Suresa Young Todd v. Derrium Todd
216 So. 3d 1178
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Derrium and Suresa Todd divorced in March 2013; their divorce judgment incorporated a mutual agreement awarding joint legal and physical custody of their daughter but did not specify a custody schedule.
- After the divorce the child lived weekdays with Suresa and weekends with Derrium from December 2013; Derrium later moved to Horn Lake and in August 2014 filed to modify physical custody alleging changed circumstances and concerns for the child’s care.
- Both parties sought full physical custody at trial; the chancery court treated the matter as an initial custody determination (not a modification) and applied an Albright best-interest analysis.
- The chancery court awarded physical custody to Derrium, granted liberal visitation to Suresa, and — sua sponte — ordered Suresa to pay child support. The judgment stated the divorce decree was "silent as to where the child would reside."
- Suresa appealed, arguing the chancery court erred by failing to require proof of a material change in circumstances adverse to the child before modifying joint custody and that the sua sponte child-support order was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a material change in circumstances adverse to the child was required before modifying custody of a previously awarded joint custody | Suresa: modification required proof of a material change since prior joint-custody award | Derrium: the divorce decree left custody execution unspecified so court could treat matter as initial custody determination | Court: Reversed — there was a prior joint custody award; a material change adverse to the child must be shown to modify custody; chancery applied wrong legal standard and must reconsider on remand |
| Legality of chancery court’s sua sponte order requiring Suresa to pay child support | Suresa: no notice was given that she might be ordered to pay support; ordering support sua sponte was error | Derrium: did not request that Suresa pay support | Court: Reversed this portion — court may not order child support sua sponte without notice to the party |
| Adequacy of divorce judgment that awarded joint custody but provided no custody schedule | Suresa: judgment was adequate and sufficient as entered | Derrium: practical custody arrangement became unworkable; schedule needed | Court: Noted it was likely error to find the agreement ‘‘adequate and sufficient’’ without a schedule; on remand a custody schedule should be set if joint custody remains |
Key Cases Cited
- Albright v. Albright, 437 So. 2d 1003 (Miss. 1983) (establishes best-interest factors for initial custody determinations)
- Porter v. Porter, 23 So. 3d 438 (Miss. 2009) (modification of joint custody requires proof of material change adversely affecting child)
- Rutledge v. Rutledge, 487 So. 2d 218 (Miss. 1986) (modification of joint custody is erroneous without finding material change adverse to child)
- Morris v. Morris, 359 So. 2d 1138 (Miss. 1978) (chancellor may not impose child support sua sponte absent notice)
- Selman v. Selman, 722 So. 2d 547 (Miss. 1998) (judgments affecting custody/support must be sufficiently clear to avoid post-judgment friction)