Monica Ashbrook Darby v. Harold Combs
229 So. 3d 108
| Miss. | 2017Background
- Infant Addie born to unwed parents; both parents (Crystal Combs and Andrew Darby) were found by the chancellor to be unfit due to drug use, mental-health issues, and domestic violence.
- Paternal grandmother Monica Darby sought custody; maternal great-grandparents Harold and Karron Combs intervened seeking custody as well.
- Chancellor appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL); GAL recommended custody to Monica with Combses visitation; chancellor disagreed.
- Chancellor granted joint physical and legal custody to Monica and the Combses under Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-24(1)(e), with supervised visitation for the parents; he made specific Albright findings.
- Court of Appeals affirmed; Mississippi Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed, holding the statute permits third-party joint custody and no express finding on cooperation was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Monica) | Defendant's Argument (Combses / State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Miss. Code § 93-5-24 permits joint custody to third parties | Statute’s singular language (“person”) restricts custody awards to one third party, so joint third-party custody is prohibited | Statute allows third‑party custody and singular words include plural under § 1‑3‑33; joint awards may be given to parties when parents are unfit | Court: § 93‑5‑24 permits joint custody among third parties when parents are unfit and best interests support it |
| Whether chancellor must make an express finding that proposed joint custodians can cooperate | Monica: Chancellor erred by failing to explicitly find parties could cooperate — necessary for joint custody | Combses/majority: Cooperation is a relevant consideration but no freestanding requirement for an express finding beyond the Albright analysis; chancellor implicitly evaluated feasibility | Court: No express separate finding required; Albright analysis and the chancellor’s custody plan sufficed |
| Whether chancellor abused discretion in applying Albright factors and awarding joint custody | Monica: Joint award was improper absent express cooperation finding; other procedural complaints on appeal | Combses/majority: Chancellor adequately weighed Albright factors and crafted workable arrangement to protect child | Court: Chancellor did not abuse discretion; factual findings not clearly erroneous |
| Standard of review for custody determinations | N/A | N/A | Court reiterates chancellor’s factual findings reviewed for manifest error; legal questions reviewed de novo |
Key Cases Cited
- Albright v. Albright, 437 So.2d 1003 (Miss. 1983) (establishes custody factors to guide best‑interest determinations)
- Crider v. Crider, 904 So.2d 142 (Miss. 2005) (reiterates best‑interest polestar and discusses chancellor’s duty regarding joint custody cooperation)
- Waller v. Waller, 754 So.2d 1181 (Miss. 2000) (notes joint custody is best where parties can cooperate; relevant to cooperation inquiry)
- Rutledge v. Rutledge, 487 So.2d 218 (Miss. 1986) (describes essence of joint custody as shared decisionmaking and need for cooperative parents)
- Davis v. Davis, 12 So.2d 435 (Miss. 1943) (recognizes chancellors’ custody jurisdiction)
- Johnson v. Gray, 859 So.2d 1006 (Miss. 2003) (standard of review in custody cases)
- Vaughn v. Davis, 36 So.3d 1261 (Miss. 2010) (questions of law reviewed de novo)