Mississippi Code

Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-24 (2026)

Types of custody awarded by court; joint custody; no presumption in favor of maternal custody; access to information pertaining to child by noncustodial parent; restrictions on custody by parent with history of perpetrating family violence; rebuttable presumption that such custody is not in the best interest of the child; factors in reaching determinations; visitation orders

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaMiss. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) Custody shall be awarded as follows according to the best interests of the child:
- (a) Physical and legal custody to both parents jointly pursuant to subsections (2) through (7).
- (b) Physical custody to both parents jointly pursuant to subsections (2) through (7) and legal custody to either parent.
- (c) Legal custody to both parents jointly pursuant to subsections (2) through (7) and physical custody to either parent.
- (d) Physical and legal custody to either parent.
- (e) Upon a finding by the court that both of the parents of the child have abandoned or deserted such child or that both such parents are mentally, morally or otherwise unfit to rear and train the child the court may award physical and legal custody to:
  - (i) The person in whose home the child has been living in a wholesome and stable environment; or
  - (ii) Physical and legal custody to any other person deemed by the court to be suitable and able to provide adequate and proper care and guidance for the child.
    In making an order for custody to either parent or to both parents jointly, the court, in its discretion, may require the parents to submit to the court a plan for the implementation of the custody order.

(2) Joint custody may be awarded where irreconcilable differences is the ground for divorce, in the discretion of the court, upon application of both parents.

(3) In other cases, joint custody may be awarded, in the discretion of the court, upon application of one or both parents.

(4) There shall be a presumption that joint custody is in the best interest of a minor child where both parents have agreed to an award of joint custody.

(5)
- (a) For the purposes of this section, "joint custody" means joint physical and legal custody.
- (b) For the purposes of this section, "physical custody" means those periods of time in which a child resides with or is under the care and supervision of one (1) of the parents.
- (c) For the purposes of this section, "joint physical custody" means that each of the parents shall have significant periods of physical custody. Joint physical custody shall be shared by the parents in such a way so as to assure a child of frequent and continuing contact with both parents.
- (d) For the purposes of this section, "legal custody" means the decision-making rights, the responsibilities and the authority relating to the health, education and welfare of a child.
- (e) For the purposes of this section, "joint legal custody" means that the parents or parties share the decision-making rights, the responsibilities and the authority relating to the health, education and welfare of a child. An award of joint legal custody obligates the parties to exchange information concerning the health, education and welfare of the minor child, and to confer with one another in the exercise of decision-making rights, responsibilities and authority.
  An award of joint physical and legal custody obligates the parties to exchange information concerning the health, education and welfare of the minor child, and unless allocated, apportioned or decreed, the parents or parties shall confer with one another in the exercise of decision-making rights, responsibilities and authority.

(6) Any order for joint custody may be modified or terminated upon the petition of both parents or upon the petition of one (1) parent showing that a material change in circumstances has occurred.

(7) There shall be no presumption that it is in the best interest of a child that a mother be awarded either legal or physical custody.

(8) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, access to records and information pertaining to a minor child, including, but not limited to, medical, dental and school records, shall not be denied to a parent because the parent is not the child's custodial parent.

(9)
- (a)
  - (i) In every proceeding where the custody of a child is in dispute, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that it is detrimental to the child and not in the best interest of the child to be placed in sole custody, joint legal custody or joint physical custody of a parent who has a history of perpetrating family violence. The court may find a history of perpetrating family violence if the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, one (1) incident of family violence that has resulted in serious bodily injury to, or a pattern of family violence against, the party making the allegation or a family household member of either party. The court shall make written findings to document how and why the presumption was or was not triggered.
  - (ii) This presumption may only be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence.
  - (iii) In determining whether the presumption set forth in subsection (9) has been overcome, the court shall consider all of the following factors:
    - 1. Whether the perpetrator of family violence has demonstrated that giving sole or joint physical or legal custody of a child to the perpetrator is in the best interest of the child because of the other parent's absence, mental illness, substance abuse or such other circumstances which affect the best interest of the child or children;
    - 2. Whether the perpetrator has successfully completed a batterer's treatment program;
    - 3. Whether the perpetrator has successfully completed a program of alcohol or drug abuse counseling if the court determines that counseling is appropriate;
    - 4. Whether the perpetrator has successfully completed a parenting class if the court determines the class to be appropriate;
    - 5. If the perpetrator is on probation or parole, whether he or she is restrained by a protective order granted after a hearing, and whether he or she has complied with its terms and conditions; and
    - 6. Whether the perpetrator of domestic violence has committed any further acts of domestic violence.
  - (iv) The court shall make written findings to document how and why the presumption was or was not rebutted.
- (b)
  - (i) If custody is awarded to a suitable third person, it shall not be until the natural grandparents of the child have been excluded and such person shall not allow access to a violent parent except as ordered by the court.
  - (ii) If the court finds that both parents have a history of perpetrating family violence, but the court finds that parental custody would be in the best interest of the child, custody may be awarded solely to the parent less likely to continue to perpetrate family violence. In such a case, the court may mandate completion of a treatment program by the custodial parent.
- (c) If the court finds that the allegations of domestic violence are completely unfounded, the chancery court shall order the alleging party to pay all court costs and reasonable attorney's fees incurred by the defending party in responding to such allegations.
- (d)
  - (i) A court may award visitation by a parent who committed domestic or family violence only if the court finds that adequate provision for the safety of the child and the parent who is a victim of domestic or family violence can be made.
  - (ii) In a visitation order, a court may take any of the following actions:
    - 1. Order an exchange of the child to occur in a protected setting;
    - 2. Order visitation supervised in a manner to be determined by the court;
    - 3. Order the perpetrator of domestic or family violence to attend and complete to the satisfaction of the court a program of intervention for perpetrators or other designated counseling as a condition of visitation;
    - 4. Order the perpetrator of domestic or family violence to abstain from possession or consumption of alcohol or controlled substances during the visitation and for twenty-four (24) hours preceding the visitation;
    - 5. Order the perpetrator of domestic or family violence to pay a fee to defray the cost of supervised visitation;
    - 6. Prohibit overnight visitation;
    - 7. Require a bond from the perpetrator of domestic or family violence for the return and safety of the child; or
    - 8. Impose any other condition that is deemed necessary to provide for the safety of the child, the victim of family or domestic violence, or other family or household member.
  - (iii) Whether or not visitation is allowed, the court may order the address of the child or the victim of family or domestic violence to be kept confidential.
- (e) The court may refer but shall not order an adult who is a victim of family or domestic violence to attend counseling relating to the victim's status or behavior as a victim, individually or with the perpetrator of domestic or family violence, as a condition of receiving custody of a child or as a condition of visitation.
- (f) If a court allows a family or household member to supervise visitation, the court shall establish conditions to be followed during visitation.

Laws, 1983, ch. 513, §§ 1, 2; Laws, 2000, ch. 453, § 1; Laws, 2003, ch. 475, § 1, eff. 7/1/2003.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 139 cases (21 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case: Lowrey v. Lowrey, 25 So. 3d 274 (Miss. 2009).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Lowrey v. Lowrey, 25 So. 3d 274 (Miss. 2009). · cites it 24× “” See Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-24 (5)(e) (Rev.2004).”

Crider v. Crider, 904 So. 2d 142 (Miss. 2005). · cites it 33× “For these reasons, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and affirm the trial court's judgment and finding that the chancellor may award joint *149 custody in an ID divorce, when the parties request the court to determine custody.”

Porter v. Porter, 23 So. 3d 438 (Miss. 2009). · cites it 32× “Miss.Code Ann. § 93-5-24 (Rev.2004). I would hold that the chancellor erred in granting a custody modification based on a material change in circumstances that had not yet occurred.”

Pearson v. Pearson, 11 So. 3d 178 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 36× “Mississippi Code Annotated section 93-5-24(2), (3), (4) and (6) (Rev.”

In Re Marriage of Leverock & Hamby, 23 So. 3d 424 (Miss. 2009). · cites it 14× “These sentiments are reflected in our custody statute, Section 93-5-24, which provides that: (1) Custody shall be awarded as follows according to the best interests of the child .”

Mabus v. Mabus, 847 So. 2d 815 (Miss. 2003). · cites it 8× “Miss.Code Ann. § 93-5-24 (Supp.2002) states in pertinent part: (1) Custody shall be awarded as follows according to the best interests of the child: (a) Physical and legal custody to both parents jointly pursuant to subsections 2 through 7.”

Monica Ashbrook Darby v. Harold Combs, 229 So. 3d 136 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 23× “See Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-24 (Rev. 2013). 3 .”

J.P. v. S.V.B., 987 So. 2d 975 (Miss. 2008). · cites it 26× “Miss.Code Ann. § 93-5-24(9) (Rev.2004). Since the chancellor determined that the Palmers failed to rebut this presumption, the chancellor granted custody of Rebecca to the Barrs.”

Phillips v. Phillips, 45 So. 3d 684 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 8× “Mississippi Code Annotated section 93-5-24(2) (Rev.2004) allows the award of joint custody in the case of an irreconcilable differences divorce, at the discretion of the chancellor, “upon application of both parents.”

Candice Rae Shurden Ballard v. Joe Marshall Ballard, 255 So. 3d 126 (Miss. 2017). · cites it 9× “Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-24 (9)(a)(I) (Rev.”

Gene Smiley v. Eunieca Smiley, 165 So. 3d 481 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 24× “The chancery court made further findings that in the event that *489 Gene had standing, he was precluded from any type of custody because the presumption set forth in section 93-5-24(9)(a) had been triggered, and Gene had not rebutted it.”

Lauren Roberts v. Tyler Eads, 235 So. 3d 1425 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 10× “2012), and Mississippi Code Annotated section 93-5-24(2) (Rev. 2Ó13). ¶ 23. In Easley, the chancellor granted the parties, an irreconcilable-differences divorce.”

Show all 139 citing cases →

— Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-24(1) — 7 cases

Crider v. Crider, 904 So. 2d 142 (Miss. 2005). “For these reasons, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and affirm the trial court's judgment and finding that the chancellor may award joint *149 custody in an ID divorce, when the parties request the court to determine custody.”

Porter v. Porter, 23 So. 3d 438 (Miss. 2009). “Miss.Code Ann. § 93-5-24 (Rev.2004). I would hold that the chancellor erred in granting a custody modification based on a material change in circumstances that had not yet occurred.”

Monica Ashbrook Darby v. Harold Combs, 229 So. 3d 136 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016). “See Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-24 (Rev. 2013). 3 .”

Collins v. Collins, 98 So. 3d 506 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012).

Kim Stewart v. Greg Stewart (Miss. Ct. App. 2020).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-24(1)(a) — 1 case

Rachel Driskell Porter Spivey v. Timothy Wade Porter (Miss. 2006).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-24(1)(c) — 3 cases

Mercier v. Mercier, 11 So. 3d 1283 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009).

Ashton Johnson v. Thomas Kyle Smith (Miss. Ct. App. 2021).

Rachel Driskell Porter Spivey v. Timothy Wade Porter (Miss. 2006).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-24(1)(e) — 3 cases

Monica Ashbrook Darby v. Harold Combs, 229 So. 3d 136 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016). “See Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-24 (Rev. 2013). 3 .”

Monica Ashbrook Darby v. Harold Combs, 229 So. 3d 108 (Miss. 2017).

Haley Summers v. Patrick Gros & Sherry Gros (Miss. 2021).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-24(1)(e)(I) — 1 case

Monica Ashbrook Darby v. Harold Combs, 229 So. 3d 136 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016). “See Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-24 (Rev. 2013). 3 .”

— Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-24(1)(e)(i) — 4 cases

In Re Marriage of Leverock & Hamby, 23 So. 3d 424 (Miss. 2009). “These sentiments are reflected in our custody statute, Section 93-5-24, which provides that: (1) Custody shall be awarded as follows according to the best interests of the child .”

Vaughn v. Davis, 36 So. 3d 1261 (Miss. 2010).

Steve Altom v. Harland Jones, 209 So. 3d 434 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016).

Monica Ashbrook Darby v. Harold Combs, 229 So. 3d 108 (Miss. 2017).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-24(2) — 19 cases

Phillips v. Phillips, 45 So. 3d 684 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010). “Mississippi Code Annotated section 93-5-24(2) (Rev.2004) allows the award of joint custody in the case of an irreconcilable differences divorce, at the discretion of the chancellor, “upon application of both parents.”

Lauren Roberts v. Tyler Eads, 235 So. 3d 1425 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017). “2012), and Mississippi Code Annotated section 93-5-24(2) (Rev. 2Ó13). ¶ 23. In Easley, the chancellor granted the parties, an irreconcilable-differences divorce.”

Lee v. Lee, 798 So. 2d 1284 (Miss. 2001).

Pearson v. Pearson, 11 So. 3d 178 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009). “Mississippi Code Annotated section 93-5-24(2), (3), (4) and (6) (Rev.”

— Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-24(2)(3) — 1 case

Ayers v. Ayers, 734 So. 2d 213 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-24(3) — 7 cases

Mabus v. Mabus, 890 So. 2d 806 (Miss. 2003).

Monica Ashbrook Darby v. Harold Combs, 229 So. 3d 136 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016). “See Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-24 (Rev. 2013). 3 .”

Elle Adams v. John Leon Rice, 196 So. 3d 1086 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016).

Ayers v. Ayers, 734 So. 2d 213 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-24(4) — 3 cases

Lowrey v. Lowrey, 25 So. 3d 274 (Miss. 2009). “” See Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-24 (5)(e) (Rev.2004).”

Wheat v. Koustovalas, 42 So. 3d 606 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010).

Clayton John Hickey v. Melissa Crenshaw Hickey, 166 So. 3d 43 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-24(5) — 6 cases

Watts v. Watts, 99 So. 3d 751 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012).

Monica Ashbrook Darby v. Harold Combs, 229 So. 3d 108 (Miss. 2017).

Keyes v. Keyes, 134 So. 3d 388 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-24(5)(b) — 1 case

Mercier v. Mercier, 11 So. 3d 1283 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-24(5)(c) — 8 cases

Rivero v. Rivero, 216 P.3d 213 (Nev. 2009).

Rush v. Rush, 932 So. 2d 794 (Miss. 2006).

Monica Ashbrook Darby v. Harold Combs, 229 So. 3d 108 (Miss. 2017).

Porter v. Porter, 23 So. 3d 470 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-24(5)(d) — 4 cases

Lowrey v. Lowrey, 25 So. 3d 274 (Miss. 2009). “” See Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-24 (5)(e) (Rev.2004).”

Riddick v. Riddick, 906 So. 2d 813 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004).

Dickson v. Dickson, 1997 ND 167 (N.D. 1997).

Dana M. Patrick v. Christopher L. Patrick (Miss. Ct. App. 2024).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-24(5)(e) — 15 cases

Lowrey v. Lowrey, 25 So. 3d 274 (Miss. 2009). “” See Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-24 (5)(e) (Rev.2004).”

Jason K. Taylor v. Jessica Timmons, 228 So. 3d 311 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017).

Wheat v. Koustovalas, 42 So. 3d 606 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010).

Carpenter v. Lyles, 120 So. 3d 1031 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013).

D.A.P. v. C.A.P.R., 918 So. 2d 809 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-24(6) — 14 cases

Pearson v. Pearson, 11 So. 3d 178 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009). “Mississippi Code Annotated section 93-5-24(2), (3), (4) and (6) (Rev.”

Porter v. Porter, 23 So. 3d 470 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008).

Mercier v. Mercier, 717 So. 2d 304 (Miss. 1998).

Mercier v. Mercier, 11 So. 3d 1283 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-24(7) — 6 cases

Passmore v. Passmore, 820 So. 2d 747 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002).

Pearson v. Pearson, 11 So. 3d 178 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009). “Mississippi Code Annotated section 93-5-24(2), (3), (4) and (6) (Rev.”

Divers v. Divers, 856 So. 2d 370 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003).

Gilliland v. Gilliland, 969 So. 2d 56 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007).

Crabb v. Bowden, 110 So. 3d 346 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-24(8) — 1 case

Lowrey v. Lowrey, 25 So. 3d 274 (Miss. 2009). “” See Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-24 (5)(e) (Rev.2004).”

— Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-24(9) — 11 cases

J.P. v. S.V.B., 987 So. 2d 975 (Miss. 2008). “Miss.Code Ann. § 93-5-24(9) (Rev.2004). Since the chancellor determined that the Palmers failed to rebut this presumption, the chancellor granted custody of Rebecca to the Barrs.”

Arthur Randallson v. Randall Green, 203 So. 3d 1190 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016).

Jp v. Svb, 987 So. 2d 975 (Miss. 2008).

Brumfield v. Brumfield, 49 So. 3d 138 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010).

Monica Ashbrook Darby v. Harold Combs, 229 So. 3d 136 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016). “See Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-24 (Rev. 2013). 3 .”

— Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-24(9)(a) — 5 cases

Jones v. Brown, 154 So. 3d 919 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015).

Gene Smiley v. Eunieca Smiley, 165 So. 3d 481 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015). “The chancery court made further findings that in the event that *489 Gene had standing, he was precluded from any type of custody because the presumption set forth in section 93-5-24(9)(a) had been triggered, and Gene had not rebutted it.”

Jp v. Svb, 987 So. 2d 975 (Miss. 2008).

Joni Warner v. Larry Thomas (Miss. Ct. App. 2019).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-24(9)(a)(i) — 16 cases

Candice Rae Shurden Ballard v. Joe Marshall Ballard, 255 So. 3d 126 (Miss. 2017). “Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-24 (9)(a)(I) (Rev.”

Gilliland v. Gilliland, 969 So. 2d 56 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007).

Brumfield v. Brumfield, 49 So. 3d 138 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-24(9)(a)(ii) — 2 cases

Cockrell v. Watkins, 936 So. 2d 970 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006).

Jp v. Svb, 987 So. 2d 975 (Miss. 2008).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-24(9)(a)(iii) — 6 cases

Rolison v. Rolison, 105 So. 3d 1136 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012).

Brumfield v. Brumfield, 49 So. 3d 138 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010).

Jp v. Svb, 987 So. 2d 975 (Miss. 2008).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-24(9)(a)(iv) — 4 cases

Brumfield v. Brumfield, 49 So. 3d 138 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010).

Jp v. Svb, 987 So. 2d 975 (Miss. 2008).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-24(9)(b) — 1 case

Monica Ashbrook Darby v. Harold Combs, 229 So. 3d 136 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016). “See Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-24 (Rev. 2013). 3 .”

— Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-24(9)(b)(i) — 3 cases

Monica Ashbrook Darby v. Harold Combs, 229 So. 3d 136 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016). “See Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-24 (Rev. 2013). 3 .”

Arthur Randallson v. Randall Green, 203 So. 3d 1190 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016).

Jp v. Svb, 987 So. 2d 975 (Miss. 2008).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-24(9)(c) — 3 cases

Kim Stewart v. Greg Stewart (Miss. Ct. App. 2020).

Sandra Baur v. Nancy Shirley Baggett Ribelin (Miss. Ct. App. 2024).

Kate Davis v. Max Davis (Miss. Ct. App. 2021).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-24(9)(d)(i) — 2 cases

Christopher Wayne Eaves v. David Darnell Gatlin, 194 So. 3d 171 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-24(9)(d)(ii) — 2 cases

Christopher Wayne Eaves v. David Darnell Gatlin, 194 So. 3d 171 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-24(9)(d)(ii)(3) — 1 case

Brumfield v. Brumfield, 49 So. 3d 138 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-24(l)(a) — 2 cases

R.B.S. v. T.M.S., 765 So. 2d 616 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-24(l)(c) — 1 case

— Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-24(l)(e) — 3 cases

In re Smith v. Smith, 97 So. 3d 43 (La. Ct. App. 2012).

Lucas v. Hendrix, 92 So. 3d 699 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012).

Monica Ashbrook Darby v. Harold Combs, 229 So. 3d 108 (Miss. 2017).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-24(l)(e)(i) — 4 cases

Vaughn v. Davis, 36 So. 3d 1261 (Miss. 2010).

Hamilton v. Houston, 100 So. 3d 1005 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012).

Monica Ashbrook Darby v. Harold Combs, 229 So. 3d 108 (Miss. 2017).

Pendleton v. Leverock, 23 So. 3d 424 (Miss. 2009).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.