Sabrina Lynn Welton v. Daniel Westmoreland
2015 Miss. App. LEXIS 595
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Daniel and Sabrina divorced in 2011; decree gave Sabrina physical custody of Alexice and liberal visitation to Daniel, and acknowledged Justice was not Daniel’s biological child but allowed him visitation with her.
- Justice was raised by Daniel from infancy, believed he was her father until age 12, and had her name changed to Westmoreland in 2004; Justice’s biological father abandoned her and was largely absent.
- After Sabrina’s unstable employment and housing, Daniel had the children living with him full-time for several months in 2012; Sabrina later moved the children to Missouri and then to Florida, where she lived with a fiancé and worked while the children were cared for by a nanny.
- Sabrina told Justice that Daniel was not her biological father only after moving to Missouri; Daniel then filed for contempt and custody modification (later amended to seek custody of Justice as well).
- The chancery court found (1) it had jurisdiction under the UCCJEA, (2) Daniel—although not biological father—stood in the position of a natural parent under Pell/J.P.M., (3) a material change in circumstances adversely affected the children, and (4) awarding physical custody of both children to Daniel (with joint legal custody) served their best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Daniel) | Defendant's Argument (Sabrina) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over Justice | Mississippi chancery court had continuing or home-state jurisdiction under the UCCJEA (divorce decree incorporated visitation for Justice; Justice resided in MS within six months) | Court lacked jurisdiction because Justice had not lived in MS since Jan 2013 and a Missouri order existed | Court affirmed jurisdiction: continuing jurisdiction via divorce decree and, alternatively, home-state/significant-connection bases under UCCJEA |
| Authority to award custody of nonbiological child | Daniel stood in loco parentis and, on these unique facts, is equivalent to a natural parent (Pell/J.P.M. line) allowing custody transfer | Natural-parent presumption protects Sabrina; third-party custody requires clear-and-convincing proof of abandonment, unfitness, etc.; Waites limits Pell/J.P.M. to defrauded-father fact patterns | Court held Daniel had authority: facts paralleled Pell/J.P.M. (in loco parentis, supported child, could have been required to pay support, biological father not in the picture) so presumption did not bar award |
| Material change in circumstances | Sabrina’s unstable housing, erratic employment, frequent moves, and domestic conflict created instability harming the children | Relocation alone is not dispositive; Sabrina had employment and housing in Florida and provided care (nanny) | Court found substantial evidence of a material change that adversely affected the children (instability, stress) |
| Best interests / Albright factors | Granting custody to Daniel serves children’s emotional, schooling, and stability interests; preserves sibling unity | Awarding custody to Daniel improperly displaces natural mother; Albright factors require careful weighing, and sibling separation concerns for Alexice | Court affirmed chancellor’s Albright analysis and discretionary conclusion that modification and awarding physical custody to Daniel served the children’s best interests |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffith v. Pell, 881 So.2d 184 (Miss. 2004) (permitting nonbiological father custody/visitation where he stood in parental role and biological father was absent)
- J.P.M. v. T.D.M., 932 So.2d 760 (Miss. 2006) (upholding custody to a stepfather/legal father under similar facts)
- In re Waites, 152 So.3d 306 (Miss. 2014) (clarifying limits of Pell/J.P.M. and emphasizing that natural-parent presumption is rebutted only by clear-and-convincing evidence such as abandonment or unfitness)
- Albright v. Albright, 437 So.2d 1003 (Miss. 1983) (setting factors for best-interest custody determinations)
- Logan v. Logan, 730 So.2d 1124 (Miss. 1998) (discussing when a stepfather may be required to support children and the relevance to custody/support considerations)