243 So. 3d 248
Miss. Ct. App.2018Background
- Parents Adam Heisinger (father) and Priscilla Riley (mother) share a daughter, B.H.; an Iowa court (2013) awarded Priscilla physical custody, Adam visitation, and ordered child support.
- Priscilla moved to Mississippi; she later alleged B.H. had burns and sought to suspend/modify Adam’s visitation and increase child support; MDCPS found allegations unsubstantiated.
- Adam traveled for visitation in 2015; he documented burns on B.H., reported them, and later was repeatedly denied court-ordered visitation by Priscilla.
- Chancery court in Lauderdale County appointed a GAL, ordered counseling, conducted supervised and unsupervised visits in Aug. 2016, and found no evidence Adam abused or neglected B.H.
- Chancellor found (1) a material, adverse change in circumstances (Priscilla’s interference with visitation), (2) Priscilla in contempt for denying visitation, (3) denied modification of custody, and (4) denied Priscilla’s request to increase child support (applying Iowa law).
- On appeal the court affirmed contempt and no abuse finding, reversed and remanded custody for a new Albright analysis, and reversed/remanded child support to be decided under Mississippi law; awarded additional appellate attorney’s fees to Adam.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether interference with visitation constituted a material change in circumstances warranting custody modification | Adam: Priscilla’s repeated, willful interference materially harmed father–child relationship and warrants change | Priscilla: Interference did not justify custody change; contempt remedies sufficient | Court: Found a material adverse change but remanded because chancellor erred in Albright analysis (must redo analysis) |
| Whether chancellor improperly weighed Albright factors (continuity/emotional ties) to favor parent who interfered | Adam: Continuity and emotional-ties factors should not favor Priscilla because she caused the separation | Priscilla: Factors legitimately favor her as primary caregiver | Court: Error to credit those factors to Priscilla where that advantage resulted from her own misconduct; remand for new Albright analysis |
| Whether Priscilla was in contempt for denying visitation | Priscilla: Her interpretations/excuses justified refusal | Adam: Priscilla willfully violated enrolled Iowa order | Court: Affirmed contempt finding; substantial evidence supported willful violations |
| Whether chancery court applied proper law to child-support modification | Priscilla: Mississippi court should increase support for changed income/expenses | Adam: Chancellor relied on Iowa law (issuing state) | Court: Reversed—modification amount is governed by Mississippi law under UIFSA; remand to apply Mississippi guidelines |
Key Cases Cited
- Albright v. Albright, 437 So.2d 1003 (Miss. 1983) (governing multi-factor analysis for child custody modifications)
- Strait v. Lorenz, 155 So.3d 197 (Miss. Ct. App.) (standards for modification: material change, adverse effect, and best interest via Albright)
- Story v. Allen, 7 So.3d 295 (Miss. Ct. App.) (trial court erred by letting a parent benefit under Albright from her own interference; continuity and emotional-ties should be neutral)
- Nelson v. Halley, 827 So.2d 42 (Miss. Ct. App.) (interpretation of UIFSA limits on modifying aspects of an issuing state’s support order)