Jeffrey Scott Waites v. Amy M. Waites Ritchie
152 So. 3d 306
| Miss. | 2014Background
- In a custody dispute among Amy Waites Ritchie, her former husband Scott Waites, and T.J. Sanford over Victoria Waites, the court considers whether a third party who acted in loco parentis may override a natural-parent presumption.
- Amy sought to move Victoria to Iowa with her after remarriage; Scott opposed.
- A paternity test established T.J. as Victoria’s biological father, prompting T.J. to seek custody.
- Chancery Court excluded Scott from the Albright analysis and awarded full custody to Amy, with visitation for T.J. and Scott.
- Court of Appeals reversed, holding Scott’s in loco parentis status rebutted the natural-parent presumption; Mississippi Supreme Court granted certiorari.
- The Supreme Court reinstated the chancery court’s custody decision, holding that Scott’s in loco parentis status does not rebut the natural-parent presumption absent clear evidence of abandonment, desertion, or unfitness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can in loco parentis alone rebut the natural-parent presumption in custody disputes? | Scott argues in loco parentis can rebut. | Davis controls; in loco status alone cannot rebut. | No; in loco status alone cannot rebut unless coupled with clear evidence of unfitness/abandonment. |
| Should the court apply a three-way Albright analysis when a third party might seek custody? | Scott supports a three-way Albright analysis. | Natural-parent presumption must be rebutted first; otherwise three-way analysis is inappropriate. | Court should not overextend Albright to a three-way framework absent rebuttal of the presumption. |
| Did the chancery court properly exclude Scott from Albright analysis? | Scott should be considered on equal footing with Amy and T.J. | Amy and T.J. are the natural parents; Scott’s status as in loco parentis does not override if presumption remains. | Yes; the chancery court properly excluded Scott absent rebuttal of the natural-parent presumption. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pell v. Griffith, 881 So. 2d 184 (Miss. 2004) (in loco parentis used in limited ways; cannot alone rebut natural-parent presumption)
- J.P.M. v. T.D.M., 932 So. 2d 760 (Miss. 2006) (in loco parentis aided but did not automatically overcome presumption)
- Smith v. Smith, 97 So. 3d 43 (Miss. 2012) (natural-parent presumption rebutted only by specific negative actions; in loco parentis may be a factor)
- Davis v. Vaughn, 126 So. 3d 33 (Miss. 2013) (third party in loco parentis status alone cannot rebut presumption; may be a factor if presumption rebutted)
- Leverock v. Leverock, 23 So. 3d 424 (Miss. 2009) (Albright factors used after rebutting presumption; distinguishes unique facts)