I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 7 - CT - 0 2 0 6 5 - S CT WI L L I A M DA NI

EL V A UG HN
v. CONNI E LY NN DAVI

S , I NDI VI DUALLY

, AND AS M ATERNAL GRANDM OTHER AND NEXT F R I END OF

DA NI EL L E L Y

NN V A UG HN ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 08/ 01/ 2007 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. DA N H . FAI RLY COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: RANKI N COUN TY CHANCERY COURT ATT ORNEY F OR APP EL LANT: W I LL I AM P . F EAT HERS TON, J R. AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : S HAR ON P AT T E RS ON T HI BO DE AUX NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CI VI L - DOMES T I C R E L AT I ONS D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E M A N D E D - 06/ 17/ 2010 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:
EN BA NC. RAN DO LPH, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1
. W ill iam D a n ie l V a u g h n ( “ V a u g h n ” ) a p p e a le d f ro m th e ju d g m e n t o f th e R a n k in C ounty C hance ry C our taw ar di ng physi cal cust ody of hi s daught er , D ani el l e Lynn V aughn ( “D ani el l e”) , t o the chi l d’ s m at ernal gr andmot her , C onni e Lynn D avi s ( “C onni e”)
. T he C o u rto f A p p e a ls a ff

ir m e d
. V

a u g h n v. D a v is , 2009 W L 1664622 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. J une 16, 2 0 0 9 ). T h is C o u rtg ra n te d c e rt io ra ri
. V a u g h n v. D a v is , 2 7 S o . 3 d 4 0 4 (M is s . 2 0 1 0 ). F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY

### Conniete stif ie d that hema de a

one-tim e c ontribution of $100 at th e timeof 1 

### Theres a’ s f

uneral . Conni e and her

mot her , who l ive d next

door, kept a c onte mporane ous l og of Va ughn’s contributi on and c onta ct s. Vaughn t es ti fi ed that h e gave ca sh and in- kind contribution s, suchas cloth es, foo d, an d d iapers, b ut co uldpro vid e no pro of. 2 ¶2. E xceptas otherw i s e not ed, the C our tof A ppeal s corr ect l y and f

ul l y l ai d outthe f

actual and proced ural back groun d as fol l ow s: D an iel le w as b o rn in O ctob er 2 0 0 0 o u t of w ed lock
. D an iel le an d h er m o ther, T her es a D avi s ( T her es a) l i ved w i th Conni e, the m at ernal gr andmot her , s i nce D ani el l e' s bi r th. T her es a di ed as the r es ul tof a ca racc i denti n M ar ch 2002, w h e n D a n ielle w a s a p p ro x im a tely se v e n tee n m o n th s o ld . D a n iel le ' s b irth cert i f i cat e l i s t s V aughn as h erf ather
. V aughn' s pat erni ty w as f ur ther es t abl i s hed thr ough a D N A t es t . V aughn and Ther es a neve rm arr i ed. A tthe ti m e o f T h ere sa' s d e a th , T h ere sa a n d D an iel le l ived w ith the g ran d m o ther, C onni e. V aughn l i ved w i th tw o roomm at es i n an apa r t m ent . H e att ended sc h o o l an d w o rk e d fu ll t im e . A fte r T h e re sa ' s d e a th , V a u g h n a n d C o n n ie d isc u ssed the p h y sical cu stod y arra n g e m e n ts fo r D a n ielle . V a u g h n a n d C o n n ie m utual l y agr eed thatC onni e w oul d keep D ani el l e unt i l V aughn had f i ni s hed sc h o o l an d g o tten b a c k o n h is fe e t. A fte r th e ir a g re e m e n t, V a u g h n fa iled to v isit D a n ielle re g u lar ly a n d p a id o n ly $ 1 0 0 o f su p p o rt fo r D a n ielle p rio r to C on nie ' s f

i l i ng herpet i t i on f

orcus t ody. H e al s o f

ai l ed t o vol unt ar i l y s eek c u sto d y o f h is d a u g h terw h e n h e g o t b a c k o n h is fe e t. V a u g h n v. D a v is , 2009 W L 1664622, a t*1. T he amountof V aughn’ s m onet ary s uppor tw as di s put ed. A l though V aughn w as i n s chool and l i vi ng w i t h r oom m at es atone t i m e, that

1
s i tuat i on di d notcont i nue. H e t es t i f i ed thati n the yea r s f

ol l ow i ng T her esa’ s death, he had (1 ) a tten d e d sc h o o l o n ly o n e se m e s te r; (2 ) n e v e r re c e iv e d a d e g re e ; (3 ) liv e d b y h im se lf in an apa r tm entand then w i t h a g i r l f r i end; ( 4) w orked f

ul l
- t i m e, earni ng $300- 400 perw eek,
w ith th e e x c e p tio n o f t h re e m o n th s o f u n e m p lo y m e n t. ¶3. T he C ou rtof A pp eal s conti nu ed as fol l ow s: A tsome poi ntaf

t erT her es a' s death, C onni e tr i ed t o obt ai n m edi cal i ns ur ance f orDani e l l e . The i ns ur a nc e c ompa ny d e ni e d c ov e r a ge b e c a us e Conni e w as n o t D a n ielle ' s le g a l gu a rd ian
. O n A u g u st 1 8 , 2 0 0 4 , w h e n D a n ielle w a s n e a rly

### 3

fou r ye ars o ld, C o n n ie fi led a p eti ti o n for c u stod y a n d e m erg en cy tem p o rary r el i ef
. V aughn and Conni e s i gned an a gr eed t empora ry orde rdat ed A ugus t20, 2004, gr ant i ng C onni e t empora ry cus t ody of D ani el l e. I d. ¶4. I n herpe t i t i on f

orc us t ody, C onni e l i s t ed s ever al r eas ons w hy s he s houl d be gr ant ed
cus t ody, i ncl udi ng thatV aughn had “ gone as l ong as four m onths w i thoutany cont act
w hat s oeverw i th hi s m i nor chi l d, ei theri n per s on orvi a any otherm ethod of
c o m m u n ica tio n .” C o n n ie a lso a s k e d th a t V a u g h n b e re q u ire d to p a y c h ild su p p o rt a n d to
m ai ntai n a li fe- i nsuranc e p oli cy, w i th D aniel l e as the b enefi ci ary. C on nie di d n ot r equ est term ination of V au g h n ’s pa ren tal ri g h ts. T h e “A g ree d O rde r f o r E m e rg e n c y T em p o rary C us t ody and O therR el i ef ” gr ant ed C onni e the “t empora ry car e, cus t ody an d con tr ol ” of D ani el l e, s ubj ectt o V aughn’ s “t empora ry vi s i t at i on r i ght s ” pendi ng a f i nal hear i ng, w hi ch
w a s s e t fo r F e b ru a ry 1 6 , 2 0 0 5 . V a u g h n a c k n o w led g e d p a ter n ity a t th a t ti m e . T h e o rd e r d id notaddr es s chi l d s uppor t . V aughn s i gned the agr eed or deron the advi ce of hi s then- att orney. H e t est i fi ed thathis und ers t and i ng of the o rderw as that “the judge has t o h ear the w ho l e case and then he’ l l deci de w ho D ani el l e l i ves w i th. So i tw as neverm y under s t andi ng ornever
m y in ten tio n s to g iv e u p m y d a u g h ter .” H o w e v e r, h e d id u n d e rsta n d h e w a s “ te m p o ra ri ly gi vi ng [ C onni e] cus t ody. ” A tthe t i m e the agr eed or derw as s i gned, V aughn w as unempl oyed
a n d liv in g w ith h is g ir lf ri e n d
. ¶ 5 . T h e c u sto d y h e a rin g w a s c o n tin u e d se v e ra l t im e s, a s a p sy c h o lo g ist w a s a p p o in ted to
e v a lu a te D a n ie lle , a n d a g u a rd ia n a d lite m ( “ G A L ” ) w a s a p p o in te d fo r h e r. See id. W h ile
aw ai t i ng the hea r i ng, V aughn w as gr ant ed vi s i t at i on, w hi ch he exe r ci s ed i ncons i s t ent l y. T he
court - appoi nt ed ps ychi atr i s tr eport ed i n 2006 thatV aug hn w as “i nco nsi st ent i n h i s i nte r act i on

### Vau ghn testifiedthat th is was a misund erstand ingthat was wo rkedout withthe h elp 2 

### of the GAL. Pri or to being cove re d by Vaughn’ s insuranc e, Dani el lewas on Medi caid. 4 w i th the chi l d. T hi s i s evi dence d by l ong per i ods in w hich he w oul d notcont actherand per i ods i n w hi ch s he i s notw i th hi m i n w hi ch he doe s notcal l orw r i t e her
. I n addi t i on, he l eave s herw i th other s w hen he does ha ve her
. ” I n a l at err eport , the ps ychi atr i s tr eport ed that V a u g h n w a s “ w e ll in te n ti o n e d ,” b u t h is la c k o f “ fo llo w th ro u g h . . . h a s b e e n e v id e n t.” V aughn f i r s tbegan t o pay chi l d s uppor ta f ew m onths af

t erthe agr eed or der
. Sever al m onths af t ert es t i f yi ng thathe ha d a l r eady done s o, he obt ai ned hea l th i ns ur ance f orD ani el l e thr ough hi s pol i cy atw ork. V aughn obt ai ned a l i f e i ns ur ance pol i cy, butnamed hi s new w i f e as the 2
s ol e bene f

i ci ary. ¶6
. Rega r di ng the thr e e - ye a rwai tb e f or e the h e a r i ng , the Courtof A ppeal s s t at ed t he f ol l ow i ng: V a u g h n [re g a in e d ] fu ll-ti m e e m p lo y m e n t, m a rrie d M e lissa V a u g h n , b o u g h t a h o m e , a n d h a d a s o n w i th M e l i s s a . T h e c h a n c e ry c o u r tf i n a l l y h e a r d C o n n i e 's pet i t i on f

orcus t ody on A ugus t1, 2007, and ent er ed a f i nal or dergr ant i ng [p h y sic a l] c u sto d y o f D a n ielle to C o n n ie. D a n ielle w a s n e a rly s e v e n y e a rs o ld atthe t i m e of

the hea r i ng. I d . T he chanc el l orgra nt ed C onni e and V aughn j oi ntl egal cus t ody. V aughn w as al l ow ed l i ber al vi s i t at i on and w as r equi r ed t o pay chi l d s uppor tand t o m ai nt ai n heal th i ns ur ance f or D ani el l e. ¶7. T he C ou rtof A pp eal s conti nu ed as fol l ow s: O n appea l , V aughn ar gues thatthe cha ncel l orerr ed i n no tg i vi ng hi m the benef i tof the natur al
- par entpr es um pt i on, w hi ch ar i s es i n c us t ody dis put es b e tw e e n n a tu r a l p a re n ts a n d th ir d p a rt ie s . G ra n t v. Ma rtin , 757 So. 2d 264, 265 (¶5) ( M i s s . 2000)
. U t i l i zi ng the s t andar d adopt ed .
. . i n G r ant , h o w ev er,

### 5

the cha ncel l orr eas oned thatV aughn r el i nqui s hed the natur al
- par ent p re s u m p tio n . . . . I d. T he C our tof

A ppeal s af

f i rm ed the cha ncel l or ’ s or dergr ant i ng phys i cal cus t ody of D ani el l e t o C onni e, f

i ndi ng that( 1) V aughn had “ r el i nq uis hed the n atural -par ent pr esum pti on
w hen he a gr eed t o al l ow D ani el l e t o r emai n i n C onni e’ s cus t ody pendi ng a hea r i ng . . . . ”; and ( 2) the dec i s i on bel ow w as “f ur therbut tr es s ed by V aughn’ s vol unt ary and ext ended f ai l ur e t o s eek c us t ody .
. . . ” I d. ¶8. A l l ow i ng G ra n t t o contr ol on the f act s as pr es ent ed i n the ca s e s ub j udi ce w o u ld
c re a te a d isin c e n tiv e fo r p a re n ts to allo w ch ild re n to re m a in tem p o ra rily in a sa fe a n d sta b le envi r onm entw hi l e cus t ody i s s ues ar e dec i ded. Pai r i ng the G r ant anal ys i s w i th a f

i ndi ng that V aughn had r el i nqui s hed cus t od y thr ough hi s i nact i on i s l i kew i s e unava i l i ng. T he cha ncel l or
m ade n o such fi nd i ng , bu tbased h i s anal ysi s sol el y o n the app l i cat i on o f G r ant . T he chanc el l orf

ound thatV aughn w as nei therm ent al l y norm or al l y unf i tt o ha ve cus t ody of

the chi l d, norhad he abandoned the chi l d t hr ough hi s i nact i on. H ow ever , beca us e V aughn had agr ee d t o the t e mpor a ry c us t od y or de r , h e h a d gi ve n up the n a tur a l p r e s umpt i on, t hus al l ow i ng the cha ncel l ort o compl et e an Al br i ght a n a ly s is , w h ic h fa v o re d C o n n ie
. See Albr i ght v. Albr i ght , 437 So. 2d 1003, 1005 ( M i s s . 1983)
. A f t erfi ndi ng t hatC onni e s t ood

“ in lo c o p a re n tis . . . t o the chi l d, ” the chanc el l ors t at ed that“ the af f ect i ons of

thi s c hi l d have b e c o m e so e n g a g e d to [C o n n ie] th a t a s e v e ra n c e o f th a t re latio n sh ip w o u ld re su lt i n d e s tr o y in g th e b e s t in te re s t o f t h e c h ild .” A N A L Y S IS

### 6

¶9. “A chanc el l or' s fi nd i ng s of factw i l l notbe di s turbed unl es s m ani f es t l y w r ong or cl ear l y err oneous . . . . A chanc el l or ' s concl us i ons of l aw ar e r evi ew ed de novo. ” L ow r ey v. Lowre y , 2 5 S o. 3d 274, 285 ( M i s s . 2009) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed)
. W e ana l yze a s i ngl e i s s ue: W hetherthe chanc el l ore rr ed i n de nyi ng V aughn the benef i tof a natur al
- par entpr es um pt i on b a s e d o n h is a g re e in g to th e o rd e r f o r t e m p o ra ry c u s to d y . ¶ 1 0
. “ A t th e o u tse t o f th is d isc u ss io n , w e re a ffirm th a t th e p a ra m o u n t a n d u lti m a te g o a l in
every chi l d cus t ody cas e mustbe the bes ti nt er es t s of the chi l d. ” I

n re D is s olution of Mar r iage of

L eve r ock and H

am by , 23 So. 3d 424, 429 ( M i s s . 2009)
. T he L eve r ockC o u rt stat ed furthe r: In M iss iss ip p i, it is p re su m e d tha t i t i s in the b e st in ter e st o f a c h ild to re m a in w ith th e n a tu ra l p a re n t a s o p p o s e d to a th ir d p a rt y . K . D. F . v. J . L . H. , 933 So. 2d 9 71 , 9 80 ( M i s s . 2 00 6)
. Thi s p r e s umpt i on i s e c ho e d i n M i s s i s s i ppi C ode S e c tio n 9 3 -1 3 -1 : “T h e fa th e r a n d m o th e r a re th e jo in t n a tu ra l g u a rd ian s o f th e ir m i nor c hi l dr en and a r e equa l l y char ged w i th thei rcar e, nur tur e, w el f ar e and educa t i on. . . . I f

ei therf atherorm otherdi e orbe i ncapabl e of acti ng , the g u ard ians h ip d ev o lves u p o n the su rviv ing p are n t. ” M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 3 -13 -1 ( R ev. 2004)
. H ow ever , w e al s o r ecogni ze thatthi s pr es um pt i on orpr ef er ence fo r a n a tu ra l p a re n t m a y b e re b u tte d
. I d. at429- 30. ¶11. T he cha ncel l orb el i eved h e h ad on l y tw o opt i ons . H e w oul d have t o f i nd V aughn i m m or al orunf

i tas a par ent , orthathe had abandoned the chi l d, and t hen do an Albr i ght analysi s t o d et erm i ne D aniel l e’s besti nter est s. O r, i f he fai l ed t o fi nd i m m oral i ty, un fi tness, or aban do nm ent, he w ou l d hav e t o grantcust od y to V aug hn w i tho ut r egard t o D aniel l e’s best interests. T h e c h an ce ll o r fou n d ab an d o n m en t th rou g h V au g h n ’s ag ree m en t t o tem p o rary
cu stod y . F o ll o w ing this fi n d ing , the ch ancell or det erm i ned that D an iel le’s be st i n terests w ere
s e rv e d b y c o n tin u in g to liv e in C o n n ie ’s h o m e , th e o n ly h o m e D a n ie lle h a d e v e r k n o w n .

### 7

¶12
. W e fi nd that the chan cel l or w as no t requi red t o m ake such a st ark cho i ce un der these f act s . O urcus t ody s t atut e, as ci t ed i n L eve r ock , of f er s anotheropt i on, a f

i ndi ng of des ert i on, as f oll ow s: U pon a f

i ndi ng by the courtthatboth of the par ent s o f

the chi l d have aban doned ordes er t ed s uc h c hi l d o rtha tbo th s uc h p a r e nt s a r e ment al l y, m o rall y o r oth erw ise u n fi t t o rea r an d tr ain th e c h il d the c o u rtm ay aw ard phys i c a l a nd l e ga l c us t od y t o . . . [ t ] he p e r s on i n w ho s e h ome the c hi l d has b e e n liv in g in a w h o le s o m e a n d s ta b le e n v ir o n m e n t. . . . M iss . C o d e A n n . § 9 3 -5 -2 4 (1 )(e )(i) (R e v . 2 0 0 4 ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ); s ee L eve r ock , 23 So. 3d at430. T hus , the cha ncel l orcoul d have tr eat ed V aughn’ s i nact i on pr i ort o the agr eed or der
as des ert i on of

D ani el l e. I f

s o, V aughn w oul d have f or f ei t ed the pr es um pt i on he had a s her
n a tu ra l fa th e r, e v e n th o u g h h is a c tio n s/in a c tio n s d o n o t co m p a re to th e b e h a v io r o u r c o u rts h a v e fo u n d to c o n stitu te a b a n d o n m e n t orco n stru c tiv e ab a n d o n m e n t. G overnale v. H aley , 2 2 8 M iss . 2 7 1 , 2 7 5 -7 8 , 8 7 S o . 2 d 6 8 6 , 6 8 7 -8 9 (M iss . 1 9 5 6 ) (a b a n d o n m e n t, l e a v in g c h ild w ith
a re lativ e fo r te n y e a rs) ; L oo m is v. B ugg , 872 So. 2d 694, 695- 96 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2004) (u n fitn e ss ); H

ill v. Mitch e ll , 818 So. 2d 1221, 1222- 23 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2002) ( cons truct i ve abandonment , chi l d al l ow ed t o s t ay i n court - or der ed t empora ry phys i cal cus t ody of gr andpar ent s f

orel even ye ar s )
. H ow ever , des ert i on, i f f ound, w oul d appl y. ¶13. T hi s C our ti n L eve r ockdis t i ng uis hed aban do nm ent and d esert i on as f oll ow s: A bandonmenti s “any c onducton the partof the par entw hi ch evi nces a s ett l ed p u rp o s e to fo re g o a ll d u tie s a n d re lin q u is h a ll p a re n ta l c la im s to th e c h ild .” [A inswort

h v. N atural Father, 414 So. 2d 417, 419 ( M i s s . 1982)
. ] I n def i ni ng the t erm “ des ert , ” thi s C our ti n A in sw o rth not ed the f ol l ow i ng def

i ni t i ons : “2. T o f or s ake ( a per s on, i ns t i tut i on, caus e, et c. , havi ng m or al orl egal cl ai m s upon one)
. 3. T o f

or s ake one ' s duty, one' s pos torone' s party. ” I d. a t 4 2 0 . T h is C o u rtex p lai n ed that “a b a n d o n m en t has to d o w ith the re li n q u ishm en t of a r i gh to rc l a i m, wher e a s d e s e r t i on i nv ol ve s a n a vo i da nc e o f a dut y or o b lig a tio n .”

### Six j ustic es were in th e majority, whi ch reve rs ed and re ndered the de se rtion i ss ue. 3 

### Leverock , 23 S o . 3 dat 4 34 . Tw o ju stices wo uldhav e reversedandremand ed. Seeid. at 435-38 ( Pie rc e, J., concur ring in part

and diss enting in par

t, joine d by Carls on, P. J. , j oine d in part by Wall er , C.J .) . Thus, theCourt was ei ght- to- one on the que stion of re ver sing the chance ll or’ s grant

of c ustody to t

he f ather
. 8 L eve r ock , 2 3 So. 3 d a t4 30 n . 2. T he A in sw o rth C o u rtcit ed W eb ster’s an d the O x ford E ngl i s h D i ct i onary f

orthe def

i ni t i ons of

both w ords, fi ndi ng thatthe “de f i ni t i on of abandonmenti n W

r i ght v. Fi t z gibb ons , [ 198 M i ss. 471, 477- 78, 21 So. 2d 709, 710- 11 ( 1945) ] , s eems t o i ncl ude both avoi dance of duty and r el i nqui s hm entof r i ght
. ” A in sw o rth
v. N atural Father , 4 1 4 S o . 2 d 4 1 7 , 4 1 9 -20 (M iss. 1 9 8 2 ). ¶14. I n L eve r ock , th is C o u rt f o u n d th a t a f

a th e r h a d d e se rte d h is s o n b y “ c o m p lete ly 3
avo i d[i ng ] bo th h i s m oral and l egal du t i es and obli gati on s as a father f or m ore than tw o y ears . D u ri n g th is p e ri o d o f tim e , h e s h o w e d a c o m p le te d is re g a rd fo r t h e w e lf a re o f h is y o u n g s o n .” L eve r ock , 23 So. 3d at431. T he L eve r ockC o u rt c o n tin u e d th a t th e fa th e r h a d c h o se n “ ‘to tak e a n e x ten d e d h o lid a y fr o m th e re sp o n sib ili ties o f p a re n th o o d ’ a n d w e fin d th a t h e sh o u ld notnow be abl e t o cl ai m the bene f i to f hi s s t atus as a natur al par ent. . . . ” I d . at431- 32 (c itatio n o m itt e d ). T h e C o u rt sta ted th a t, on c e “ a b a n d o n m e n t, d e se rtio n , o r o th e r a c ts demonstr at i ng unf

i tnes s t o ra i s e a chi l d” ar e f ound “by cl earand convi nci ng evi dence , ” the natura l
- par ent“pr es um pt i on vani s hes , and the courtm us tgo f ur thert o det erm i ne cus t ody bas ed on the bes ti nt er es t s of the ch i l d t hr ough an on- the- r ecor d anal ys i s of the Albr i

ght f act or s . ” I

d . at43 1. In this Albr i

ght anal ys i s , even though the natur al par enthas l os tthe pr es um pt i on, a courtm ay s t i l l cons i der“s oci ety' s i nt er es ti n pr es ervi ng the natur al par entand ch il d relati o n sh ip w h en ev er p o ssible,” b u t a c h an ce ll o r sho u ld co n side r i t as “o n ly o n e fa ctor,W ebs t er ’ s def i nes “pol es t ar ”as “1. Pol ar i s , a s t arthati s vert i cal ornear l y so, t o the 4 p o le o f t h e e a rt h , a ls o c a lle d N o rt h S ta r. 2 . T h a t w h ic h s e rv e s a s a g u id e o r d ir e c to r.” 

### 9 among m any, t o be cons i der ed. ” I d. T he C our ti ns truct ed the cha ncel l ort o cons i der“the pr es entci r cumst ance s of the part i es ” i n the cus t ody det erm i nat i on, as tw o year s had pas s ed
s in c e th e h e a ri n g . I

d. at432. ¶ 1 5 . It w a s e rro r h e re to fin d th a t G r ant contr ol s . I n G r ant , a mot herr el i nqui s hed cus t ody
o f h e rth re e c h ild re n to th e irp a te rn a l g ra n d p a re n ts . See G r ant , 7 57 So
. 2 d a t2 64
. The gr andpar ent s w er e appoi nt ed as guar di ans vi a a cha ncel l or ’ s orde r . T w o year s l at er , w hen the p arent s di vor ced, a s ett l ementagr eementgr ant i ng cus t ody of the chi l dr en t o the g ra n d p a re n ts w a s in c o rp o ra te d in to th e f in a l j u d g m e n t o f d iv o rc e . See id. at265. M or e than tw o year s l at er , af

t erthe mot herhad r emar r i ed, s he pet i t i oned f ora modi f

i cat i on, w hi ch w as d e n ie d
. See id. T he C our tof A ppeal s , fi ndi ng no unf i tnes s or abandonment , r ever s ed and
r e n d e r e d i n th e m o th e r’ s fa v o r. See id. at266. T hi s C our tr ever s ed the j udgm entof the C o u rt o f A p p e a ls, se tti n g a n e w sta n d a rd “ th a t a n a tu ra l pa re n t w h o v o lu n tar ily r el i nquis hes
c u sto d y o f a m in o r c h ild , th ro u g h a c o u rt o f c o m p e ten t ju risd ictio n , h a s fo rfe ited th e rig h t to
r el y on the exi s t i ng natur al par entpr es um pt i on. ” I d. ( emphasi s a dded)
. T he C ou rtst at ed th a t, i n se tti n g th e n e w s ta n d a rd , itd id n o t “w a n t to e n c o u ra g e a n irre sp o n sib le p a re n t to
re lin q u ish . . . c u sto d y to a n o th e r fo r c o n v e n ien c e sa k e , an d th e n b e a b le to c o m e b a c k in to the chi l d' s l i f

e year s l at erand si m pl y cl ai m t he natur al par ent s ' pre s um pt i on . . . . ” I d . T he G r ant C our tal s o re af

f i rm ed the pr i nci pl es t hat(1) “st abi l i ty i n t he l i ves of chi l dr en i s of s uch greati m po rt ance,” and (2) “the p oles t ar consi derat i on i n all c h il d cust od y cases i s the b est in te re s t o f t h e c h ild . . . .” I d . 4W e b s te r’ s N e w U n iv e rs a l U n a b ri d g e d D ic tio n a ry 1 3 9 1 (2 d e d . 1 9 8 3 ). 

### 10 ¶16. T he mot heri n G r ant gave up c us t ody of

herchi l dren thr ough a courtof compet ent ju ri s d ic tio n o n tw o d if

fe re n t o c c a s io n s , i.e ., th e g u a rd ia n s h ip a n d th e d iv o rc e d e c re e . I d . at 264- 65. W hen s he gave up cus t ody the f i r s tt i m e, s he actuall y w as r el i nqui s hi ng phys i cal
cus t ody of the chi l dr en. U nl i ke i n G r ant , V aughn neve rhad phys i cal cus t ody of D ani el l e, thus , he had nothi ng t o r el i nqui s h. H e mer el y al l ow ed C onni e t o r etai n cus t ody, w hi ch w as a pr opert empora ry arr angem ent , unt i l a hea r i ng coul d be hel d. V aughn coul d nothave know n atthatt i m e thatthr ee ye ar s w oul d el aps e bef or e the hear i ng w as he l d, a nd thatf i ve y ea rs (an d co u n ti n g ) w o u ld g o b y b efo re a d ec isi o n w o u ld b e m ad e o n D an iel le’s l o n g -t erm
cus t ody. V aughn’ s s i gni ng thi s a gr eementdoes notequat e t o abandonment
. A compar i s on of t he t empora ry natur e of thi s agr eementw i th the guar di ans hi p i n G r ant is f law ed
. In G r ant , th e re w a s a d iv o rc e d e c re e , a s w e ll a s a g u a rd ia n s h ip o rd e r. I d. H e re , the re w a s o n ly a t empora ry agr eementaw ai t i ng a hea r i ng. ¶1 7. W e a f

f i rm the c ha nc e l l or ’ s f

i nd i ng thatC onni e s t ood in loco p arentis t o D ani el l e. “W e have def

i ned a person a ct i ng in lo c o p a re n tis as one w ho has as s um ed the s t atus and ob l i gati ons of

a par entw i thouta f

or m al adopt i on. ” L eve r ock , 23 So. 3d a t43 0 ( qu ot i ng L ogan v. L ogan , 730 So. 2d 1124, 1126 ( M i s s . 1998). T he r ecor d show s t hatC onni e t ook D ani el l e i nt o herhom e and pr ovi ded par ent al supervi s i on and supportas though s he w er e her
o w n c h ild
. See Farve v. Medders , 2 4 1 M is s . 7 5 , 8 1 -8 2 , 1 2 8 S o . 2 d 8 7 7 , 8 7 9 -8 0 (1 9 6 1 ).” CONCL US I ON

### 11

¶ 1 8
. T h u s , we r e v e r s e th e j u d g me n t s o f th e Co u r t o f Ap p e a l s a n d th e t r i a l c o u r t , a n d we
re m a n d th e m a tter to th e C h a n c e ry C o u rt o f R a n k in C o u n ty fo r p ro c e e d in g s c o n sis ten t w ith thi s opi ni on. Speci f

i cal l y, t he courti s t o det erm i ne i f V aughn r el i nqui s hed the natur al
- par ent p re s u m p tio n fo r r e a s o n s o th e r t h a n fo rf e itu re b y a g re e in g to a te m p o ra ry c u s to d y o rd e r. T hree y ear s have e l aps ed s i nce the l as thear i ng. T hus , the cha ncel l ors houl d cons i der D ani el l e’ s ci r cumst ance s atthe t i m e of the r emand hear i ng, i f

he det erm i nes thatdes ert i on has been pr oven. A s al w ays i n cus t ody m att er s , the bes ti nt er es t s of t he chi l d s houl d gui de the ana l ys i s as a pol es t ar . A s t he chanc el l or ’ s j udgm ent s on j oi ntl egal cus t ody, vi s i t at i on, etcet era , w ere notpartof this ap peal, the ch ancell or ret ai ns his dis cret i on i n craf t i ng the b est
a rr a n g e m e n ts , c o n s id e ri n g p re s e n t c ir c u m s ta n c e s . ¶19. RE VE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D. W AL LE R, C. J . , CARLS ON AND GRAV ES , P . J J . , DI CKI NS ON, LA M AR, KI TCHEN S , AND CH AND LER, J J . , CO NCU R. PI ERCE, J . , S PECI ALLY C O N C U R S W I T H S E P A R A T E W R I T T E N O P I N I O N J O I N E D B Y W A L L E R , C .J ., A N D C A R L S O N , P .J . P I E RC E , J US T I CE , S P E CI AL L Y C ON CU RR I NG : ¶ 2 0
. W h ile I c o n c u r w ith th e m a jo ri ty ’s h o ld in g a n d a n a ly sis , I c a n n o t jo in th e m a jo rity opi ni on w her e i tadopts the anal ys i s f ound i n I n re : D is s olution of

Mar r iage of

L eve r ock and Ham by , 2 3 S o . 3 d 4 2 4 (M iss. 2 0 0 9 ). S p ec if icall y , th e m ajority d iscu sses this C o u rt ’s f i ndi ng thatthe f

atheri n L eve r ock“ d e se rte d h is s o n b y ‘c o m p le te ly a v o id [in g ] bo th h is
m or al and l egal dut i es a nd obl i gat i ons a s a f atherf ormore than tw o ye ar s . ’ ” ( M aj
. O p. ¶ 14) ( quot i ng L eve r ock , 2 3 S o . 3 d at 43 1 ).

### 12

¶21. A s I s t at ed i n L eve r ock , as an appel l at e court , thi s C our t i s r es pons i bl e “t o r evi ew the deci s i on of

the chanc el l or , nott o m ake a n or i gi nal det erm i nat i on. ” I d. at434- 435 ( Pi er ce, J . , concurr i ng i n partand di s s ent i ng i n part )
. T he cha ncel l ori n L eve r ockdi d notm ake adeq uate f

i nd i ng s on the r ec o rd to supp ortthis C ou rt ’s su a sp o n te det erm i nat i on thatthe f atherhad dese rt ed hi s chi l d. B eca us e I am of the opi ni on L eve r ockw as w r ongl y deci ded, I cannotj oi n the maj or i ty opi ni on i n w hi ch i tadopt s this C ou rt ’ s anal ys i s i n thatcas e. O therw ise, I full y co n cu r. W AL LE R, C. J . , AND CA RL S ON, P . J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON.