IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2014-CA-00747-COA THE MATTER OF THE DISSOLUTION OF THE MARRIAGE OF NANCY JEWEL PIERCE EDWARDS AND JOHNNY JEROME EDWARDS: JOHNNY JEROME EDWARDS APPELLANT

v. NANCY JEWEL PIERCE EDWARDS APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/20/2013 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. KENNETH M. BURNS COURT FROM W HICH APPEALED: LOW NDES COUNTY CHANCERY COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: BO ROLAND ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: CARRIE A. JOURDAN SCOTT W INSTON COLOM NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - CUSTODY TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: GRANTED DIVORCE; AW ARDED CUSTODY OF CHILDREN TO MOTHER DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 05/03/2016 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED: BEFORE GRIFFIS, P.J., ISHEE AND FAIR, JJ. FAIR, J., FOR THE COURT: ¶1. Af ter they f iled a joint com

p laint f or an irreconcilable dif

f erences divorce, Nancy and Johnny Edwards subm i tted the i ssue of t he custody of their three boy s to the chancery court. Nancy p revailed, a nd Johnny appeals, raising two issue s r e lating to the chancellor’s application of

the f a m i liar Albright

f actors. 1 W e f

ind no error and af

f irm

.

1 A lb rig h t v. A lb rig h t , 4 3 7 S o . 2 d 1 0 0 3 (M iss. 1 9 8 3 )

.STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶2. This Court em

ploy s a lim ited standard of review in appea l s f r o m c h a n c e r y c ourt. Corp. Mgmt. v. G reene County , 23 So. 3d 454, 459 ( ¶11) (Miss. 2009). “In a case disputing child custody , the chancellor' s f indings will not b e reversed unless m anif estly wrong, clearly

erroneous, or the proper l egal standard was not a pplied.” Mabus v. Mabus , 847 S o. 2d 815, 818 (¶8) (Miss. 2003). ¶3. I n a p p e a l s f

r o m c h i l d

- c u s t o d y decisions, our polestar considerati o n , l i k e t h e chancellor’s, m

u st be the best interest of the child. Montgomery v. Montgomery , 20 So. 3d 39, 42 (¶9) (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (citing Hensarling v. H ensarling , 824 So. 2d 583, 587 (¶8) (Miss. 2 002)). “So long as t here is substantial evidence in the record that, if f ound credible by the chancellor, would provide support f o r the chancellor’s decision, this Cour t m ay not intercede sim

ply to su bstitute our collective opinion f or t hat of t he chancellor.” H ammers

v. Hammers , 890 So. 2d 944, 950 ( ¶14) (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (quoting Bower v. Bower , 758 So. 2d 405, 412 (¶33) (Miss. 2000)).
DISCUSSION
1. Procedural Bars ¶4. As a thresh o l d i s s u e , N a n c y c ontends that Johnny ’s i ssues are barred on appeal because he d id not raise t hem in a m otion f or a new trial. But Johnny did m ake a m otion f or

a new tri a l , where he contended that the c hancellor erred in giving Nancy c ustody of the children. This was a dequate to preserve the issue f or appeal. See Lee v. Lee , 78 So. 3d 326,
3 2 8-29 (¶9) (Miss. 2 0 12). Also, because this case was tried to the court, to the extent t hat

2Johnny challe n g e s t he suf f iciency of the evidence, no posttrial m otion was r equired to preserve the issues f

or appeal. See M.R.C.P. 52(b).
2. Albright Factors ¶5. Johnny presents what he sty les two issues on appeal, but both essentially arg u e the

sam e point: Johnny contends that the chancellor erred in considering circum s tances outside Johnny ’s control on the question of continuity

of care. ¶6. In Albright , o u r suprem e court held that the best i nterest of the child m ust control in all custody decisions, and this principle has been adopted by the Legislature in Mississippi Code Annotated section 93-5-24 (Rev. 2013). In determ i ning the best interest of the child
in c ustody disputes, it is t he court’s duty to consider that the relationship of parent and child is f or the benef

i t of the child, not t he parent. See Reno v. Reno , 2 53 Miss. 465, 475, 176 So. 2d 5 8, 62 (1965) (citing J.W

. Bunkley Jr. & W .E. M o r s e , B unkley and Morse’s Amis on Divorce and Separation in Mississippi § 8.01 (2d ed. 1957)). ¶7. T o d e t e r mi n e w here the child’s best interest l ies, chancellors m ust c o n s i d e r t h e f ollowing f

actors when evaluating the f itness o f each parent: (1) age, health, a nd sex of the children; ( 2 ) c o n t inuity of care; (3) parenting skills and the willingness and capacity to provide prim ary child care; (4) em ploy m ent responsibilities of t he parents; ( 5) p hy sical and

m ental health and age of the parents; (6) m oral f itness o f the parents; ( 7) em otional ties of the parents and children; (8) hom e, school, and com m u nity r ec ords of the children; (9) pref erence of children twelve y ears of age or older; (10) stability of t he hom e environm ent and em ploy m e nt of each pa r e n t ; a n d (11) o ther relevant f actors in the parent-child

3relationship. Albright , 437 So. 2d at 1005.

¶8. The c hancellor is required to a ddress each of the Albright f actors that is applicable to the case bef

ore h im

. S

ee P o well v. Ayars , 792 So. 2 d 240, 244 (¶10) (Miss. 2001). However, he need not decide that every f actor f avors one parent over the other. See W eeks v. W eeks , 989 So. 2d 408, 411 (¶12) (Miss. Ct. App. 2008). Nor is Albright a m athem atical f orm ula where custody m

ust be awarded to the parent w h o “ wins” the m ost f actors. Lee v. Lee , 798
So. 2d 1284, 1288 (¶15) ( M i s s . 2 0 0 1 )

. I nstead, the Albright f actors exist to ensure the chancellor considers a ll the relevant f acts relating to the child’s best interest. “All the f actors are im portant, but the chancellor has the ultim ate d iscretion to weigh the evidence the way he sees f i t.” Johnson v. Gray , 859 So. 2d 1006, 1013-14 (¶36) (Miss. 2003). ¶9. In a w ritten opinion, the chancellor discussed each of t he Albright f actors. He f

ound that the sex of the children – all three were m ale – f avored J ohnny

. C o n t i n u i ty of care “slightly ” f

avored Nancy

because, although the parents had s h ared responsibilities prior to the separation, s he had phy s ical custody o f t h e c h i ldren f or m ore than a y ear prior to the judgm ent. Parenting skills and em ploy m ent responsibilities also f avored Nancy , while the stability of the hom e f

avored Johnny , as Nancy had m oved several tim es af ter t he separation. The chancellor f

ound t hat, on t he whole, it was in the children’s best interest to rem ain with Nancy , though the parents would share joint legal custody

. ¶10. Johnny argues on appeal that the chancellor erred in analy z i ng the continuity of care f actor – specif

ically , he c ontends that Nancy had an unf air advantage based o n a tem porary order f r om a n Alabam a court. J ohnny contends that the Alabam a court had no jurisdiction

4to enter the order. He also f aults Nancy f

or deny ing him v i s itation during the sum m er of
2013. ¶11. W e f

ind no m erit to these c ontentions. It is true that t h e o r i g i n al articulation of the Albright f

actors directed the chancery court to c o nsider the c ontinuity of care prior to separation. See Albright , 437 So. 2d at 1005. B u t the suprem e court has since held that care af ter separation m

ust be considered as well. Copeland v. Copeland , 904 So. 2d 1066, 1076 (¶39) (Miss. 2004) (citing Jerome v. Stroud , 689 So. 2d 755, 757 (Miss. 1997)). ¶12. T h e chancellor recited t he relevant f acts and rendered a rati o n a l d e c i s i o n o n t h i s f actor. He f

ound: Both parties c ared f

or t he children until their separation in 2 0 1 0

. Nancy testif ied that she had h e lped the boy s with their hom ework, transported them to school, and clea n e d t h e house. Johnny testif ied that he had cooked the m eals, washed the clothes, and cleaned the hom e. Each party argued that he or she had b een the prim ary caregiver. Since their separation, Jalen and Jorden lived w ith their f

ath e r f o r t w o y ears and in 2012 began living with their m other. Jonivan has lived with Nancy since 2010. I t s e em s that each party h as been the prim ary c aregiver f or the children at dif

f erent t im es. Most recently , Nancy has had the continuity

of care. This f

actor slightly f

avors Nancy

. ¶13. Johnny ’s arg u me n t r e g a r d i n g t h e sum m er of 2 013 is s im ply undeveloped in the record; he seem s to base it entirely on assertions m ade in pleadings r a t her than evidence subm itted at trial. And even if the custody situation p rior t o trial was t he result of an unf air ruling f rom another cou r t , 2 t he Mississippi chancery court entered an o rder giving Nancy

tem porary custody m ore than a y ear prior to t rial. Also, the f act rem a ins that Nancy had de
f acto care of the children f o r a signif icant period of tim e prior to t rial, regardless o f whether

2 It is n o t clear e x actly w h at o ccu rred i n t h e A l ab am a co u r t, o th er th an th at it ev en tu a l ly

ced ed j u risd ictio n to M ississip p i. 5the way this cam e about was f air to J ohnny or not. The Albright analy s i s i s , a f t e r a ll, intended to guide the determ i nation of what i s in the best i nterest of the children, rather than what is f a ir to the parents. S

ee Reno , 253 Miss. at 475, 176 So. 2d at 62. W e f ind that the chancellor both accurately and f airly weighed the evidence on this f actor. ¶14. Moreover, assum ing that continuity o f c a r e w a s n e u t r a l o r even slightly f avored Johnny , it would n o t necessarily f o l l o w that reversible error would result. The chancellor assigned g reat weight to the f acts that Nancy had t h e b e t t e r parenting skills a n d that the respective em

ploy m ent situations f

avored Nancy , as a school teacher, over Johnny , a truck driver. The chancellor decides how to weigh the A lbright f actors. See J

ohnson , 859 So. 2d

at 1013-14 ( ¶36). Parenting skills and em ploy m ent responsibilities w ere, i n this case, very im p ortant f actors, and the chancellor’s reliance on them in awarding custody to Nancy was not an abuse of

discretion. ¶15. THE JUDGMENT O F THE CHANCERY COURT OF L OWNDES COUNTY IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL AR E A S S ESSED TO THE APPELLANT.
L E E , C .J ., IR VIN G A N D G R IF F IS , P .J J ., B A R N E S , IS H E E , C A R L T O N , J A M E S , W IL S O N A N D G R E E N L E E , J J ., C O N C U R .

6