Representative Divorce Cases

Representative Divorce Cases

Mississippi Child Custody Cases

Albright V. Albright , 437 So.2d 1003 (Miss. 1983) is the key case dealing with decisions as far as who should have custody of a child. It sets out the criteria that a Chancery Court judge should consider in making a determination for placement of a child with a particular parent in custody cases. The synopsis and listing of the criteria are as follows:

We reaffirm the rule that the polestar consideration in child custody cases is the best interest and welfare of the child. The age of the child is subordinated to that rule and is but one factor to be considered. Age should carry no greater weight than other factors to be considered, such as:

  • Health and sex of the child
  • A determination of the parent who had the continuity of care prior to the separation
  • Which has the best parenting skills and which has the willingness and capacity to provide primary child care
  • The employment of the parent and responsibilities of that employment
  • Physical and mental health and age of the parents
  • Emotional ties of parent and child
  • Moral fitness of parents
  • The home, school and community record of the child
  • The preference of the child at the age sufficient to express a preference by law
  • Stability of home environment and employment of each parent
  • Other factors relevant to the parent-child relationship

The Barton V. Barton case is my own child custody case that went on for several years, concerning my daughter. The case eventually went all the way to the Mississippi Supreme Court on the issue of whether or not the proper judge heard the case. The Supreme Court reversed the case on a ruling that the wrong judge heard the case and another judge had to be appointed. Fortunately for all involved, eventually, with the assistance of attorneys representing me and my former wife, a settlement was reached on all issues which appears to have been in the long term a good resolution, since both children from that marriage are doing well. The daughter involved now lives in Pontotoc County and is a registered nurse, and the son from that marriage continues to live on the Gulf Coast and has three children, my grandchildren. I include this case as an indication of my familiarity with the divorce process and I have felt every possible feeling and emotion that you could perhaps feel in a divorce and custody-related case. I have been there and done that.

Mississippi Property Division Cases

Ferguson v. Ferguson , 639 So. 2d 921 (Miss. 1994)

The Ferguson case establishes the principal concerning division of marital property which is spelled out in the case as follows:

This Court suggests the chancery courts consider the following guidelines, where applicable, when attempting to effect an equitable division of marital property:

  1. Substantial contribution to the accumulation of the property. Factors to be considered in determining contribution are as follows:

    1. Direct or indirect economic contribution to the acquisition of the property.
    2. Contribution to the stability and harmony of the marital and family relationships as measured by quality, quantity of time spent on family duties and duration of the marriage.
    3. Contribution to the education, training or other accomplishment bearing on the earning power of the spouse accumulating the assets.
  2. The degree to which each spouse has expended, withdrawn or otherwise disposed of marital assets and any prior distribution of such assets by agreement, decree or otherwise.
  3. The market value and the emotional value of the assets subject to distribution.
  4. The value of assets not ordinarily, absent equitable factors to the contrary, subject to such distribution, such as property brought to the marriage by the parties and property acquired by inheritance or inter vivos gift by or to an individual spouse.
  5. Tax and other economic consequences, and contractual or legal consequences to third parties, of the proposed distribution.
  6. The extent to which property division may, with equity to both parties, be utilized to eliminate periodic payments and other potential sources of future friction between the parties.
  7. The needs of the parties for financial security with due regard to the combination of assets, income and earning capacity.
  8. Any other factor which in equity should be considered.

Contact Tupelo, Mississippi, Divorce Attorney Gene Barton

I care about your needs, and I will fight like a bulldog for your interests. When you need a knowledgeable lawyer on your side in court, contact my Tupelo-area law office online or call 662-260-6646.