OF JUDGMENT: 01/08/2016
COUNTY CHANCERY COURT, HON. FRANKLIN C. MCKENZIE JR. JUDGE
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: S. CHRISTOPHER FARRIS
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: NANCY E. STEEN
GRIFFIS, P.J., WILSON AND WESTBROOKS, JJ.
Sarah McKenzie Rayner ("Mackie") appeals the
chancellor's award of joint physical custody, his
consideration of the Albright factors, and his
computation of child support. We find no error and affirm.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Mackie and Chance Sims are the natural parents of Frances, a
female child born in November 2013. Mackie and Chance dated, but
never married. They briefly lived together following the
birth of Frances.
Chance filed a "complaint for adjudication of paternity
and for custody and other matters, " wherein he
requested custody of Frances or, alternatively, that the
parties have joint custody. Mackie filed an answer and
requested physical custody of Frances. Mackie further
requested that Chance have "restricted" visitation
rights, limited to "the daytime only and supervised by a
On May 8, 2015, the chancellor entered a temporary order,
which provided Chance with scheduled visitation, including
overnight visitation, with Frances. The parties subsequently
engaged in discovery.
Following a trial on November 17, 2015, the chancellor
awarded the parties joint legal and "shared"
physical custody of Frances. Specifically, the chancellor
ordered that Chance would have physical custody of Frances
three days/nights per week, and Mackie would have physical
custody of Frances four days/nights per week. Additionally,
the chancellor ordered the parties to pay child support
"based upon 14 percent of each party's
adjusted-gross income" and "in proportion to their
periods of shared custody and their incomes."
Mackie filed a motion to reconsider, which the chancellor
denied. Mackie now appeals and argues: (1) the chancellor
erroneously granted the parties joint physical custody of
Frances, (2) the chancellor erroneously failed to consider
all of the Albright factors and ignored the fact
that the factors favored her, and (3) the chancellor
erroneously computed the child-support obligation of each
A chancellor's factual findings "will not be
disturbed unless [he] was manifestly wrong, clearly
erroneous, or applied an erroneous legal standard."
Blakely v. Blakely, 88 So.3d 798, 801 (¶3)
(Miss. Ct. App. 2012). Questions of law, however, are
reviewed de novo. Id. "As long as substantial
evidence supports the chancellor's findings, [we are]
without authority to disturb them, even if [we] would have
found otherwise as an original matter." Id.
"Additionally, if the chancellor has made no specific