"So long as there is substantial evidence in the record that, if found credible by the chancellor, would provide support for the chancellor's decision, this Court may not intercede simply to substitute our collective opinion for that of the chancellor." Polk v. Polk, 332 So.3d 348, 352 (¶14) (Miss. Ct. App. 2021) (quoting Hammers v. Hammers, 890 So.2d 944, 950 (¶14) (Miss. Ct. App. 2004)).

See id. "An Albright analysis is not a 'mathematical formula.'" Polk v. Polk, 332 So.3d 348, 353 (¶16) (Miss. Ct. App. 2021) (quoting Lee v. Lee, 798 So.2d 1284, 1288 (¶15) (Miss. 2001)). "Further, the factors are not meant to be weighed equally in every case."

Id. While it is "preferable" for the chancellor to make specific findings of fact on each Albright factor, a chancellor's failure to do so does not automatically amount to a reversible error. Polk v. Polk, 332 So.3d 348, 356 (¶29) (Miss. Ct. App. 2021).