I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 1 2 - CT - 0 0 8 8 4 - S CT IN T H E IN T ER ES T O F A M INO R V IC TO R IA DENI S E W AI TES : J

EFFRE Y S COTT

W AI TES
v. AMY M AR I E WAI T ESRIT CHI

E A ND TI M OTHY J

. S ANFORD ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 03/ 21/ 2012 T R I A L J U D G E : H O N . J O H N N Y L E E WI L L I A MS TRI AL C OU RT A TTOR NEY S: W I LLI AM L. PEEBLES RO BERT R. M AR SHA LL GEO RG E H. GU NTER COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: LAM AR COUNTY CHA NCERY COURT A T T O R N E Y F O R A P P E L L A N T : S . C H R IS T O P H E R F A R R IS ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLEES : GEO RG E H. GU NTER RO BERT R. M AR SHA LL NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CI VI L - CU S T ODY DI S P OS I T I ON: T HE J UDGMENT OF T HE CO UR T OF AP P E AL S I S RE VE RS E D AND T HE J UD GM ENT O F THE LAM AR CO UN TY CH ANC E RY CO UR T I S RE I NS T AT E D AND A FFIRM E D - 12/ 11/ 2014 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. PI ERCE, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1 . T h is ap p ea l stem s fr o m a pe ti ti o n m ad e b y A m y W ait es R it ch ie (“A m y ”) to m o d if y a c u sto d y a g re e m e n t cr e a ted b y Je ffre y S c o tt W a ites (“ S c o tt”) a n d h e rse lf fo llo w in g th e ir

### This case previ ously was des ignate d conf ide nti alin e rror, and a ft er approvalfrom 1 

### al l partie s at oralargum ent befor e thi s Court , thematte r is now no longer styl ed a s s uch. In the Co urt of Ap peals’ op inio n belo w Amywas referred to as “Ann e,” Sco tt was “Jak e,” T.J. was “Tomm ie ,”Vict ori a was “Vanes sa ,”and Brac kst on was “Brett. ” See J. S. W . v. A. W . S. and T. J. S. , So. 3d , 2013 W L 6231797 

### . See Albright

v . Al bri ght, 43 7 S o. 2 d 1 00 3, 1 00 5 (M iss. 19 83 ) (“We rea ffirm the ru le 2 

### that t he pol es tar c onsi deration in c hil d c ust ody c as es i s thebe st inte re st and we lf ar e of the chi ld. The a ge of

thechi ld is subordinate d to t hat rul e and is but onefa ct or t o be c onsi der ed. Age s hould c ar

ry no gr eate r we ight

than othe r f

ac tor s t o be c onsi der ed, suc h as : he alth, and se x of the c hil d; a

deter mination of thepar ent

that ha s ha d thecontinui ty of carepri or t o the separatio n; whichhas th e best p arentin g sk ills andwh ich h as the w illing ness an d cap acity to providepri mary c hil d care ; t he e mpl oyme nt of

thepar ent

and r espo nsib ili ti es of that em ploym ent ; phys ic aland m ent alhea lt h and ageof the pare nts ; e motiona l tie s of par ent and chi ld; moralfi tne ss of pare nts ; t he hom e, school and communi ty rec ord of thechi ld; the preferen ce of th e childat the ag e sufficient to express a preferen ce bylaw; stab ility o f ho me env ironment an d emplo yment of each parent, andother factors relevant to the p arent-ch ild re lati onship.” ) 2 d i v o r c e two y e a r s e a r l i e r . Am y p e t i t i o n e d f o rmo d i f i c a t i o n , s e e k i n g t o mo v e wi th h e rtwo 1
c h ild re n to Io w a , as A m y p lan n e d to re m a rry th e re . A lth o u g h A m y a n d S c o tt h a d a g re e d to j oi ntphys i cal and l egal cust ody, A m y’ s pr opos ed move t o I ow a w oul d m ake the pr ovi s i ons o f th e a g ree m en t un w o rk ab le. A ft er init iat ing the p eti ti o n , A m y co n tacted T . J. S an ford (“T
. J. ”) to let him k n o w s h e b eli ev ed h im to b e h er e ldes t child’s b iolog ical fath er; s ubs equent l y, a D N A t es tpr oved T. J . ’ s pat erni ty and he j oi ned the mat t ers eeki ng cus t ody. ¶2 . A ft er e x clud ing S co ttfrom co n side rati o n u n d er A lb rig h t a s a non- natur al par ent , the 2 pr es i di ng chanc el l oraw ar ded f ul l phys i cal and l egal cus t ody t o A m y rather t han T. J . T he
c h a n c e llo r a llo w e d v isitatio n fo r b o th S c o tt an d T .J., w ith re sp e c t to th e e ld e st c h ild . S c o tt
a p p e a led the c o u rt ’s ord er, an d the C o u rto f A p p ea ls r ev erse d
. F ind ing S co tt ’s fathe rly act i ons di d r ebutthe natur al
- par entpr es um pt i on af f or ded t o A m y and T
. J . , the C our tof A pp eal s f

ou nd S cottshou l d hav e been co nsi dered o n eq ual f oo t i ng w i th the natural parent s.J

. S. W . v. A. W . S. a nd T. J. S. , _ S o. 3d _, 2013 W L 6231797, at*1 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 3 D e c . 3 , 2 0 1 3 ). 

### As the c hanc er

y c ourt not ed, Sc ott

“ was pres ent

whe n [ Vic toria ] wa s bor n, . . . cut 4 

### [Vi ct ori a’ s] umbi li ca l c ord, and .
. . eve n helped t o nam e he r. ” 3 T he C our tof

A ppeal s r emanded t hi s cas e t o the cha ncery courtw i th i ns truct i ons t o cons i der S co ttu n d er Albr i

ght . A m y a n d T .J . fi le d a w ri t o f c e rt io ra ri , w h ic h th is C o u rt g ra n te d . W e 3 fi n d the c h an ce ll o r pro p erl y ex cl ud ed S cottfr om con si d era ti o n u n d er Albr i ght . A ccor di ngl y,
w e r ever s e the C our tof A ppeal s ’ deci s i on and r ei ns t at e and a f f i r m the j udgm ent of the
c h a n c e ry c o u rt. F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶3. I n 2004, s event een- year - ol d Amyb e g and at i n gt w enty- one- year - ol d S c o tt . B ut , dur i ng th i s p e ri o d , A m y also h ad a b ri ef relati o n sh ip w ith T . J. In Ju ly 2 0 0 4 , A m y an d S co ttw ere
m arr i ed, and on D ece m ber16, 2004, A m y gave bi rth t o V i ct or i a. I ni t i al l y, Scot tbel i eved V ic to ri a w a s h is c h ild
. T h e re a ft e r, A m y a n d S c o tt h a d a c h ild to g e th e r, B ra c k s to n . 4 ¶4. I n M ar ch 2007, T . J . ’ s m other cont act ed A m y, i nf or m ed her that T . J . w as about t o be depl oyed w i th the mi l i t ary, and ques t i oned w hetherT . J . w as V i ct or i a’ s fa ther
. A m y deni ed thatV i ct or i a w as T. J . ’ s da ught er , butScottove rhear d the conve r s at i on. O n M ar ch 16, 2007, Scot tha d a D N A t es tpe r f or m ed w hi ch conf

i r m ed thathe w as notV i ct ori a’s biol og i cal f at her
. N e ve r the l e s s , A my an d Sc ottde c i de d n ott o d i s c l os e V i c t or i a ’ s pa t e rni ty, a nd t hat S c o tt w o u ld c o n tin u e to ra is e h e r a s h is o w n c h ild
. ¶5. O n D ece m ber 15, 2009, the chanc ery court ent er ed an A gr eed J udgm ent of D i vor ce a s t o Am y a n d S c o t t . T h e d i v o r c e j u d g me n tp r o v i d e d , i n p e r t i n e n tp a r t , th a t“ th e r e we r e t wo
m i norchi l dr en born unt o the part i es , ” V i ct or i a and B r acks t on, a nd that“[ t ] he mi norchi l dr en

### 4

have be en i n the car e, c ontr ol a nd c us t ody of ” A m y a nd Scott . T he part i es w er e gr ant ed j oi nt l egal and physi cal cust ody of the m i norchi l dr en, w i th cust odi al t i m e di vi ded on a w eek- t ow eek ba s i s . B oth A m y and Scottcert i f i ed t hey w er e V i ct or i a and Bra cks t on’ s bi ol ogi cal par ent s , al though bot h A m y and Scottknew thi s t o be untrue, as the M ar ch 2007 D N A had testco n fi rm ed S co ttw as n o t V ict o ri a’s fath er. ¶6. Fol l ow i ng t he di vor ce, A m y m arr i ed a m an kno w n as “M r . R i t chi e. ” T he mar r i age l a s t e d a f

e w mo n th s , f

r o m M a y 2 0 1 0 t o Dec e mb e r2 0 1 0 . Af t e rd i v o r c i n g Ri t c h i e , Amy b eg an a re lat ion sh ip w ith N ick R h o d s an d p lann ed to m o v e to Io w a w ith b o th ch il d ren , w h ere R hods l i ved , aft erm arr yi ng hi m . O n J anuary 17, 2011, A m y cont act ed T. J . r egar di ng t he p o ss ib ili ty th a t h e w a s V icto ria ’s fa th e r. O n Ja n u a ry 2 8 , 2 0 1 1 , A m y su e d T .J. fo r su p p o rt. A ft er a D N A testrev ea led a 99 . 9 9 9 % pro b ab il ity that T
. J. w as V ict o ri a’s b iolog ical fath er, T . J . f i l ed a M ot i on f

orC us t ody, V i s i t at i on and Pat erni ty w i th r es pectt o V i ct or i a, on M ar ch 3, 2011. Then, i n N ovemberof 2011, A m y i ni t i at ed a Pet i t i on f orM odi f i cat i on of

the 2009
cus t ody agr eementm ade by Scottand her s el f , s o thats he coul d m ove the chi l dr en outof
s t at e. Scot toppos ed. ¶7. O n M ar ch 23, 2012, the cha ncery c our te nt er ed i t s Fi ndi ngs of Fac t , Concl us i ons of L aw and Fi nal J udgm ent . A ccor di ng t o the cha ncery court , A m y, Scot t , and T
. J. “al l s eek to h a v e p rim a ry p h y sic a l cu sto d y o f [V icto ria ]. ” T h e ch a n c e ry co u rt fo u n d , in p e rtin e n t p a rt, th a t: [ g] i ven the t es t i m ony pr es ent ed attr i al , [ T . J . ] had t o have know n t hatther e w as a pos s i bi l i ty thathe may have be en the f atherof [ V i ct or i a] , es peci al l y w hen he h ea rd [A m y ] w as p reg n an t, an d ca lculated the m o n ths in h is m ind
. T h e [c] o u rt a lso re c o g n ize s th a t [T .J.] d id little to n o th in g to in q u ir e o r o th e rw ise try to i nvol ve hi m s el f

i n t he l i f

e of a chi l d thatcoul d have be en hi s . H ow ever , the

### 5

[ c] our tdoes notfi nd t hat[ T . J . ’ s ] conductm ett he cr i t er i a f orabandonmentas s etouti n S ellers [ v. S ellers , 638 So. 2d 481 ( M i s s . 1994) ] . A f t erw ei ghi ng the r es tof the f

act or s s etouti n S el

lers , i tw oul d s eem t hat[ T . J . ] has notengage d i n conductthatw as over l y i m m or al so as t o be a detr i m entt o [ V i ct or i a] , nor d o e s h e a p p ea r t o b e o n e w h o is un fi t t o raise a c h il d , esp ec ial ly sinc e h e is curr ent l y r ai s i ng hi s s on f r om a pr evi ous r el at i ons hi p.

. . . A l though I

n re L eve r ock [ , 23 S o. 3d 42 4 (M i ss. 200 9), ] dif fer s f rom the case ath a nd , i n tha t[ T. J . ] h a s n ot“ c ho s e n t o t a ke a n e xt e nd e d ho l i da y f r om par enthood, ” the ci rcum s t ance s ar e qui t e s i m i l ar . H er e, [ V i ct or i a] has been l i vi ng w i th the i dea that[ Scot t ] i s herbi ol ogi cal fa therherent i r e l i f e. She has r emai ned i n t he car e and cus t ody of both [ Scot t ] and [ A m y] f orthe pas ts even y ea rs, an d h as b ee n thri v ing
. A cc o rdin g to the h o lding o f Lev e r oc k , t he [ c] our tcannotnow arbi tr ar i l y r emove [ V i ct or i a] f r om the ca r e and c us t ody of [S c o tt] a n d [A m y ], ju st b a se d o n [T .J.’s] rig h t as a n a tu ra l p a re n t. L eve r ock i s di s t i ngui s habl e i n a notheri m por t antw ay, a nd thati s thatw e have b o th n a tu ra l p a re n ts v y in g fo r th e c u sto d y o f [V icto ria ]. T h e [c]o u rt’s a n a ly sis d o es n o t ign o re an y an d all ri g h ts that [Sc o tt ] m ay h av e to [V ict o ri a] un d er in lo c o p a re n tis .

. . . N ei ther[ T . J. ] nor[ A m y] have done anythi ng t o w arr antthi s [ c] our tt o deem them unfi tt o r ai s e thei rdaught er , [ V i ct or i a] . [ Scot t ] di s cover ed that[ V i ct or i a] w as nothi s bi ol ogi cal chi l d i n 2007. A tt hatt i m e he ha d r eas on t o know , or at l ea st sho u ld h av e k n o w n , that there w as a n atura l fath e r o u t th ere s om ew her e. H ow ever , r athert han se ek [ T . J . ] out , [ Scot t ] chos e t o t ake no ac ti o n fo r th e sa k e o f ke ep ing h is f am il y tog ethe r, an d co n ti n u ed to su p p o rt and ca r e f

or[ V i ct or i a] . T he [ c] our tf i nds thi s t o be qui t e admi r abl e. A s s uch, [ S cott ] has been e f

f ect i vel y act i ng i n loco pa rent is . . . . T o p h ase [Sc o tt] e n tirely o u t o f [V icto ria ’s] life w o u ld b e c e rta in ly d e trim e n tal to h e r w e ll bei ng. . . . [ Scot t ] i s t her ef or e ent i t l ed to vis i t at i on r i ght s t o [ V i ct or i a] . T he [c ]o u rt , how eve r , m us tnow deci de w ho s houl d be ent i t l ed t o phys i cal cus t ody o f [ V ic to ri a ] a s b e tw e e n th e c h ild ’s n a tu ra l p a re n ts , [A m y ] a n d [T .J .].

### The c hanc el lor did not modif

y cust ody with re spe ct

to Brac kst on, whi ch Amy and 5 

### Scott s har e. 6 A f t erconduct i ng an A lb rig h t analysi s as t o V i ct ori a’s natural parent s, the chan cery co u rt concl uded thati tw oul d be i n V i ct or i a’ s “bes ti nter est ” forA m y t o “r et ai n f ul l l egal and p h y s ic a l c u s to d y . . . , s u b je c t to v is ita tio n o f b o th [T .J .] a n d [S c o tt].” 5 ¶ 8 . T h e re a ft e r, S c o tt fi le d a M o tio n to S e t A s id e Ju d g m e n t o r in th e A ltern a tiv e to R econs i derthe F i nd i ngs of Fact , C oncl us i ons of L aw and Fi nal J udgm entand f or M odi f i cat i on of

the Fi nal J udgm ent . Scot ta r gued thatthe cha ncery courtf ai l ed t o cons i der h im , “ w h o w as fou n d to b e the fathe r in lo c o p a re n tis , i n the A lb rig h t fa c to rs[,]” a lo n g w ith A m y a n d T .J.. T h e ch a n c e ry co u rt d e n ied S c o tt’s m o tio n . A c c o rd in g to th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt, Scot tw as notent i t l ed t o phys i cal
- cus t ody cons i der at i on i n the A lb rig h t anal ys i s beca us e he f ai l ed t o pr ove thatA m y and T
. J . “w er e unf i t , ” and the A lb rig h t anal ys i s f orpr i m ary phys i cal
c u s to d y w o u ld c o n s id e r o n ly A m y a n d T .J . ¶9 . F in d in g th a t n eith er A m y n o r T . J. , as the ch il d ’s b iolog ical p are n ts, w as “u n fit” to
ra is e V ic to ri a , S c o tt, w h o h a d “ e ff e c tiv e ly a c t[e d ] in lo c o p a re n tis [,] ” w a s e n tit led o n ly to vi s i t at i on r i ght s . Fol l ow i ng t he Albr i ght a n a ly sis , th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t itw o u ld be i n V i ct or i a’ s “ bes ti nt er es t ” f orA m y t o “r et ai n f

ul l l egal and phys i cal cus t ody .
. . , s ubj ect t o vi s i t at i on of

both [ T . J . ] a nd [ Scot t ] . ” Ther eaf t er , the cha ncery courtdeni ed Scott ’ s M ot i on t o R econs i der
. Scot tthen appe al ed. ¶10. T he M i ssi ssi pp i C ou rto f A pp eal s des cr i bed thi s as “a thr ee- w ay cus t ody act i on betw een ( 1) the natur al m other( “A m y”) , ( 2) the m other ’ s ex- hus band ( “Scott ”) , w ho had
s uppor t ed, car ed, and tr eat ed the chi l d as hi s ow n, and (3) the man w ho turned outt o be the

### Maxwe ll , J. , writing. Lee , C. J. , Irving and Grif fi s, P.JJ. , Ba

rne s, Is hee , Robe rt s and 6 

### Fair, JJ ., conc ur. Jame s, J. , c oncur s in part and dis se nts in part without separate writte n opini on. Carlton, J. , not

parti cipating. 7 chi l d’ s bi ol ogi cal f

ather( “T. J . ”)
. ” J

. S. W. , 2 0 1 3 W L 6 2 3 1 7 9 7 , at * 1 . T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls
re v e rse d th e jud g m e n t aw a rd in g cu sto d y to A m y , a n d re m a n d e d “ fo r th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt to conductan A lb rig h t an alys is that t ak es into c o n side rati o n w h ethe r i t w o u ld b e in th e c h il d ’s b e s t i n te re s t f

o r [S c o tt] to b e a w a rd e d c u s to d y .” See J . S. W. , 2013 W L 6231797, at**1, 6. 6 T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls d e ter m in e d th a t: i n thi s “ very l i m i t ed, uni que s i tuat i on, ” the f act[ Scot t ] s t ood in lo c o p a re n tis by hi s f atherl y act i ons t ow ar ds the chi l d do es r ebutthe natur al par ent pr es um pt i on. T hus , the cha ncel l orerr ed by notcons i der i ng [ Scot t ] on equal f oot i ng w i th [ A m y] and [ T . J . ] w hen det erm i ni ng w hi ch of the thr ee s houl d be aw ar ded cus t ody. Id . at*1 ( quot i ng Sm ith , 97 So. 3d 43, 47 ( M i s s . 2012) ) ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal )
. O n J une 3 and J une 10, 2014, the C our tof A ppeal s ’ de ni ed the mot i ons f orr ehea r i ng f

i l ed by A m y and T . J. A N A L Y S IS I . W h e t h e r t h e Co u r t o f App e a l s ’ d e c i s i o n i s c o n t r a r y t o e x i s t i n g l a w. ¶ 1 1 . T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls h e ld th a t th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt “ a p p lie d th e w ro n g le g a l s ta n d a rd .” J . S. W. , 20 13 W L 62 31 79 7, at*3
. A ccordi ng t o the C ou rtof A pp eal s: [ t ] he chanc el l orf

ound thatScot ts t ood i n loco pa rent is t o V i ct or i a; t hathe had s uppor t ed, car ed, and tr eat ed heras hi s ow n c hi l d, even a f t erhe l earned about herbi ol ogi cal par ent age; and thathe had s har ed hercus t ody and expe ns es af t er th e d iv o rc e . T h is p u t S c o tt i n a “ v e ry lim ite d , u n iq u e situ a tio n [,] ” w h e re h is s uppor t i ve ac t i ons t ow ar ds the chi l d – versus the natur al par ent ’ s harm f ul act i ons – r ebutt ed the natur al
- par entpr es um pt i on.

### 8

Id . ( quot i ng Sm ith , 97 So. 3d at47)
. R el yi ng upon G riffith v. P e ll , 88 1 S o. 2d 18 4 (M i ss. 2004) , and J

.P.M . v. T .D .M . , 932 So. 2d 760 ( M i s s . 2006) , the C our tof A ppeal s f

ound t hat “the d o ctri n e o f i n loco pa rent is has been us ed t o putt he pr es um ed f atheron equal f

oot i ng
w i th the natur al par ent . ” J . S. W. , 2013 W L 6231797, at**4- 5. A ccor di ng to t he C our tof A ppeal s , “[ t ] he onl y di f f er ence bet w een thi s cas e and P e ll and J . P. M. i s that, i n those cases, th e n a tu ra l fa th e r e ith e r d isc laim e d a n y rig h ts to th e c h ild o r c o u ld n o t b e c o n c lu siv e ly
es t abl i s hed. ” Id . at * 5 . B y th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls’ e stim a tio n , S c o tt “o v e rc [a]m e th e n a tu ra lparentpres um pti on , ” and “sho uld have been consi dered on equal f oo t i ng w i th A m y an d T
. J. i n the chan cel l or’ s Albr i ght anal ys i s . ” Id . at*6. ¶ 1 2 . A m y a n d T .J. as se rt th a t: i n a cus t ody di s put e betw een one s t andi ng i n loco pa rent is and a na tur al par ent , the par enti s ent i t l ed t o c us t ody unl es s the natur al par entpr es um pt i on is re b u tted . T h e c o u rt m a y n o t cons i dergr ant i ng cust od y t o a thi r d party, i ncl udi ng one st andi ng in loc o p a re n tis [,] u n les s a n d u n til th e th ird p a rty re b u ts thi s pr es um pt i on. A ccor di ng t o A m y and T
. J . , the “thr ee- w ay A lb rig h t anal ys i s ” cont empl at ed by the C our tof A ppeal s s houl d notbe undert aken “ unt i l the natur al par entpr es um pt i on i s over come by a f i ndi ng of unf i tnes s . . . . ” They a dded that“ [ i ] f thi s l aw i s goi ng t o be cha nged, the cha nge
n e e d s to b e in itia te d b y ” th is C o u rt . ¶13. “A chanc el l or ’ s cus t ody deci s i on w i l l be r ever s ed onl y i f i t w as m ani f es t l y w r ong or cl ear l y err oneous , ori f

the cha ncel l orappl i ed an e rr oneous l egal s t andar d. ” Sm ith , 97 So. 3d at46 . S cott ’s argum ent, acce pted by the C ou rto f A pp eal s, is thatin hi s r ole “as i n l oco p a re n tis [ , ] [ he] di d nothave to rebut t he natur al par entpr es um pt i on. H e had j us tas m uch ri g h t t o cu stod y of [ V ict o ri a] as d id [ T . J. ] an d [ A m y ] . ” In oth er w o rds, as st ated b y the C o u rtSee id . at34- 35 ( ci t i ng Sm ith , 9 7 S o . 3 d a t 4 3 ). 7 

### 9 of A ppeal s , the cha ncery court“app l i ed t he w r ong l egal s t andar d. ” J . S. W. , 2 0 1 3 WL 6231797, at*3. ¶14. R ece nt l y, i n D av is v. Vaughn , 126 So. 3d 33 ( M i s s . 2013) , w hi ch i nvol ved a cus t ody d ispu te be tw ee n a na tural f athe r and a m atern al gran d m o ther, this C o u rtaffirm ed that a third party’s i n loco pa rent is s t atus , s t andi ng al one, coul d notr ebutthe natur al
- par ent pr es um pt i on. A ccor di ng t o thi s C our t , “[ i ] n loco pa rent is s t a tu s c a rr i e s wi th i tt h e s a me

7 d u ties a n d liab ili ties th a t b e lo n g to a n a tu ra l pa re n t, in c lu d in g a rig h t t o c u sto d y o f th e c h ild ‘a s a g a in st thi r d pers ons . ’ ” D a v is , 126 So. 3d at37 ( quot i ng Farve v. Medders , 128 So. 2d 877, 879 ( M i s s . 1961) ) ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal )
. B ut , i n cus t ody di s put es i nvol vi ng natur al pa r e nt s , the na tur a l
- pa r e ntpr e s umpt i on m a y o nl y “ be r e bu t t e d b y c l e a ra nd c onvi nci ng evi dence that‘ ( 1) the par enthas abandone d the chi l d; ( 2) the par enthas des ert ed the chi l d; (3 ) th e p a re n t’s c o n d u c t is so im m o ra l as to b e d e trim e n ta l t o th e c h ild ; o r (4 ) th e p a re n t is unf i t , m ent al l y orotherw i s e, t o have c us t ody. ’ ” D a v is , 126 So. 3d at37 ( quot i ng Sm ith , 97 So. 3d at46)
. So: i n a cus t ody di s put e betw een one s t andi ng i n loco pa rent is and a na tur al par ent , the par enti s ent i t l ed t o cust ody unl es s the natur al
- par entpr es um pt i on is re b u tte d
. The cour tm ay not cons i dergr ant i ng cus t ody to a thi r d par t y, in c lu d in go n e s ta n d in gin lo c o p a re n tis, u n les s a n d u n til th e th irdp a rty re b u ts this pr es um

pt i on . In o ther w o rds, “[t ] h e d o ctri n e o f in lo c o p a re n tis d o e s n o t, by i t s el f , over come t he natur al
- par entp res um pt i on, ” al though i tm ay be a f act ori n det erm i ni ng w hetherthe pr es um pt i on has been r ebutt ed.See al s o L eve r ock , 2 3 S o . 3 d a t 4 3 1 ; S el lers , 638 So. 2d at485 ( quot i ng Moody v. 8 Moody , 2 1 1 S o . 2 d 8 4 2 , 8 4 4 (M iss . 1 9 6 8 )) (“ it i s th e stro n g p o licy o f th e law o f th is S tate thata chi l d s hal l r emai n i n the cus t ody of one of the par ent s un l ess t here h as been a cl ear s h o w in g th a t b o th a re u n fi t” ). See al s o L eve r ock , 23 So. 3d at431 ( “I f t he cour tfi nds one of thes e f act or s has been 9 pr oven, then t he 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 based on the bes ti nt er es t s of the chi l d thr ough an on- the- r ecor d anal ys i s of the Al b r i ght fac tors”). 

### 10 D a v is , 126 So. 3d at37 ( quot i ng Sm ith , 97 So. 3d at4 6-47) (i nternal ci t at i ons om i t t ed) (e m p h a sis ad d e d ). T h is C o u rt a d d e d th a t “[ i] f th e n a tu ra l-p a re n t p re su m p tio n is s u c c e ss fu lly 8
r ebutt ed, the courtm ay then pr ocee d t o det erm i ne w hetheran aw ar d of cus t ody t o t he chal l engi ng party w i l l s erve the chi l d’ s be s ti nt er es t s . ” D a v is , 126 So. 3d at37 ( ci t i ng Sm ith , 9 7 S o . 3 d at 46 ). 9 ¶ 1 5 . Sm i th i nvol ved a c us t od y di s pu t e b e tw e e n a c hi l d’ s g r a nd pa r e nt s a nd hi s natur al p a re n ts . Sm ith , 97 So. 3d at44. A ccor di ng t o thi s C our t , “a na tur al par entl oses t he l egal p re su m p ti o n that cu stod y sh o u ld b e w ith h im o r he r o n ly i f the r e h a s b e e n a c l e a rs how i ng of abandonment , des ert i on, orunf i tnes s on the par tof the par ent . T he A lb rig h t fac tors are notcons i der ed unl es s s uch s how i ng has f i r s tbeen made. ” Id . ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons om i t t ed) (em ph asi s added ). In so holdi ng , this C ou rtem ph asi zed that“[ t ] he d octr i ne o f i n l oco pa rent is does not , by i t s el f , over come t he natur al
- parent p r es um pt i on. ” Id . at46- 47. A nd thi s C our tspeci f

i cal l y r ef er ence d the dec i s i ons r el i ed upon by the C our tof A ppeal s i n t he
cas e s ub j udi ce (i .e ., P e ll and J . P. M. ). See id . at 4 7 . A c c o rd in g to th is C o u rt: [ i ] n loco pa rent is can – i n ve ry l i m i t ed, uni que s i tuat i ons – s om et i m es be us ed t o h e lp rebutthe natur al
- par entpr es um pt i on. I n both P e ll and J . P. M. , a hus band l earned dur i ng t he pende ncy of di vor ce pr ocee di ngs t hathe w as not the b i ologi cal father of a chil d bo rn of, o r j ustpri or t o, the m arr i age. I n those c a s e s , we r e a s o n e d th a tth e n a tu r a l
- p a r e n tp r e s u mp t i o n h a d b e e n o v e r c o me

### J.P .M. indi cate d that t

he “ le galfathe r”sincethechi ld’ s birth, who ha d suppor te d 10 

### thechi ld unde r the a ss umption t hat he wa s he r naturalfathe r and had s ustained a “s trong father-d aug hter relatio nsh ip[,]” was h er “father infact[,]” with “legal rig hts an d o blig ation s” different fro m th ose of oth er th ird p arties (e.g., aunts, g randparents). J.P. M. , 932 So. 2d at 768-70. It

is unc le ar

whe the r theright s af

forded wer e tr

uly c ust ody ri ghts , or

whether the y were mere v isitationrights, but it ap p ears th e latter was intend ed, as th is Co urt u ltimately af firm ed thec hanc er

y-c ourt judgm ent in J.P .M. Ad ditio nally , th e ch ancello r inthe case sub judiceint er

pre te d J.P. M. as prov idin g solelyfor v isitation
. See Griffith , 881 So. 2d at 186, (“ [M] er ely bec aus e anothe r m an wa s de te rm ine d to betheminor c hil d’s biol ogic alfathe r does not aut omati ca lly ne gat e thef ather -da ughte r re lati onship he ld by [ the in lo co p aren tis fathe r] and the m inor

chi ld. ”) 11 bas ed on s ever al f

act s : ( 1) the hus bands s t ood in lo c o p a re n tis ; ( 2) they had s up po r t e d, c a r e d f

or , a nd tr e a t e d the c hi l d a s the i ro w n; ( 3) the y coul d have b ee n req u ir ed to p ay ch il d su p p o rt(“w ith the b u rde n sh o u ld g o the b en efit ”); and ( 4) the bi ol ogi cal f

ather s w er e notre al l y i n t he pi ctur e: t he one i n P e ll had di s cl ai m ed any i nt er es ti n the chi l d and had a gr eed t o r el i nqui s h hi s par ent al r i gh t s , whi l e the o ne i n J . P. M. coul d noteven be det erm i ned conc l us i vel y. T hough i n loco pa rent is w as cons i der ed i n P e ll and J . P. M. , thos e cas es do not s uppor t– norhave w e eve rsugges t ed – t hati n l oco par ent is al one can r ebut the natur al

-

par ent pr es um pt i on . Id . (i n terna l ci tat ion s o m itted) (em p h asis ad d ed ). ¶ 1 6 . H o w e v e r, Sm ith al s o i ncl uded the f ol l ow i ng f

ootnot e: [ i ] n P e ll , w e r ever s ed the cha ncel l or ’ s t erm i nati on of the hus band’ s par ent al rig h ts a n d re m a n d e d th e c a se fo r a b e st-in ter e st A lb rig h t a n a l y s i s ; th u s , we i m pl i ci t l y f

ound thatthe natur al
- par entpr es um pt i on ha d been ove r come. A nd i n J . P. M. , w e r el i ed on P e ll to affirm the ch an ce ll o r’s de cisi o n to aw ard p h y s ic a l c u s to d y to th e h u s b a n d
. I n doi ng s o, w e s

peci f i cal l y r ej ected the w i f e’s a rg u m en ttha tthe ch an cel l or ha d n ot had the au tho ri t y t o a w ard cus t ody to the hus band wi thoutf i rs tf i ndi ng thats he had abandoned the chi ld, thatherconduct

w as i m m or alas t o be detr i m entalto the chi ld, orthats he w as m ental l y orother w is e unf

i tf orcus t ody .[ ]

10 Sm it h , 9 7 S o . 3 d a t 4 7 n .3 (in ter n a l cita tio n s o m itt e d ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). A n d w h ile th is Cour tf urthe rno t e d Pr e s i di ng J us t i c e Cobb’ s “ w e l l
- t a ke n” s pe c i a l c on c urr e nc e i n J . P. M. , w h ic h c ri tiq u e d th e m a

jo ri ty fo r “ u s [in g ] i n loco pa rent is t o s tr i p cus t ody f r om [ a natur alSee D a v is , 126 So. 3d at37 ( quot i ng Sm ith , 9 7 S o . 3 d a t 4 6 ). 11 See D a v is , 126 So . 3d at34-35, 37 ( “a thir d p arty’s i n loco pa rent is s t atus , s t andi ng 12 a lo n e , c o u ld n o t r e b u t th e n a tu ra l- p a re n t p re s u m p tio n ” ; a t m o s t, i n loco pa rent is “may be a fa c to r in d e ter m in in g w h e th e r th e p re su m p tio n h a s b e e n re b u tted ” ); Sm ith , 97 So. 3d at47 ( “[ i ] n loco pa rent is can – i n very l i m i t ed, uni que s i tuat i ons – s om et i m es be us ed t o hel p r ebut th e n a tu ra l-p a re n t p re su m p tio n ” ; P e ll and J . P. M. “do nots uppor t– norhave w e eve r su g g e ste d – th a t i n loco pa rent is alon e c an reb u t th e n atura l- p are n t presu m p ti o n ”). 

### 12 p a re n t] [,] ” it ad d e d th a t P e ll and J .P.M . “ a re lim ited to th e ir u n iq u e fa c ts[,] ” a n d th a t “ i n l oco pa rent is w a s ju s t o n e o f t h e fa c to rs th a t in fl u e n c e d t h e C o u rt ’s d e c is io n in th o s e c a s e s .” S m ith , 9 7 S o. 3d at47 n. 4 ( quot i ng J . P. M. , 9 3 2 S o . 2 d a t 7 8 1 (C o b b , P .J., sp e c ially
co n cu rri n g )). ¶1 7 . T h is C o u rtd o es n o t f ind , p er th e C o u rto f A p p ea ls’ c o n clus ion , tha t th e c h an ce ry co u rt
a p p lie d th e w ro n g le g a l s ta n d a rd
. J . S. W. , 2013 W L 6231797, at*3. T hi s C our thas s t at ed thatthe gr ounds f

orr ebutt i ng the natur al
- par entpr es um pt i on i nvol ve nega t i ve a c tio n s/d isp o sitio n s o f th e n a tu ra l p a re n ts in re latio n to th e c h ild (i.e., ab a n d o n m e n t, d ese rt ion , im m o ral co n d u ct de tr im en tal to th e ch il d , u n fi tnes s). A n d the c h an ce ry c o u rt ’s 11 f i ndi ng, w hi ch w as notchal l enged on appeal by Scot tori n the C our tof A ppeal s deci s i on,
w as t hatA m y an d T. J . ha d n otc on du c t e d the mse l ve s i n s uc h a mann e ra s t o r e bu tt he natur al
- par entpr es um pt i on. Y et , the C our tof A ppeal s det erm i ned thatScot t ’ s pos i t i ve, “s upport i ve[ , ] ” “f

ather l y act i ons ” oper at ed t o r ebutthe natur al
- par entpr es um pt i on and pl ace d hi m on “equ al foot i ng” w i th A m y and T. J . f orpurpos es of

an A lb rig h t a n a ly s is
. J . S. W. , 2013 W L 6231797, at**1, 3. T hi s Courtdoe s notf i nd thatthe C our tof

A ppeal s ’ pos i t i on is c o n g ru e n t w ith th e p re s e n t s ta te o f t h e la w . 12

### T.J. testified, “[ Scott] can havevis it ation .
. . [w] hen hegoes and pi cks up 13 

### [Brack ston ], his son , he canvisit w ith mydau ghter . . . becau se I’m the fath er.” 13 ¶18. T he f

act s of thi s cas e s tr i ke thi s C our t as s om ew hat di s t i ngui s habl e f r om the “uni que f act s ” i n P e ll and J

. P. M. U n lik e th o se c a se s, in w h ich “ th e b io lo g ica l fa th e rs w e re n o t re a lly i n the pi ctur e[ , ] ” her e, upon conf i r m i ng thatV i ct or i a w as hi s daught er , T . J . i ns t i tut ed cus t ody pr ocee di ngs . A l s o, the f actr emai ns that , as ear l y as M ar ch 2007 , S cottw as aw ar e thathe
wa s n o tVi c t o r i a ’ s b i o l o g i c a l f a th e r , y e ti n th e 2 0 0 9 d i v o r c e p r o c e e d i n g s , b o th h e a n d Amy act i vel y purport ed hi s pat erni ty t o the cha ncery court . M or eover , i n P e ll , the in lo c o p a re n tis party had s uppor tf

r om the bi ol ogi cal f

ather, w ho soughtt o w hol l y r el i nqui s h hi s par ent al ri g h ts a n d tr a n s fe r t h e m to th e n o n b io lo g ic a l f a th e r v ia a d o p tio n . T h e p a rties to th e p a ter n ity su it en ter e d in to a n a g re e d o rd e r d e c lar in g G riffith the b iolog ical fath er, ord ering ch il d su p p o rt , a n d stati n g tha t al l othe r m att ers w o u ld b e d e c id e d b y th e c h a n c e llo r a t a la ter d a te. L a ter , S o n n y a n d G riffith [ the in lo c o p a re n tis part y and t he bi ol ogi cal f ather ] f i l ed a mot i on f

or decl ar at ory j udgm ent , r eques t i ng thatSonny be de cl ar ed the l egal f atherof the chi l d ar gui ng . . . notonl y thatthi s decl ar at i on w oul d be i n the bes ti nt er es tof th e c h ild b u t th a t S u e A n n sh o u ld b e e sto p p e d fro m d e n y in g S o n n y ’s p a ter n ity a s w e ll. G riffith a g re e d to re lin q u ish a ll p a re n tal ri g h ts a n d a llo w S o n n y to a d o p t th e c h ild . T h e c h a n c e llo r d e n ied th e ir m o tio n fo r d e c lar a to ry ju d g m e n t, s etchi l d s uppor tpayment s , and gr ant ed G r i f f i th r eas onabl e vi s i t at i on. P e ll , 881 So. 2d at185. U nl i ke the bi ol ogi cal f atheri n P e ll , i n thi s a ct i on, the bi ologi cal father not only sough tcust od y, bu tdid so to the ex cl us i on of the i n loco pa rent is party. For 13
r eas ons unknow n, the chanc el l ori n P e ll deni ed the natur al and i n loco pa rent is fathers’
r e q u e s t s f

o rwh a twa s , e s s e n t i a l l y , a n i n t e n d e d a d o p t i o n . An d i ta p p e a r s f r o m Sm ith th a t th is C our tf ound the pr es um pt i on r ebutt ed by the exc ept i on cr eat ed i n P e ll , bas ed upon w hatt he b io lo g ic a l f

a th e r w a n te d
.

### 14

¶1 9. U nde rthe p r e s e nts t a t e o f the l a w , i n the a bs e nc e o f r e bu t t i ng t he natur al
- par ent pr es um pt i on vi a cl earand convi nci ng evi dence of abandonment , des ert i on, i m m or al conduct d e trim e n tal to th e c h ild , an d /o r u n fitn e ss , “ [t] h e co u rt m a y n o t co n sid e r g ra n tin g c u sto d y to a thi r d party, i ncl udi ng one s t andi ng i n loco pa rent is . . . . ” D a v is , 126 So. 3d at37 ( quot i ng Sm ith , 9 7 S o . 3 d a t 4 6 -4 7 ). ¶20. W e f

i nd the chanc el l or ’ s det erm i nat i on i n t hi s cas e t o be cor r ect , gi ven the contr ol l i ng la w d is c u s s e d a b o v e . CO NC L US I ON ¶ 2 1 . W e f

i n d t h e c h a n c e l l o ra p p l i e d t h e c o rr e c tl e g a l s t a n d a r d , a n d , o n th i s b a s i s , we
r ever s e the Courto f

Appe a l s ’ d e c i s i on . A bs e nta f i nd i ng tha tthe n a tur a l p a r e nt s had abandone d, des ert ed, orw er e unf i tt o r earthei rchi l d, the cha ncel l orpr oper l y conduct ed the
r equi s i t e anal ys i s f

orc us t ody a nd ther eby pr oper l y excl uded the in lo c o p a re n tis party f r om cons i der at i on. A ccor di ngl y, w e r ever s e the C our tof A ppeal s ’ deci s i on and r ei ns t at e and
a ffirm th e ju d g m e n t o f th e L a m a r C o u n ty C h a n c e ry C o u rt. ¶ 2 2 . T HE J UD GMEN T OF TH E COU RT OF AP P E AL S I S RE VE RS E D A ND T HE J UDG M ENT OF TH E LAM AR CO UNTY CH ANC ERY CO URT I S REI NST ATED AND AF F I RM ED . W A LL ER , C . J. , D I C K I N SO N A N D R A N D O LP H , P . JJ. , LA M A R , K I TC H EN S, CHANDL ER , KI NG AND COL EM AN, J J . , CONCUR.