341 So.3d 1030
Miss. Ct. App.2022Background
- Thomas and Haley Stuckey divorced in 2014; initial decree granted Haley sole physical custody and joint legal custody of their minor child (S.S.).
- Thomas filed multiple petitions (2017–2019) alleging Haley’s prescription-drug abuse, cohabitation with a married man (Adair Steelman) who drank and had angry outbursts, and S.S.’s increased school absences/tardies.
- Court-ordered drug tests showed Haley tested positive for suboxone and later admitted taking unprescribed Lortab; the GAL reported concerns about Haley’s mental stability and S.S. hiding during Steelman’s outbursts.
- The chancery court issued temporary orders transferring physical custody to Thomas, suspended Haley’s visitation at times for noncompliance, and after a full trial ultimately awarded Thomas sole physical custody, ordered Haley to pay child support, and required quarterly drug testing as a condition of visitation.
- Haley appealed, arguing the chancellor erred in (1) awarding sole physical custody to Thomas, (2) requiring her to pay child support, and (3) imposing ongoing quarterly drug tests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Haley) | Defendant's Argument (Thomas) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Custody modification: whether a material, adverse change occurred and whether the Albright factors supported transfer | Thomas failed to prove a material adverse change; chancellor misapplied legal standard/Albright and evidence favored Haley | Evidence of drug use, cohabitation with a volatile, drinking man, S.S.’s school absences, and resolved health issues after living with Thomas showed an adverse change and supported custody transfer | Affirmed — substantial credible evidence supported the chancellor’s finding of an adverse material change and his Albright analysis; custody awarded to Thomas |
| Child support: whether Haley should be ordered to pay support after custody change | No modification should have been entered, so no child support; trial lacked current evidence of Haley’s income | Thomas requested support; the record contained both parties’ Rule 8.05 financial statements showing Haley’s income | Affirmed — chancellor permissibly awarded $613.50/month (14% of Haley’s adjusted gross income per guidelines) and retroactive payments were supported by the record |
| Drug testing: whether court may require ongoing quarterly drug screens as condition of visitation | Permanent quarterly testing was unnecessary; Haley produced several negative tests | Prior positive tests and admitted unprescribed narcotic use justified ongoing testing to protect the child | Affirmed — quarterly drug testing was a lawful, appropriate visitation restriction supported by the record |
Key Cases Cited
- Albright v. Albright, 437 So. 2d 1003 (Miss. 1983) (sets out custody "Albright" best-interest factors)
- Stewart v. Stewart, 309 So. 3d 44 (Miss. Ct. App. 2020) (standard of review and modification framework; deference to chancellor)
- Giannaris v. Giannaris, 960 So. 2d 462 (Miss. 2007) (custody modification requires separate affirmative finding that change adversely affects the child)
- Butler v. Mozingo, 287 So. 3d 980 (Miss. Ct. App. 2019) (reversal where chancellor failed to make an affirmative adverse-impact finding)
- Bredemeier v. Jackson, 689 So. 2d 770 (Miss. 1997) (affirming requirement that change must adversely affect the child)
- Braswell v. Braswell, 336 So. 3d 1121 (Miss. Ct. App. 2021) (when custody shifts, prior support obligation is ordinarily adjusted to reflect new physical custody)
- Trim v. Trim, 33 So. 3d 471 (Miss. 2010) (importance of accurate Rule 8.05 financial disclosure in domestic cases)
- Mercier v. Mercier, 717 So. 2d 304 (Miss. 1998) (appellate courts accept chancellor’s factual findings when supported by record)