375 So.3d 688
Miss. Ct. App.2023Background
- Stephanie Scott and Nicholas Boudreau divorced in Maryland; they share two minor children born 2013 and 2015 and had joint legal and joint physical custody.
- The Maryland judgment was enrolled in Mississippi; the chancery court previously adjusted the schedule to a 5-2-2-5 rotation after a 2019 petition.
- Nicholas, later accepted into the U.S. Space Force, planned to relocate to Colorado and petitioned in Mississippi (2022) to modify custody accordingly.
- At trial both parents were found to be "good parents," but evidence showed Nicholas and his wife were more consistently involved in the children’s activities and therapy than Stephanie and her husband.
- The chancery court modified the custody schedule, awarded Nicholas majority physical custody and tie-breaking authority for major decisions, and required Stephanie to pay child support into trust accounts for the children.
- Stephanie appealed, raising issues about relocation, the Albright factor analysis, child support, procedural treatment of a pro se litigant, and the court’s interpretation of therapy records.
Issues
| Issue | Stephanie's Argument | Nicholas's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relocation of children to Colorado | Court abused discretion; failed to account for uprooting and disruption | Move produced greater long-term stability given Space Force assignment and less future relocation | Affirmed — court properly considered effect of move and military stability; modification in best interest |
| Albright factors / custody decision | Chancellor misapplied or speculated; findings inconsistent with evidence | Evidence on continuity, parenting, stability, emotional ties favored Nicholas | Affirmed — chancellor addressed applicable Albright factors and reasonably weighed them in favor of Nicholas |
| Child support obligation | Nicholas waived support so Stephanie should not pay | Child support vests in children and cannot be waived by parent | Affirmed — support vests in children; court ordered Stephanie to fund trusts for each child |
| Procedural treatment of pro se litigant / discovery | Nicholas (pro se) was not held to same procedural/evidentiary standards; discovery violations | Chancellor has discretion to weigh evidence; appellant must cite authority for reversal | Procedurally barred / no reversible error — appellant failed to cite authority; chancellor discretion upheld |
| Interpretation of child therapy records | Trial court misinterpreted therapy notes | Records were admissible; chancellor may weigh and interpret evidence | Waived / affirmed — no contemporaneous objection; chancellor has discretion to interpret evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Albright v. Albright, [citation="437 So. 2d 1003"] (Miss. 1983) (establishes Albright custody factors)
- Garner v. Garner, [citation="343 So. 3d 1097"] (Miss. Ct. App. 2022) (chancellor must address applicable Albright factors)
- Butler v. Mozingo, [citation="287 So. 3d 980"] (Miss. Ct. App. 2019) (standard of review in custody matters)
- Roberts v. Roberts, [citation="110 So. 3d 820"] (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (child support vests in child and cannot be waived)
- Smith v. Smith, [citation="20 So. 3d 670"] (Miss. 2009) (support payments belong to child and may not be forgiven)
- Ethridge v. Ethridge, [citation="226 So. 3d 1261"] (Miss. Ct. App. 2017) (chancellor discretion to weigh and interpret evidence)
- McCullough v. McCullough, [citation="52 So. 3d 373"] (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (failure to contemporaneously object waives appellate review)