Arthur Randallson v. Randall Green, 203 So. 3d 1190

Child Aeva (born 2004) is the daughter of Arthur and April Randallson; grandparents Randall and Laura Green (paternal) sought custody in DeSoto County Chancery Court in 2013.
Plaintiffs alleged the parents’ home was unsanitary (animal waste, fleas, rats, clutter), parents were financially unstable, and Aeva lacked medical, dental, and vision care.
Evidence at trial included testimony of parental prescription-drug use, episodes of alleged domestic violence by April, parental hostility to the guardian ad litem (GAL), school tardies/absences, and admissions deemed admitted under M.R.C.P. 36.
The GAL initially recommended against removal but later expressed concerns after trial evidence about parental fitness and home conditions.
Chancellor found Arthur and April unfit, concluded April had perpetrated domestic violence, applied the Albright factors, and awarded full legal and physical custody to Randall and Laura with supervised discretionary visitation to the natural parents.
Appellants appealed, arguing (1) improper reliance on deemed admissions, (2) wrongful grant of third‑party custody, and (3) improper restriction to supervised visitation.

Issue	Appellants' Argument	Appellees'/Court's Argument	Held
1) Use of deemed requests for admissions	Chancellor improperly relied on the parties’ deemed admissions to decide custody	Admissions were part of the record but not sole basis; court also considered live testimony and GAL report	Affirmed: admissions were deemed admitted but chancellor did not base custody solely on them
2) Award of custody to grandparents (natural‑parent presumption)	Natural‑parent presumption was not overcome; parents should retain custody	Grandparents argued presumption rebutted by clear and convincing evidence of parental unfitness	Affirmed: chancellor found parents unfit by clear and convincing evidence and awarded custody to grandparents after Albright analysis
3) Finding that April perpetrated domestic violence (statutory effect)	Challenge to chancellor’s finding of family violence	Court relied on testimonial evidence (including grandparents’ statements) and credibility determinations to find a history/pattern	Affirmed: chancellor did not abuse discretion in finding April a perpetrator of domestic violence under §93‑5‑24(9)
4) Limiting visitation to supervised discretionary visits	Parents argued restriction unnecessary and infringed parental rights	Evidence of drug use, suicide threats, domestic violence, and home unsanitary conditions supported protective restrictions	Affirmed: restriction was within chancellor’s discretion and supported by evidence to prevent harm to the child

Albright v. Albright, 437 So. 2d 1003 (Miss. 1983) (sets the multi‑factor test for child custody determinations)
Carter v. Taylor, 611 So. 2d 874 (Miss. 1992) (articulates the natural‑parent presumption and bases for rebuttal)
Smith v. Smith, 97 So. 3d 43 (Miss. 2012) (describes the burden to rebut natural‑parent preference and requirement to apply Albright)
Gilcrease v. Gilcrease, 918 So. 2d 854 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (child custody is a judicial determination and cannot rest solely on evidentiary admissions)
DeBlanc v. Stancil, 814 So. 2d 796 (Miss. 2002) (matters admitted under Rule 36 are established unless the trial court permits withdrawal)
Boyd v. Boyd, 83 So. 3d 409 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (discusses strict enforcement of M.R.C.P. 36 deadlines)