Boyd v. Boyd, 83 So. 3d 409

Lisa Boyd appeals a Leake County Chancery Court custody award granting primary custody of five minor children to ex-husband Matthew Boyd; trial included a scheduling order governing discovery, responses, and admissions, and the court deemed several admissions admitted when Lisa did not timely respond; GAL reports and the parties’ testimonies informed the custody decision; the chancellor relied on the GAL’s recommendations and Lisa’s admissions in evaluating Albright factors; the final judgment awarded Cayla to Lisa and the five younger children to Matthew, with liberal visitation for Lisa; Lisa challenges (1) admissions deemed admitted, (2) honoring Mariah’s stated preference, (3) application of Albright factors, and (4) interpretation of the spousal-and-child-abuse statute; the appellate court affirms the chancellor’s ruling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of requests for admission used in custody decision	Lisa argues admissions were improperly deemed admitted and used in Albright analysis	Matthew contends admissions were properly deemed admitted and appropriately weighed	No reversible error; admissions were not sole basis for decision but part of Albright analysis
Child’s preference of a nonage-minor (Mariah) affecting custody	Lisa contends Mariah’s preference should govern	Matthew argues preference may be considered but is not controlling	Court’s reliance on GAL findings and overall custody best interests upheld
Application of Albright factors to custody decision	Lisa claims misapplication of Albright due to admissions and preferences	Chancellor properly weighed factors and GAL recommendations	No abuse of discretion; factors weighed appropriately and supported by record
Rebuttal of domestic-violence presumption under §93-5-24(9)(a)(i)	Lisa asserts presumption was triggered by multiple incidents and required detailed findings	Court found presumption triggered by tailbone incident and that it was overcome by evidence of rehabilitation	Court’s findings supported; no error in applying statute
Effect of spousal-and-child-abuse statute on custody outcome	Lisa argues statute was misapplied and failing to explain rebuttal	Court explained findings and concluded presumption overcome	No reversible error; decision consistent with statutory framework

Albright v. Albright, 437 So.2d 1003 (Miss. 1983) (best-interests factors guide custody; substantial evidence standard; deference to chancellor)
Gilcrease v. Gilcrease, 918 So.2d 854 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (Rule 36 admissions not purely evidentiary in custody decisions; cannot rely solely on admissions)
In re Custody of M.A.G., 859 So.2d 1001 (Miss. 2003) (limited review; chancellor’s factual findings upheld if supported by substantial evidence)
Reed v. Fair, 56 So.3d 577 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (deference to chancellor on factual determinations; no substitution of judgment)
Floyd v. Floyd, 949 So.2d 26 (Miss. 2007) (child’s preference may be considered but not controlling; require explanation if not honored)
Lawrence v. Lawrence, 956 So.2d 251 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (preservation and explanation of findings when applying domestic-violence presumption)
Earwood v. Reeves, 798 So.2d 508 (Miss. 2001) (trial court discretion in discovery and admissions)
DeBlanc v. Stancil, 814 So.2d 796 (Miss. 2002) (default admissions exist unless withdrawn or amended timely)
Scoggins v. Baptist Mem’l Hosp.-Desoto, 967 So.2d 646 (Miss. 2007) (withdrawal/amendment of admissions; prejudicial delay considerations)