Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Vaughn v. Davis

23 Citing cases

  1. Davis v. Vaughn

    126 So. 3d 33 (Miss. 2013)   Cited 26 times
    In Davis, the father (Vaughn) had only “sporadic” interactions with his daughter (Danielle) and “contributed little financial assistance” from the time she was born until she was almost four years old.

    This appeal is before the Court following our reversal of the initial joint custody award and our remand of the case for additional proceedings. Vaughn v. Davis (Vaughn II), 36 So.3d 1261 (Miss.2010). In October 2000, Davis's daughter, Theresa Davis, gave birth to Danielle, who is the child at the center of this custody dispute.

  2. Patrick v. Boyd

    198 So. 3d 436 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 5 times
    Finding that the child's grandmother lacked standing to appeal termination of biological father's child support or chancellor's order changing child's surname and thus declining to address those issues on the merits

    See generally Davis v. Vaughn, 126 So.3d 33 (Miss.2013) ; Vaughn v. Davis, 36 So.3d 1261 (Miss.2010). ¶ 19. “In custody battles between a natural parent and a third party, it is presumed that it is in the child's best interest to remain with his or her natural parent.

  3. Wells v. Smith (In re Smith)

    97 So. 3d 88 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 1 times

    ¶ 2. Based on the recent Mississippi Supreme Court case of Vaughn v. Davis, 36 So.3d 1261 (Miss.2010), we find that the chancery court's judgment must be reversed and this case remanded for further proceedings. FACTS

  4. Mat. Petition of Smith v. Smith

    2009 CA 1955 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 2 times

    ¶ 2. Based on the recent Mississippi Supreme Court case of Vaughn v. Davis, 36 So. 3d 1261 (Miss. 2010), we find that the chancery court's judgment must be reversed and this case remanded for further proceedings. FACTS

  5. Wells v. Smith (In re Smith)

    97 So. 3d 43 (Miss. 2012)   Cited 62 times
    Holding that “an Albright analysis was justified” because “the natural-parent presumption ... was properly rebutted”

    The natural-parent presumption can be rebutted by a clear showing that (1) the parent has abandoned the child; (2) the parent has deserted the child; (3) the parent's conduct is so immoral as to be detrimental to the child; or (4) the parent is unfit, mentally or otherwise, to have custody. Carter, 611 So.2d at 876 (quoting Rodgers, 274 So.2d at 672);Vaughn v. Davis, 36 So.3d 1261, 1264–65 (Miss.2010); In re Dissolution of Marriage of Leverock and Hamby, 23 So.3d 424, 429–30 (Miss.2009). ¶ 10.

  6. Smith v. Smith

    NO. 2009-CT-01955-SCT (Miss. Jul. 26, 2012)

    ¶9. The natural-parent presumption can be rebutted by a clear showing that (1) the parent has abandoned the child; (2) the parent has deserted the child; (3) the parent's conduct is so immoral as to be detrimental to the child; or (4) the parent is unfit, mentally or otherwise, to have custody. Carter, 611 So. 2d at 876 (quoting Rodgers, 274 So. 2d at 672); Vaughn v. Davis, 36 So. 3d 1261, 1264-65 (Miss. 2010); In re Dissolution of Marriage of Leverock and Hamby, 23 So. 3d 424, 429-30 (Miss. 2009).

  7. J.S.W. v. A.R.W. (In re V.D.W.)

    152 So. 3d 336 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014)

    The natural-parent presumption is “not unassailable.” In re Custody of Brown, 66 So.3d 726, 728 (¶ 10) (Miss.Ct.App.2011) (citing Vaughn v. Davis, 36 So.3d 1261, 1264 (¶ 10) (Miss.2010)). But for the third party to rebut this presumption, he must clearly show “that (1) the parent has abandoned the child; (2) the parent has deserted the child; (3) the parent's conduct is so immoral as to be detrimental to the child; or (4) the parent is unfit, mentally or otherwise, to have custody.”

  8. J.S.W. v. A.R.W. (In re V.D.W.)

    152 So. 3d 336 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 2 times

    The natural-parent presumption is “not unassailable.” In re Custody of Brown, 66 So.3d 726, 728 ( ¶ 10) (Miss.Ct.App.2011) (citing Vaughn v. Davis, 36 So.3d 1261, 1264 ( ¶ 10) (Miss.2010)). But for the third party to rebut this presumption, he must clearly show “that (1) the parent has abandoned the child; (2) the parent has deserted the child; (3) the parent's conduct is so immoral as to be detrimental to the child; or (4) the parent is unfit, mentally or otherwise, to have custody.”

  9. Hamilton v. Houston

    100 So. 3d 1005 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 5 times
    In Hamilton, 100 So.3d 1005, this Court awarded custody of the child, Jaquavion, to his paternal grandparents after finding his parents' long and continuous absences and forsaking of parental rights constituted desertion.

    This presumption is “not unassailable.” In re Custody of Brown, 66 So.3d 726, 728 (¶ 10) (Miss.Ct.App.2011) (citing Vaughn v. Davis, 36 So.3d 1261, 1264 (¶ 10) (Miss.2010)). “The natural-parent presumption can be rebutted by a clear showing that (1) the parent has abandoned the child; (2) the parent has deserted the child; (3) the parent's conduct is so immoral as to be detrimental to the child; or (4) the parent is unfit, mentally or otherwise, to have custody.”

  10. Summers v. Gros

    319 So. 3d 479 (Miss. 2021)   Cited 7 times

    Even still, the father's "agreement to the temporary custody order did not constitute relinquishment of his parental rights." Id. at 36 (citing Vaughn v. Davis , 36 So. 3d 1261 (Miss. 2010) ). ¶54.