Parra v. Parra, 65 So. 3d 872

Bridget and Paul Parra divorced in 2009; Warren County Chancery Court awarded Paul permanent custody of three minor children.
Bridget filed a motion for rehearing arguing Paul failed to reveal plans to move children to California.
In 2009, prior hearings awarded Paul custody; Bridget granted visitation; temporary order restricted contact with two men alleged as pedophiles.
On Oct 15, 2009, court awarded divorce and Paul remained custodian; Bridget's rehearing followed, alleging improper disclosure of relocation plans.
In Nov 2009, Paul stated he denied moving; on Nov 11, 2009 he moved with the children to California; Bridget later challenged why not disclosed.
Jan 2010 hearing: Bridget testified she could not exercise visitation; Paul did not appear; court denied rehearing; appeal followed seeking Albright findings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Albright findings were required and missing	Bridget argues Albright factors were not addressed.	Paul contends no waiver; rules require only if requested.	Reversible error; Albright findings required and remand.
Waiver of findings under Rule 4.01/52(a)	Bridget did not waive rights by not requesting findings.	Paul argues no waiver; procedural rules govern only if applicable.	Not waived; specific Albright analysis required on remand.
Whether moving to California constitutes fraud on the court	Bridget alleges fraud upon the court due to undisclosed relocation.	Paul's conduct did not amount to clear and convincing fraud on the court.	Fraud not proven by clear and convincing evidence; remand for Albright review.

Albright v. Albright, 437 So.2d 1003 (Miss. 1983) (requires consideration of the Albright factors in custody determinations)
Hayes v. Rounds, 658 So.2d 863 (Miss. 1995) (need for specific findings to support best interests)
Powell v. Ayars, 792 So.2d 240 (Miss. 2001) (reverses when not discussing all Albright factors)
Norman v. Norman, 962 So.2d 718 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (reversible error if chancellor fails to articulate reasoning for each factor)
Trim v. Trim, 38 So.3d 471 (Miss. 2010) (Rule 60(b) fraud on the court requires egregious misconduct and clear evidence)
Pulliam v. Smith, 872 So.2d 790 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (omission to disclose relocation plans can be material to custody)
Cheek v. Ricker, 431 So.2d 1139 (Miss. 1983) (recognizes transitory changes in custody as not always material)
Rogers v. Morin, 791 So.2d 815 (Miss. 2001) (Mississippi law favors maintaining parent-child relationships)
Bodne v. King, 835 So.2d 52 (Miss. 2003) (findings should be mandated by nature of case or rule; apply accordingly)
Minter v. Minter, 29 So.3d 840 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (review when underlying facts are supported by substantial evidence)
Davidson v. Coit, 899 So.2d 904 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (emphasizes detailed examination of Albright factors)