Sarah McKenzie Rayner v. Chance D. Sims
228 So. 3d 353
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Parents: Sarah McKenzie Rayner (Mackie) and Chance D. Sims are the biological parents of Frances (born Nov. 2013); they dated and briefly cohabited in 2014.
- Procedural posture: Chance filed for paternity and custody; after trial, the chancellor awarded joint legal and shared physical custody (Chance 3 nights/week; Mackie 4 nights/week) and ordered child support based on 14% of each parent’s adjusted gross income apportioned by custody/time and income.
- Mackie moved to reconsider and appealed, arguing the chancellor erred by awarding joint physical custody, by failing to consider/weight the Albright factors properly, and by miscomputing child support.
- At trial both parents testified they want Frances to have frequent contact with the other parent and have been able to follow the temporary visitation schedule; both are employed and capable caregivers.
- Allegations against Chance (past arson conviction in 2007, prior positive marijuana test in 2012, and some family disputes) were explored at trial but the chancellor found no current disqualifying misconduct affecting his parenting; Mackie admitted no complaints about Chance’s care since the temporary order.
- Chancellor adjusted statutory child-support guidelines to account for the shared custody arrangement and left the exact computation to counsel; the court affirmed the chancellor’s orders on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mackie) | Defendant's Argument (Chance) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether joint/shared physical custody was proper | Parties cannot cooperatively share custody; joint physical custody inappropriate | Parties can and have cooperated; both want frequent contact with child | Affirmed: chancellor permissibly found parents capable of cooperative shared custody; substantial evidence supports award |
| Whether chancellor considered/weighted Albright factors correctly | Chancellor failed to consider all applicable Albright factors and they favor Mackie | Chancellor addressed applicable factors and weighed evidence within discretion | Affirmed: chancellor addressed applicable factors (explicitly 7/12) and omission of some nonapplicable or supported factors was not reversible error |
| Whether child support computation was authorized | Chancellor incorrectly computed support and disregarded prior DHS findings | Chancellor followed statutory guideline (14% of AGI) and adjusted for shared custody per statute | Affirmed: adjustment for shared-parent arrangement is authorized by statute; order to apportion support by time/income upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Albright v. Albright, 437 So. 2d 1003 (Miss. 1983) (sets factors for child-custody determinations)
- Crider v. Crider, 904 So. 2d 142 (Miss. 2005) (courts should not award joint custody unless parents can cooperate; chancellor best positioned to assess)
- Huseth v. Huseth, 135 So. 3d 846 (Miss. 2014) (failure to address every Albright factor is not reversible error where evidence supports custody decision)
- In re Dissolution of Edwards, 189 So. 3d 1284 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (Albright factors and requirement to address applicable factors)
- Blakely v. Blakely, 88 So. 3d 798 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (standard of review for chancellor factual findings)