Patrick Bradshaw v. Erica Moore
228 So. 3d 319
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Child L.M., born Nov. 2009, lived with mother Erica Moore and maternal grandparents (the Santuccis); Patrick Bradshaw was biological father but not on birth certificate and had minimal contact.
- Patrick learned he was father in Apr. 2010; two brief in-person contacts occurred in 2011; he sent no ongoing support and lived in Florida.
- Erica sought temporary transfer of custody to the Santuccis for financial reasons; Santuccis’ petition (declaring father unknown) granted on Apr. 2, 2014, without notice to Patrick.
- DHS later confirmed Patrick’s paternity by DNA in Sept. 2014; Patrick filed for custody Oct. 2014; chancery court set aside the Santuccis’ order for lack of notice and reinstated litigation between natural parents.
- At trial the Santuccis withdrew their petition and Erica was substituted as plaintiff; chancellor awarded Erica sole legal and physical custody with reasonable visitation to Patrick.
- Patrick appealed; appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion and that the custody decision served the child’s best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether chancellor erred in awarding custody to Erica when she did not originally petition | Bradshaw: award improper because Erica never filed original custody petition | Erica: chancellor substituted her as plaintiff after Santuccis’ dismissal; Rule 81 child-custody practice permits appearance and defense without pleadings | Court: No error — chancellor properly substituted Erica and Rule 81 matters do not require responsive pleadings; no unfair surprise |
| Whether Erica forfeited natural-parent presumption by consenting to Santuccis’ custody | Bradshaw: Erica waived presumption by consenting to Santuccis’ petition, making his claim superior | Erica: The Santuccis’ order was set aside for lack of notice; this is an initial custody contest between two natural parents, so Grant inapplicable | Court: Grant does not apply; natural-parent presumption against a third party is not at issue; Erica did not forfeit presumption and chancellor correctly considered best interests |
| Whether chancellor applied correct standard and had substantial evidence | Bradshaw: (implicit) chancellor erred in custody analysis | Erica/Chancellor: applied best-interest standard and relied on credible evidence of Erica’s fitness and child’s living situation | Court: Affirmed — findings supported by substantial evidence and within chancellor’s discretion |
| Whether Patrick was unfairly surprised by substitution/dismissal | Bradshaw: believed litigation was only against Santuccis | Erica/Chancellor: Patrick was aware Erica was a party; he litigated without timely objection | Court: No unfair surprise; Patrick litigated the issue and did not timely object |
Key Cases Cited
- Carter v. Carter, 204 So. 3d 747 (Miss. 2016) (standard of review for custody appeals)
- Borden v. Borden, 167 So. 3d 238 (Miss. 2014) (chancellor’s factual findings entitled to deference)
- Randallson v. Green, 203 So. 3d 1190 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (deference to chancellor’s factual findings; legal questions reviewed de novo)
- Welton v. Westmoreland, 180 So. 3d 738 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (natural-parent presumption bars third-party custody absent clear and convincing proof)
- Grant v. Martin, 757 So. 2d 264 (Miss. 2000) (natural parent who voluntarily relinquishes custody to third party may forfeit presumption)
- Lacoste v. Lacoste, 197 So. 3d 897 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (best interest of the child is controlling in custody determinations)