Albright factors in Mississippi

2026Because this case involved a temporary-custody order, an Albright analysis, see Albright v. Albright, 437 So. 2d 1003, 1005 (Miss. 1983), was not required.

2026Because this case involved a temporary-custody order, an Albright analysis, see Albright v. Albright, 437 So. 2d 1003, 1005 (Miss. 1983), was not required.

2026“In order to determine whether or not the chancellor was manifestly wrong, clearly erroneous or abused his discretion in applying the Albright factors, we review the evidence and testimony presented at trial under each factor to ensure his ruling was supported by [the] record.” Hollon v. Hollon, 784 So. 2d 943, 947 (¶13) (Miss. 2001).

2026“In order to determine whether or not the chancellor was manifestly wrong, clearly erroneous or abused his discretion in applying the Albright factors, we review the evidence and testimony presented at trial under each factor to ensure his ruling was supported by [the] record.” Hollon v. Hollon, 784 So. 2d 943, 947 (¶13) (Miss. 2001).

2024Citing Lee, 798 So. 2d at 1288 (¶15), the chancellor also specifically observed that “[t]he Albright factors are not to be applied in the manner of a score sheet or mathematical 7 See Albright, 437 So. 2d at 1005 (“We reaffirm the rule that the polestar consideration in child custody cases is the best interest and welfare of the child.”). 17 formula”; rather, “[t]he [c]hancellor may give special weight to one, two or several factors to determine the outcome.

2024An Albright analysis is not a “mathematical formula.” Polk, 332 So. 3d at 353 (¶15) (citing Lee v. Lee, 798 So. 2d 1284, 1288 (¶15) (Miss. 2001)).

2025When analyzing the best interest of the child for the purposes of custody modification, the chancellor must make “on-the-record findings for each of the Albright factors.” Anderson, 961 So. 2d at 58 (¶6) (citing Sturgis v. Sturgis, 792 So. 2d 1020, 1025 (¶21) (Miss.

2025When analyzing the best interest of the child for the purposes of custody modification, the chancellor must make “on-the-record findings for each of the Albright factors.” Anderson, 961 So. 2d at 58 (¶6) (citing Sturgis v. Sturgis, 792 So. 2d 1020, 1025 (¶21) (Miss.

2022The supreme court has held that it is the chancellor’s duty to “determine the credibility and weight of [the] evidence.” 4 We recognize that in Rawson, 609 So. 2d at 430 , the supreme court clarified that even if a defendant fails to file an answer, he is still allowed to “present[] proof rebutting the plaintiff’s proof.” However, in this case, Jason never attempted to offer any rebuttal evidence or proof to Becky’s assertion that she only engaged in one extramarital affair. 16 Powell v. Ayars, 792 So. 2d 240, 243 (¶6) (Miss. 2001). “[W]e are not aware of any requirement that the chancellor mu

2022The supreme court has held that it is the chancellor’s duty to “determine the credibility and weight of [the] evidence.” 4 We recognize that in Rawson, 609 So. 2d at 430 , the supreme court clarified that even if a defendant fails to file an answer, he is still allowed to “present[] proof rebutting the plaintiff’s proof.” However, in this case, Jason never attempted to offer any rebuttal evidence or proof to Becky’s assertion that she only engaged in one extramarital affair. 16 Powell v. Ayars, 792 So. 2d 240, 243 (¶6) (Miss. 2001). “[W]e are not aware of any requirement that the chancellor mu

2026When reviewing a chancellor’s application of the Albright factors on appeal, “we review the evidence and testimony presented at trial under each factor to ensure [the chancellor’s] ruling was supported by the record.” Hall v. Hall, 134 So. 3d 822, 828 (¶21) (Miss.

2026When reviewing a chancellor’s application of the Albright factors on appeal, “we review the evidence and testimony presented at trial under each factor to ensure [the chancellor’s] ruling was supported by the record.” Hall v. Hall, 134 So. 3d 822, 828 (¶21) (Miss.

2025“In order to determine whether or not the chancellor was manifestly wrong [or] clearly erroneous[,] or abused [her] discretion in applying the Albright factors, we review the evidence and testimony presented at trial to ensure [her] ruling was supported by the record.” Id. (quoting Hollon v. Hollon, 784 So. 2d 943, 947 (¶13) (Miss. 2001)). ¶19.

2025“In order to determine whether or not the chancellor was manifestly wrong [or] clearly erroneous[,] or abused [her] discretion in applying the Albright factors, we review the evidence and testimony presented at trial to ensure [her] ruling was supported by the record.” Id. (quoting Hollon v. Hollon, 784 So. 2d 943, 947 (¶13) (Miss. 2001)). ¶19.

2014“A modification of custody is warranted in the event that the moving parent successfully shows that an application of the Albright factors reveals that there had been a material change in those circumstances which has an adverse effect on the child and modification of custody would be in the child’s best interest.” Johnson v. Gray, 859 So.2d 1006,1013 (¶ 33) (Miss.2003) (citing Sanford v. Arinder, 800 So.2d 1267, 1272 (Miss.Ct.App.2001)). 1.

2014“A modification of custody is warranted in the event that the moving parent successfully shows that an application of the Albright factors reveals that there had been a material change in those circumstances which has an adverse effect on the child and modification of custody would be in the child’s best interest.” Johnson v. Gray, 859 So.2d 1006,1013 (¶ 33) (Miss.2003) (citing Sanford v. Arinder, 800 So.2d 1267, 1272 (Miss.Ct.App.2001)). 1.

2015Similarly, in Hayes v. Rounds, 658 So.2d 863, 865 (Miss.1995), the supreme court reversed a chancellor’s judgment and remanded for specific findings regarding the applicable Albright factors where the chancellor explicitly acknowledged that the Albright factors applied to the case, but it was not clear whether the chancellor had properly applied them.

2015Similarly, in Hayes v. Rounds, 658 So.2d 863, 865 (Miss.1995), the supreme court reversed a chancellor’s judgment and remanded for specific findings regarding the applicable Albright factors where the chancellor explicitly acknowledged that the Albright factors applied to the case, but it was not clear whether the chancellor had properly applied them.

2024“Where the chancellor properly considers and applies the Albright factors, the appellate court cannot say the chancellor is manifestly wrong; such careful consideration and application by the chancellor precludes reversal on appeal.” Ballard v. Ballard, 289 So. 3d 725 , 732 (¶25) (Miss. 2019); accord Jerome v. Stroud, 689 So. 2d 755, 757 (Miss. 1997) (citing Smith v. Smith, 614 So. 2d 394, 397 (Miss. 1993)).

2024“Where the chancellor properly considers and applies the Albright factors, the appellate court cannot say the chancellor is manifestly wrong; such careful consideration and application by the chancellor precludes reversal on appeal.” Ballard v. Ballard, 289 So. 3d 725 , 732 (¶25) (Miss. 2019); accord Jerome v. Stroud, 689 So. 2d 755, 757 (Miss. 1997) (citing Smith v. Smith, 614 So. 2d 394, 397 (Miss. 1993)).

2023See White v. White, 26 So. 3d 342, 351 (¶28) (Miss. 2010) (“If the court finds an adverse material change, then the next step is to apply the Albright factors to determine whether modification is in the child’s best interest.”). ¶16.

2023See White v. White, 26 So. 3d 342, 351 (¶28) (Miss. 2010) (“If the court finds an adverse material change, then the next step is to apply the Albright factors to determine whether modification is in the child’s best interest.”). ¶16.

2016The Albright factors are as follows: (1) age, health, and sex of the child; (2) a determination of the parent who had the continuity of care prior to the separation; (3) which parent has the best parenting skills and which parent has the willingness and capacity to provide primary child care; (4) the employment of the parent and responsibilities of that employment; (5) the physical: and mental health and age of the parents; (6) the emotional ties of the parent and child; (7) the moral fitness of the parents; (8) the home, school, and community record of the child; (9) the preference of the chi

2016The Albright factors are as follows: (1) age, health, and sex of the child; (2) a determination of the parent who had the continuity of care prior to the separation; (3) which parent has the best parenting skills and which parent has the willingness and capacity to provide primary child care; (4) the employment of the parent and responsibilities of that employment; (5) the physical: and mental health and age of the parents; (6) the emotional ties of the parent and child; (7) the moral fitness of the parents; (8) the home, school, and community record of the child; (9) the preference of the chi

2022The Albright factors are intended to ensure that the chancellor follows a process that considers all facts relevant to the child’s best interest.” Vassar v. Vassar, 228 So. 3d 367, 375 (¶27) (Miss.

2022The Albright factors are intended to ensure that the chancellor follows a process that considers all facts relevant to the child’s best interest.” Vassar v. Vassar, 228 So. 3d 367, 375 (¶27) (Miss.

2024“Where the chancellor properly considers and applies the Albright factors, the appellate court cannot say the chancellor is manifestly wrong; such careful consideration and application by the chancellor precludes reversal on appeal.” Ballard v. Ballard, 289 So. 3d 725 , 732 (¶25) (Miss. 2019); accord Jerome v. Stroud, 689 So. 2d 755, 757 (Miss. 1997) (citing Smith v. Smith, 614 So. 2d 394, 397 (Miss. 1993)).

2024“Where the chancellor properly considers and applies the Albright factors, the appellate court cannot say the chancellor is manifestly wrong; such careful consideration and application by the chancellor precludes reversal on appeal.” Ballard v. Ballard, 289 So. 3d 725 , 732 (¶25) (Miss. 2019); accord Jerome v. Stroud, 689 So. 2d 755, 757 (Miss. 1997) (citing Smith v. Smith, 614 So. 2d 394, 397 (Miss. 1993)).

2019“If the court finds one of these factors has been proven, then the presumption vanishes, and the court must go further to determine custody based on the best interests of the child through an on-the- record analysis of the Albright factors.” Id. (footnote omitted) (citing In re Custody of M.A.G., 859 So. 2d 1001, 1004 (Miss. 2003)). ¶21.

2019“If the court finds one of these factors has been proven, then the presumption vanishes, and the court must go further to determine custody based on the best interests of the child through an on-the- record analysis of the Albright factors.” Id. (footnote omitted) (citing In re Custody of M.A.G., 859 So. 2d 1001, 1004 (Miss. 2003)). ¶21.

2024“The chancellor, by [his] presence in the courtroom, is best equipped to listen to witnesses, observe their demeanor, and determine the credibility of the witnesses and what weight ought to be ascribed to the evidence given by those witnesses.” Mabus v. Mabus, 890 So. 2d 806, 819 (¶56) (Miss. 2003) (citing Rogers v. Morin, 791 So. 2d 815, 826 (Miss. 2001)). “[T]he Albright factors exist to ensure the chancellor considers all the relevant facts before she reaches a decision.” Blakely v. Blakely, 88 So. 3d 798, 803 (¶17) (Miss.

2022In making an initial custody decision, the “chancellor[] must consider the [Albright] factors” and must make findings regarding “each of the Albright factors that is applicable to the case before her.” Blakely v. Blakely, 88 So. 3d 798, 803 (¶¶16-17) (Miss.

2021In affirming the chancellor’s decision, this Court also relied on the Mississippi Supreme Court’s decision in Sobieske v. Preslar, 755 So. 2d 410, 412 (¶4) (Miss. 2000), which affirmed a chancellor’s custody award even though he “did not expressly make any findings in his ruling as to the Albright factors.” Id. at (¶18); see also Torrence v. Moore, 455 So. 2d 778, 780 (Miss. 1984) (affirming a chancellor’s custody award even though the chancellor discussed only some of the Albright factors). 13 Specifically, the supreme court stated, “While it certainly would have been preferable for the [c]ha

2021In affirming the chancellor’s decision, this Court also relied on the Mississippi Supreme Court’s decision in Sobieske v. Preslar, 755 So. 2d 410, 412 (¶4) (Miss. 2000), which affirmed a chancellor’s custody award even though he “did not expressly make any findings in his ruling as to the Albright factors.” Id. at (¶18); see also Torrence v. Moore, 455 So. 2d 778, 780 (Miss. 1984) (affirming a chancellor’s custody award even though the chancellor discussed only some of the Albright factors). 13 Specifically, the supreme court stated, “While it certainly would have been preferable for the [c]ha

2019Following his determination that April had relinquished her right to the natural-parent presumption, the chancellor considered “whether an award of custody to [David] w[ould] serve the child’s best interests.” See Davis, 126 So. 3d at 37 (“If the natural-parent presumption is successfully rebutted, the court may then proceed to determine whether an award of custody to the challenging party will serve the child’s best interests.” (citing Smith, 97 So. 3d at 46 )); see also Leverock, 23 So. 3d at 431 (“If the court finds one of these factors 16 has been proven, then the presumption vanishes, and

2019Following his determination that April had relinquished her right to the natural-parent presumption, the chancellor considered “whether an award of custody to [David] w[ould] serve the child’s best interests.” See Davis, 126 So. 3d at 37 (“If the natural-parent presumption is successfully rebutted, the court may then proceed to determine whether an award of custody to the challenging party will serve the child’s best interests.” (citing Smith, 97 So. 3d at 46 )); see also Leverock, 23 So. 3d at 431 (“If the court finds one of these factors 16 has been proven, then the presumption vanishes, and

2019“If the court finds one of these factors has been proven, then the presumption vanishes, and the court must go further to determine custody based on the best interests of the child through an on-the- record analysis of the Albright factors.” Id. (footnote omitted) (citing In re Custody of M.A.G., 859 So. 2d 1001, 1004 (Miss. 2003)). ¶21.

2019“If the court finds one of these factors has been proven, then the presumption vanishes, and the court must go further to determine custody based on the best interests of the child through an on-the- record analysis of the Albright factors.” Id. (footnote omitted) (citing In re Custody of M.A.G., 859 So. 2d 1001, 1004 (Miss. 2003)). ¶21.

2025When analyzing the best interest of the child for the purposes of custody modification, the chancellor must make “on-the-record findings for each of the Albright factors.” Anderson, 961 So. 2d at 58 (¶6) (citing Sturgis v. Sturgis, 792 So. 2d 1020, 1025 (¶21) (Miss.

2025When analyzing the best interest of the child for the purposes of custody modification, the chancellor must make “on-the-record findings for each of the Albright factors.” Anderson, 961 So. 2d at 58 (¶6) (citing Sturgis v. Sturgis, 792 So. 2d 1020, 1025 (¶21) (Miss.

2014“However, where *242 the chancellor improperly considers and applies the Albright factors, an appellate court is obliged to find the chancellor in error.” Brekeen v. Brekeen, 880 So.2d 280, 283 (Miss.2004) (quoting Hollon v. Hollon, 784 So.2d 943, 946 (Miss.2001)).

2014“However, where *242 the chancellor improperly considers and applies the Albright factors, an appellate court is obliged to find the chancellor in error.” Brekeen v. Brekeen, 880 So.2d 280, 283 (Miss.2004) (quoting Hollon v. Hollon, 784 So.2d 943, 946 (Miss.2001)).

2010E.g., McRee v. McRee, 723 So.2d 1217, 1220 (¶ 11) (Miss.Ct.App.1998) (holding that upon a finding of a material change in circumstances, a court is to apply the Albright factors to determine which parent should have primary custody of a child). ¶ 43.

2010E.g., McRee v. McRee, 723 So.2d 1217, 1220 (¶ 11) (Miss.Ct.App.1998) (holding that upon a finding of a material change in circumstances, a court is to apply the Albright factors to determine which parent should have primary custody of a child). ¶ 43.

2022Indeed, the “[m]oral fitness of each parent is an important factor to consider.” Jerome v. Stroud, 689 So. 2d 755, 758 (Miss. 1997); see also Borden v. Borden, 167 So. 3d 238, 242 (¶6) (Miss. 2014) (stating that although “it is only one of the Albright factors,” “moral fitness is clearly an important factor”); Carr v. Carr, 480 So. 2d 1120, 1123 (Miss. 1985) (stating that although “moral fitness is but one factor to be considered,” “it is a factor worthy of weight in determining the best interest of the child”).

2022Indeed, the “[m]oral fitness of each parent is an important factor to consider.” Jerome v. Stroud, 689 So. 2d 755, 758 (Miss. 1997); see also Borden v. Borden, 167 So. 3d 238, 242 (¶6) (Miss. 2014) (stating that although “it is only one of the Albright factors,” “moral fitness is clearly an important factor”); Carr v. Carr, 480 So. 2d 1120, 1123 (Miss. 1985) (stating that although “moral fitness is but one factor to be considered,” “it is a factor worthy of weight in determining the best interest of the child”).

2010Generally, in an initial custody proceeding, the parties are “deemed on equal footing,” and custody is awarded based on the best interest of the child under the Albright factors. 4 See Brown v. Crum, 30 So.3d 1254, 1258 (¶¶ 11, 13) (Miss.Ct.App.2010) (quoting Law v. Page, 618 So.2d 96, 101 (Miss.1993)).

2010This Court has further held that “there is no law to support a different burden of proof for fathers of children born out of wedlock who delay in seeking custody[;][t]he law is that unless a prior custody determination has been made, custody is determined by the Albright factors.” Id. at 776 (¶ 8) (citing Law, 618 So.2d at 101 ; Romans v. *1230 Fulgham, 939 So.2d 849, 852 (¶ 4) (Miss.Ct.App.2006); C.W.L., 919 So.2d at 271 (¶ 10); S.B. v. L.W., 793 So.2d 656, 658 (¶ 7) (Miss.Ct.App.2001)). ¶ 11.

2025As noted just above, if the chancellor finds that there has been a material, adverse change in circumstances, “the chancellor must then perform an Albright analysis to determine whether modification of custody is in the child’s best interest.” Strait, 155 So. 3d at 203 (¶20).

2025As noted just above, if the chancellor finds that there has been a material, adverse change in circumstances, “the chancellor must then perform an Albright analysis to determine whether modification of custody is in the child’s best interest.” Strait, 155 So. 3d at 203 (¶20).

2012The Mississippi Supreme Court has acknowledged “[t]he Albright factors may ebb and flow yearly, quarterly, monthly or even less, but in the absence of a substantial adverse effect upon the child, physical custody changes are not only unwarranted, they are unwise.” Giannaris v. Giannaris, 960 So.2d 462, 468 (¶ 10) (Miss.2007).

2012Therefore, a non-custodial parent cannot simply request a chancellor reweigh “the Albright factors to see who now is better suited to have custody of the child.” Id. at 468 (¶ 10) (quoting Sanford v. Arinder, 800 So.2d 1267, 1272 (¶ 16) (Miss.Ct.App.2001)).

2025In modifying custody, the chancellor must identify “what the prior conditions were . . . and identify any changed circumstances with which to make a comparison,” and then the chancellor must articulate how that change “adversely affected the welfare of the child.” Thornell, 860 So. 2d at 1243 (¶¶7-8) (reversing and remanding custody modification ruling where chancellor “failed to first identify a specific change in circumstance that adversely affected the welfare of the child” prior to attempting an Albright analysis). ¶48.

2025In modifying custody, the chancellor must identify “what the prior conditions were . . . and identify any changed circumstances with which to make a comparison,” and then the chancellor must articulate how that change “adversely affected the welfare of the child.” Thornell, 860 So. 2d at 1243 (¶¶7-8) (reversing and remanding custody modification ruling where chancellor “failed to first identify a specific change in circumstance that adversely affected the welfare of the child” prior to attempting an Albright analysis). ¶48.

2024See Smith, 206 So. 3d at 512 (¶24) (explaining that the Albright analysis is not “premised solely on a scoring system ‘where findings on each factor are added’ and later compared to see which parent ‘wins’” (quoting O’Briant v. O’Briant, 99 So. 3d 802, 805-06 (¶16) (Miss.

2024See Smith, 206 So. 3d at 512 (¶24) (explaining that the Albright analysis is not “premised solely on a scoring system ‘where findings on each factor are added’ and later compared to see which parent ‘wins’” (quoting O’Briant v. O’Briant, 99 So. 3d 802, 805-06 (¶16) (Miss.

2008“A modification of custody is warranted in the event that the moving parent successfully shows that an application of the Albright factors reveals that there had been a material change in those circumstances which has an adverse effect on the child and modification of custody would be in the child's best interest.” Id. (citing Sanford v. Arinder, 800 So. 2d 1267, 1272 (Miss.

2008“A modification of custody is warranted in the event that the moving parent successfully shows that an application of the Albright factors reveals that there had been a material change in those circumstances which has an adverse effect on the child and modification of custody would be in the child's best interest.” Id. (citing Sanford v. Arinder, 800 So. 2d 1267, 1272 (Miss.