Background
Sunny Day Buskirk and Dan Hodge III are unmarried parents of a child born in 2014. A 2015 agreed paternity order awarded Buskirk sole legal and physical custody and initially required Hodge’s visitation to be supervised because of his substance-abuse history. After Hodge maintained sobriety, the chancery court allowed unsupervised visitation in 2019 and later expanded his visitation schedule.
In 2023, Hodge sought custody modification, additional visitation, and contempt relief. He alleged that Buskirk impeded his relationship with the child, including by withholding medical and school information, limiting communication, and preventing him from obtaining information about the child’s mental-health treatment. Following a 2024 bench trial, the chancery court awarded Hodge joint legal custody, expanded certain alternating-weekend visitation, and ordered electronic communication every other day when feasible. It dismissed both parties’ contempt claims.
The Court’s Holding
The Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed. Substantial evidence supported the chancellor’s finding of a material change in circumstances adversely affecting the child: Buskirk had interfered with Hodge’s communication with the child, withheld health and school information, and obstructed Hodge’s ability to participate in medical decisions and obtain a second opinion concerning the child’s mental health.
The court also upheld the chancellor’s Albright analysis and conclusion that joint legal custody—not joint physical custody—served the child’s best interests. The chancellor permissibly treated continuity of care as neutral because Buskirk’s interference had limited Hodge’s opportunity for additional involvement, and found home stability favored Hodge. The expanded visitation was not a near-equal physical-custody arrangement and was supported by evidence that the existing schedule was unworkable and that meaningful father-child contact served the child’s interests.
Key Takeaways
- Interference with a parent’s access to a child, medical information, and educational information can support a finding of an adverse material change in circumstances.
- A chancellor may award joint legal custody while leaving sole physical custody in place when the child’s needs counsel against changing physical custody.
- Visitation may be modified when the existing arrangement is unworkable and a revised schedule is in the child’s best interests.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that a custodial parent’s efforts to exclude the other parent from communication and important child-related information can affect custody rights, even where the court does not change primary physical custody. It also illustrates the deference Mississippi appellate courts afford a chancellor’s fact-based custody and visitation determinations.