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.
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.
¶ 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
¶ 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
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.
¶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).
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.”
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.”
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.”
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.