IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2019-CA-00210-COA IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF D.R. AND D.B., MINORS: DONNIE R. BRADFORD, SR. APPELLANT

v. CLASSIE DON-NAJEE BRADFORD APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/27/2018 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. W ILLIAM H. SINGLETARY COURT FROM W HICH APPEALED: HINDS COUNTY CHANCERY COURT, FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: CHARLES BARON IRVIN ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: M. JUDITH BARNETT ROSS R. BARNETT JR. NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS DISPOSITION: REVERSED AND REMANDED - 03/17/2020 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED: BEFORE CARLTON, P.J., WESTBROOKS AND McCARTY, JJ. McCARTY, J., FOR THE COURT: ¶1. This case involves a custody dispute between a f ather and his daughter over two m i nor children. The chancery court awarded custody of the c hildren to the daughter, f inding that she had rebutted the natural-parent presum pt ion. Because the chancery c o urt’s ruling was prem ature, we reverse and rem and f or proceedings consistent with this opinion. BACKGROUND ¶2. Donnie a nd Etonne Bradf ord were m arried and had t hree children: Classie Bradf ord,D.R., and D.B. 1 Etonne died in l ate 2017, a f t er which Classie sought a guardianship over her
y ounger siblings. Donnie counterclaim ed f or cu stody

. Classie was awarded tem porary custody of the children. ¶3. The c hancery court conducted a h earing that dealt p rim arily with whether to dissolve

a tem porary restraining order previously issued against Donnie. 2 Subsequently , a trial was held over three dif

f e rent day s a nd stretched out over several m onths. Donnie had presented testim o ny through direct testim ony and cross-exam ination. ¶4. However, bef

ore Donnie’s attorney h ad a c hance to redir e c t h i s t e s t i mo n y or call witnesses on Donnie’s behalf , the proceedings ended. T rial was scheduled to resum e three day s later. For reasons unclear in the record, the trial did not resum e. ¶5. A week later, the chancery court issued an opinion and judgm ent, awarding Classie custody of both children and ordering Donnie to pay child support. ¶6. Donnie appeals, arguing t hat C l a s s i e d i d n ot successf ully rebut the natural-parent
presum ption and that the court’s Albright 3 analy sis was incom plete. DISCUSSION ¶7. In a child-custody

determ ination between a natural parent and a third party , the law

1 A t t h e t im e o f t h e c u sto d y h earin g , C lassie w as tw en ty -o n e y e ars o ld , D .R

. w a s eig h t een y ears o ld , an d D .B . w a s f o u r y ears o ld

. 2 T h e ch a n cery co u rt ap p o in ted a g u ard ian a d litem

. T h e G A L t e s tif ied a t th e f

irst h earin g th at h e h ad co n d u cted a p relim in ary i n v e stig atio n an d issu e d a p relim in ary rep o rt. T h i s rep o rt is n o t in t h e reco rd , an d th ere is n o in d icatio n th e G A L co n d u c ted an y f u r t h e r in v estig a tio n .

3 A lb rig h t v. A lb rig h t , 4 3 7 S o . 2 d 1 0 0 3 , 1 0 0 5 (M iss. 1 9 8 3 ). 2p r e s u me s t h a t it is in t he best interest of the child f or the natural parent to have custody

. Smith v. S mith , 9 7 So. 3d 43, 46 (¶8) (Miss. 2012). To rebut this p resum ption, Classie was required to produce c lear and c o n v i n c i n g evidence that Donnie abandoned the children, deserted the children, exhibited im m oral conduct detrim ental to the children, or evidenced his unf i tness to have custody

. S ee Davis v. Vaughn , 126 So. 3d 33, 37 (¶10) (Miss. 2013). ¶8. The chancery court’s f indings were issued without the benef i t of hearing f

rom any of Donnie’s witnesses or allowing h i s redirect testim ony . At this stage, the p roof was not f ully developed on the issues, and the chancery court was prem ature in reaching f inal judgm ent. ¶9. Given the very high standard of rebutting the natural-parent presum ption, we reverse and rem and to allow D onnie to present proof via witnesses, a n y redirect, rebuttal, or other evidence as the chancery

court sees f

it. 4 ¶10. REVERSED AND REMANDED. BARNES, C.J., C ARLTON AND J. WILSON, P.JJ., GREENLEE, WESTBROOKS, TINDELL, McD O N A L D , LAWRENCE AND C. WILSON, JJ., CONCUR.

4 We reco g n ize th at trial co u rts h av e w id e l atitu d e to co n tro l t h e o p eratio n o f trials, in clu d in g h earin g testim o n y f ro m w itn esses. S

ee M

. R

. E . 6 1 1

. 3