Blevins v. Bardwell
784 So.2d 166 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A custody order, even if facially permanent, may be treated as temporary if evidence shows the parties mutually intended it to be so, allowing a court to make an initial de novo custody determination based on the best interests of the child rather than requiring proof of a material change in circumstances for modification.
Facts:
- Adam Blevins and Dawn Bardwell met while in the Air Force and had a daughter, Darby Colleen Blevins, in July 1997.
- After a DNA test confirmed Adam was the father, the couple cohabitated unmarried, with Dawn acting as the primary caregiver while Adam worked full-time.
- Dawn decided to re-enlist in the Air Force, which prohibits custodial single parents from enlisting.
- To facilitate her re-enlistment, Dawn executed a court order granting custody of Darby to Adam, with both parties understanding and intending for the arrangement to be temporary.
- The couple planned to marry after Dawn completed her training, at which point Dawn would regain custody.
- After Dawn left for training in July 1998, Adam became Darby's primary caregiver.
- The relationship between Adam and Dawn ended in September 1998.
- When Dawn achieved 'permanent party' status and sought to regain custody as planned, Adam refused, citing the custody order.
Procedural Posture:
- Dawn Bardwell filed a Complaint for Change in Custody in the Chancery Court of Harrison County, Mississippi, seeking to regain custody of her daughter, Darby.
- After a four-day hearing, the chancellor issued a judgment finding the prior custody order was a temporary, non-final adjudication.
- The chancellor awarded paramount care, custody, and control of Darby to Dawn Bardwell and ordered Adam Blevins to pay child support.
- Adam Blevins (appellant) appealed the chancellor's judgment awarding custody to Dawn Bardwell (appellee) to the Supreme Court of Mississippi.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a facially permanent custody order, executed by unmarried parents solely to allow one parent to re-enlist in the military with the mutual understanding that it was a temporary arrangement, permit a court to make an initial custody determination based on the best interest of the child rather than requiring the standard for custody modification?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Pittman
Yes. A facially permanent custody order may be treated as temporary where the parties intended it as such, allowing for a de novo determination of custody based on the child's best interests. The court found that both Adam and Dawn voluntarily stipulated that the custody order was a temporary measure solely to enable Dawn's re-enlistment in the Air Force. Because the order was temporary, the chancellor was not required to apply the stricter standard for custody modification, which requires a material change in circumstances adversely affecting the child. Instead, the chancellor was free to make an initial custody award by analyzing the Albright factors to determine the best interest of the child. The court affirmed the chancellor's detailed application of the Albright factors and the subsequent award of custody to Dawn.
Concurring in part - Presiding Justice Banks
Yes. While agreeing with the result to affirm the chancellor's custody award, this opinion disagrees with the consideration of 'future religious example' as a relevant factor. This factor is not enumerated in Albright and the chancellor abused her discretion by considering it. However, because this factor was not given decisive weight in the overall custody determination, the ultimate decision to award custody to Dawn should still be affirmed.
Analysis:
This case establishes that the mutual intent of the parties can override the plain language of a custody order, particularly when the arrangement was for a specific, temporary purpose. It reinforces the judiciary's power to look beyond the four corners of a document in family law to achieve an equitable result centered on the child's welfare. The decision also highlights the 'best interest of the child' as the paramount consideration, suggesting that even if an order were permanent, an exception might allow modification without a strict showing of 'material change in circumstances' in rare cases where the child's welfare would be best served by a transfer of custody.
Unlock the full brief for Blevins v. Bardwell