¶35. Michael relies on Parra v. Parra , 65 So. 3d 872 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011), and Pellegrin v. Pellegrin , 224 So. 3d 555 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017), to support his argument that the chancery court's custody determination should be reversed for failure to make findings of fact on each Albright factor.

Clear and convincing evidence produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established, evidence so clear, direct and weighty and convincing as to enable the fact-finder to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts of the case. Parra v. Parra, 65 So. 3d 872, 878 (¶17) (Miss. Ct. App. 2011).

Fulk v. Fulk , 827 So. 2d 736, 740 (¶13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2002) ; see alsoParra v. Parra , 65 So. 3d 872, 876 (¶12) (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (reversing for failure to make Albright findings of fact); Franklin v. Franklin , 864 So. 2d 970, 981-82 (¶57) (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) (reversing and remanding chancellor's failure to make any findings at all upon Albright factors when determining custody); Formigoni v. Formigoni , 733 So. 2d 868, 871 (¶10) (Miss.

Also, "the supreme court has determined that cases involving a determination of child custody ... require specific findings." Parra v. Parra , 65 So.3d 872, 876 (¶ 10) (Miss. Ct. App. 2011). "Our job as a reviewing court is only to evaluate whether the chancellor's decision was manifestly erroneous based on a proper analysis of each of the applicable Albright factors.

”Parra v. Parra, 65 So.3d 872, 878 (¶ 17) (Miss.Ct.App.2011) (quoting Niebanck v. Block, 35 So.3d 1260, 1264 (¶ 10) (Miss.Ct.App.2010)). Additionally, it is well settled that “[g]randparents have no legal right [to] custody of a grandchild, as against a natural parent.”

Clear and convincing evidence "produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established, evidence so clear, direct and weighty and convincing as to enable the fact-finder to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts of the case."Parra v. Parra, 65 So. 3d 872, 878 (¶17) (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (quoting Niebanck v. Block, 35 So. 3d 1260, 1264 (¶10) (Miss. Ct. App. 2010)). Additionally, it is well settled that "[g]randparents have no legal right [to] custody of a grandchild, as against a natural parent."