2d 1267, 1272 (¶ 16) (Miss.Ct.

2000Saddler v. Saddler, 556 So.2d 344, 345-46 (Miss.1990).