TRIAL BY CHECKLIST: CHILD CUSTODY FACTORS
July 19, 2010 § 32 Comments
A practice tip about trial factors is here.
The factors that the court must consider in awarding child custody are set out in Albright vs. Albright, 437 So.2d 1003, 1005 (Miss. 1983).
The factors are:
- Age, health and gender of the child.
- Parent having continuity of care prior to the separation.
- Parent with best parenting skills and willingness and capacity to provide primary child care.
- Employment of the parent and responsibilities of that employment.
- Physical and mental health and age of the parent.
- Emotional ties of parent to child.
- Moral fitness of the parent.
- Home, school and coomunity record of the child.
- Preference of the child at age sufficient to express a preference.
- Stability of parent’s home environment and employment of each parent.
- Relative financial situation of the parents.
- Difference in religion of the parents.
- Differences in personal values of the parents.
- Differences in lifestyle of the parents.
- Other factors relevant to the parent-child relationship.
The Albright factors are not to be applied in the manner of a scoresheet or mathematical formula. Lee v. Lee, 798 So.2d 1284, 1288 (Miss. 2001). The Chancellor may give special weight to one, two or several factors to determine the outcome. Divers v. Divers, 856 So.2d 370, 376 (Miss. App. 2003). The Chancellor has the ultimate discretion to judge the weight and credibility of evidence. Chamblee v. Chamblee, 637 So.2d 850, 860 (Miss. 1994); Johnson v. Gray, 859 So.2d 1006, 1013-1014 (Miss. 2003).
In an original action for custody, the Albright factors govern the award.
In a modification of custody case, the proponent must prove 3 things, in combination, in order to prevail:
- That there has been a change in circumstances of the custodial parent material to the issue of custody since entry of the last judgment; and
- That the change in circumstances has an adverse effect on the minor child; and, if 1 and 2 are proven
- That it is in the best interest of the minor child to change custody. Determination of the child’s best interest is based on application of the Albright factors to the facts of the case.
The standard for modification is like a three-legged stool; if one leg is missing, the stool can not stand. It is a three-prong or three-part test.
There is one exception to the three-part test for modification. In the case of Riley v. Doerner, 677 So.2d 740, 744 (Miss. 1996), the Mississippi Supreme Court held that it is not necessary to prove adverse effect where the child is in an inherently dangerous or unsuitable situation, as where the custodial parent is using drugs. Evidence of the Albright factors should still be offered in such cases. Some argue that Albright proof would not be necessary in a case where the proof shows a clearly dangerous circumstance, but it is this judge’s position that proof of the Albright factors in such a case would make the case airtight.
There have been cases following Riley that have explained and even expanded on the concept, so that now there is arguably a “totality of the circumstances” test to justify modification. Some attorneys have taken the position that the “totality” is an alternative avenue to the three-pronged test. This court is not convinced, and takes the position that Riley and its progeny apply in extreme circumstances where the proof shows that the child is showing no adverse effects despite being in an inherently dangerous situation. In my opinion, the Riley line of cases is not intended to create a new remedy where there is no inherently dangerous situation and the proof is not strong enough to satisfy the three-prong test.
The Albright factors apply only to physical custody, and the Chancellor is not required to address them in considering whether to grant joint legal custody only. Palculict v. Palculict, 22 So.3d 293 (Miss. App. 2009).
[…] In too many appeals, I read that the appellant challenges how the chancellor analyzed and applied some or all of the Albright factors. […]
It’s great to have a checklist! While all these factors seem obvious and logical, it’s important to remember that every state in the US may have its own child custody laws. Although these factors can be manipulated in court, and it’s essential to seek professional advice.
[…] The MSSC decided in Albright v. Albright, 437 So.2d 1003 (Miss. 1983), that child-custody decisions must rest on consideration of specified factors. […]
[…] Child custody. […]
[…] Albright factors are what you’re looking […]
[…] Child custody. […]
[…] Child custody. […]
[…] Child custody. […]
[…] on an Albright analysis. The appellant argued that the chancellor was in error in how he analyzed the Albright factors, and in how he reached his conclusions based on the proof. Judge Roberts, for the majority, […]
[…] Albright factors are what you’re looking […]
[…] Better Chancery Practice Blog.” While directed towards chancery practice in Mississippi his litigation checklists, case analysis, and cautions on the use of rules and statutes, ought to be mandatory for any […]
The Albright Test seems highly outdated for today’s world. Although it appears to be a fair and relevant manner to determine what parent is best suited for custody of a child it is heavily based on the assumption that the two parents are / were married. In the case of two parents who were never married and / or who were never “together” for all practical purposes, they never lived together and were not in a serious relationship at the time the mother became pregnant, the Albright Test in it’s entirety, is not a fair or accurate assessment of what parent to offer custody too. What are your thoughts on this and has there been any consideration by Mississippi state law makers to revise this mandate, especially when it comes to dealing with non-wed parents who are seeking a child custodial ruling?
Albright is from the Miss Sup Ct, not from the legislature. To my knowledge the legislature has no plans to enact a law in this area, although it could. As for the factors themselves, they are not a rigid formula, and chancellors can consider “other factors” that might bear on the issue. Skillful attorneys have no problem that I have seen adapting them to the kinds of cases you mentioned.
[…] on all of the Ferguson factors for the judge to award that equity, and you need to address the Albright factors for the judge to make sufficient findings to award custody. And so on with all of the type […]
[…] Child custody. […]
Judge Primeaux:
Does the Final Judgment on a contested divorce have to include the Chancellor’s Albright analysis on the case? Is it void if they are not included in the Final Judgment document itself?
Not necessary in the final judgment unless no record was made, in my opinion. If the findings are on the record, that would document that the factors were considered and what the judge’s conclusions were. Your chancellor may see it differently.
Thank you!
[…] case he heard where the defendant-mom’s attorney put on not a shred of evidence as to the Albright custody factors. Now, put yourself in that judge’s shoes. The chancellor is charged with […]
[…] it necessary for the chancellor to analyze the proof in light of the Albright factors in a case where the grandparents are seeking to take custody from the natural father, the […]
the albright factors should point to bad parenting on the part of a parent that commits crimes. many judges don’t take that into account.
Not sure what your basis is for saying that. In fact, criminal behavior on the part of a parent invokes several of the Albright factors, including, based on the facts, parenting skills and immoral conduct. Also, parental violence is a factor to deny custody and even visitation per statute. If there is credible, substantial evidence of criminal conduct, it can not be overlooked by the trial judge. Of course, innuendo and suspicions are not credible, substantial evidence.
[…] lawyers approach the Albright factors like some kind of score card. I remind you, however, that “The Albright factors are a […]
[…] 8, 2008, following the trial, the chancellor issued a fifty-page opinion that included a detailed Albright analysis. He awarded Bradley sole physical custody of Devinn and granted the parties joint legal […]
[…] Child custody. […]
[…] challenged for custody by a non-parent, there must be a showing of unfitness that will trigger an Albright analysis to determine the best interest of the […]
[…] fast rule about separation, but it is one of many factors to be considered by the court among the Albright factors for determination of best interest. See, for example, Kimbrough v. Kimbrough, decided by the COA […]
[…] Child custody. […]
[…] TRIAL BY CHECKLIST: CHILD CUSTODY FACTORS […]
[…] Child custody. […]
[…] Brumfield v. Brumfield, which was before the chancellor on remand for specific findings on the Albright factors, there was evidence that the husband, Alex, who was awarded custody, had argued with his […]
[…] Albright factors are what you’re looking […]