Jackson Jambalaya

this is not a good bill. The "Albright" factors probably work best in most cases, and this bill would not serve the best interest of the child b/c if the court is going to decide custody, then the court needs to truly accept the burden of the best interest of the child. Children need stability first and foremost, and if both parents can show they can work together, but apart from each other, then joint should be considered

I AM 110% for this bill. Kentucky, Arkansas, Missouri, West Virginia and Florida already have it on the books. Gentlemen do not fall for the scare tactics of domestic violence like that is the norm. That is not the norm for divorce! This bill is eviscerating the "irreconcilable differences" or "I'm bored" as a reason to break up the family. This is my first time saying thank you to Kentucky but THANK YOU KENTUCKY for being the first state in the UNION to pass this bill in 2018 now we see the ripple effect. Only folks that will be upset are women who will be forced unleash some control and the CHANCERY COURT Judes and Attorneys who stand to lose a lot of money.

It will be terrible for military parents. Especially if they live in different states. Imo. Of course some parents deserve ZERO custody.

One size doesn’t fit all. This is an unwise course of action that exceeds the tasks legislators should actually be doing.

I can’t speak to the solution of adding more factors to Albright, as that doesn’t seem to be a bad idea.

Has favoring the mom created a situation where there are more kids being raised without a Dad?
Do Dads become resentful that they don’t get the opportunity to be able to come home to their child and get a hug from a smiling toddler?
Does starting at 50/50 increase Dad’s involvement from the start? Could this help those “fatherless” kids actually have some role models? Would it encourage more “men” to grow up?

I think it was Wordsworth that had the quote, “The Child is father of the Man.”

This country is made to have states test and find the best way of doing things. Returning a father’s role/involvement from the beginning may make for a better society.

I’d have to think Shad preached this in his awfully worded report years ago on “fatherless” homes.

In our American culture, we place so much emphasize on being a Father. We do not a demand that he is the Father of The Year, but that he simply fulfills the minimum expectation. That expectation alone is an exceedingly high bar that a Father need not complain about. Yet, in the last 40 plus years in our State, Chancellors have made Father's nothing more than glorified uncles. While at the same time demanding financial obligation for that which you only see on the first and third weekend (four days a month). Most cases you can't even get the child's grades from school or even have a say about the course of the child's medical treatment. I praise this bill!! To God be the Glory!!!

There are many instances where 100%/0% is in order.

One size doesn’t fit all.

If so then why default to maternal custody?

Big Divorce is doomed if this passes. I hope it passes

Children should go to the parent who is the best provider. Giving a kid to an unemployed or indebted mom just because she has a vagina, and then taking the father’s paycheck is just dumb. Vain, impulsive shoppers are incapable of managing a family budget. Best to give the father (and his new wife) custody. Most high value, high earning men will easily find a new wife after they divorce the lazy adulterous whore.

I don't understand the concern with this bill. It creates a rebuttable presumption which means a parent who does not think the other parent is suitable for equal parenting time can put on evidence to prove the presumption should be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence. This is NO different than what happens now when both parents seek custody or one parent seeks joint custody and the other disagrees. It also does not modify the child support calculation. In cases where a court orders joint custody now, they already do what this bill requires. (caveat: when parties agree to joint custody it is not uncommon for the parties to agree no child support will be paid by either parent). What this bill does do is make a parent who does not want joint custody really ask themselves why they oppose joint custody. If the opposition is legitimate and based on evidence, then they should not hesitate to oppose it. If the opposition is based more on preference or motivated by spite, then this bill would potentially help avoid frivolous litigation. In other words, if a parent opposing joint custody does not have evidence to prove the other parent is not fit for joint custody, they should voluntarily agree to joint custody unless they want to spend a lot of money in attorney fees fighting a fight they will lose.

If the archaic thought process of most Mississippi Chancery Judges rules (and I submit it does), and this would force judges to award joint custody where practicable, why oppose it?

Custody to the wife and periodic time spent with dad has for too long been the standard.

Albright, one size doesn't fit all, military parents, it's always easy to find a reason -- an excuse, really -- not to do something. But children, especially the boys, need their father in their lives somewhere sometime. Let the scales of justice for once, then, balance even a little more toward the favor of fathers.

Disagree. It is emotionally charged because it levels the playing field after decades of women having advantage. That is all. The Legislature is right with this bill - children don't ask to be born, and both parents are equally accountable. So, ladies - you say you want equality - then ya better start to cooperate.

I think the initial/default presumption should be 50/50. Then other factors can be brought into the equation but I am getting very tired of the "man bad" being the prevailing thought. Women scream for equality in all aspects of life except when it directly impacts their ability to have an advantage over men. It's hypocrisy and selfishness. Many of these laws were put in place when the men were breadwinners and the women homemakers. So yes, childcare would typically default to the parent who was actually home during the day. With a shift in roles to be more mutual and shared, these laws need to catch up. Women aren't always the primary parent anymore.
And that argument about "not wanting to pay child support". Damn right...if dad is actually 50/50 co-parenting. Why the f**k should he pay if they are equal partners? Just as domestic violence is not the norm but rather the exception, so should the father being the default support.

I think this is probably some Focus on the Family political crap out of Tupelo.

But Albright has worked well enough for more than 40 years, so by all means let's screw with it and take more discretion away from chancellors, in the interest of "fairness."

Liberal visitation and relationships with both parents are already presumed to be in the best interests of the child. And it's been many years since judges presumed the mother to be the most fit parent.

In my opinion, a child needs a primary residence, not 1/2 and 1/2 there. And if the parents could work together that well, they'd probably still be married.

Female here, and I think this bill makes sense.
I also think women should be much more selective on who they choose to make babies with.

@ 11:54 am. "Liberal visitation and relationships with both parents are already presumed to be in the best interests of the child." Since when?!?! Liberal visitation as in weekend dads??? "And if the parents could work together that well, they'd probably still be married." Shaming tactics won't derail this bill; it might actually force families to not divorce due to so-called "no fault" and work together. Since Kentucky passed the bill divorce rates have actually plummeted.

"It will be terrible for military parents." So? They chose. I care about the kids.

"Children should go to the parent who is the best provider." NO. They should go to the best parent.

And finally - the primary reason we have so many criminals, bums, dropouts, panhandlers, entitled brats, no work ethic, etc., is the lack of a responsible father in the home. This won't "fix" that, but will remove some obstacles for fathers who desire to father.