Background
Cole and Maggie Vickers separated in June 2024 after Cole admitted to adultery. They later agreed to an irreconcilable-differences divorce and to Maggie’s sole physical custody of their two young children, leaving visitation, child support, and sanctions or attorney’s fees for the DeSoto County Chancery Court to decide.
A specially appointed chancellor awarded Cole phased visitation, prohibited overnight cohabitation with a romantic partner while the children were present, and ordered monthly child support of $1,856.83 plus a percentage of daycare expenses. The chancellor also denied Cole’s recusal motion and ordered him to pay Maggie $5,535.51 in attorney’s fees and expenses for defending what the court found was a frivolous motion.
The Court’s Holding
The Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of recusal because the chancellor stopped an acquaintance from discussing the case, promptly disclosed the encounter, and had no demonstrated bias or relevant personal knowledge. It also affirmed the attorney’s-fee sanction, holding that a sanctions award does not require findings under the McKee factors. The court further upheld the phased summer and holiday visitation schedule and the inclusion of employment-related daycare expenses in Cole’s support obligation.
The court reversed the child-support calculation because the chancellor included Cole’s 2023 bonuses in gross income without deducting the corresponding taxes and Social Security contributions required when calculating adjusted gross income. It also reversed and remanded the overnight-cohabitation restriction because the record contained no evidence of actual harm or an appreciable danger to the children; on remand, the chancellor must determine whether the restriction is necessary to avoid harm.
Key Takeaways
- A disclosed, promptly terminated third-party reference to a pending case did not require recusal absent evidence that a reasonable person would doubt the chancellor’s impartiality.
- Bonus income may be included in child support, but the court must account for the corresponding statutory deductions and may consider averaging fluctuating bonuses on remand.
- A parent’s unmarried cohabitation alone does not justify restricting visitation; the restriction must be supported by findings that it is necessary to prevent harm to the children.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that Mississippi visitation restrictions must rest on evidence concerning the children’s welfare, not solely on a court’s moral disapproval of a parent’s relationship. It also underscores the need for precise adjusted-gross-income calculations when variable compensation is included in child support.
At the same time, the court left intact the chancellor’s recusal ruling, sanctions award, daycare allocation, and age-based visitation schedule, limiting the remand to recalculation of support and additional findings concerning overnight cohabitation.