IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2025-CA-00049-COA
DAVID LEVON CLARK APPELLANT v. TIFFANY GENDRON BELK APPELLEE
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/03/2024 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. MARK ANTHONY MAPLES COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: JACKSON COUNTY CHANCERY COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: HAROLD O. GRISSOM JR. ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: TIFFANY GENDRON BELK (PRO SE) NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - CUSTODY DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 08/25/2026 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
BEFORE CARLTON, P.J., LAWRENCE AND McCARTY, JJ.
McCARTY, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. Two parents sought custody over their two daughters. The eldest daughter had been sent to go live with her father after a series of conflicts with her mother and sister, after which the father sought custody of both girls. The chancery court ultimately granted physical custody of the eldest to the father and the youngest to the mother.
¶2. The father appeals, arguing he should have custody of both; the mother did not cross- appeal. Bound as we are by our deferential standard of review, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶3. Tiffany Belk and David Clark are the biological parents of two girls—Claire and
Gabby.1 Claire was born in 2009 and Gabby in 2012. Tiffany and David were never married and separated well before this case began. There had never been a court-ordered custody arrangement.
¶4. At the time relevant to this appeal, Tiffany was living in Ocean Springs and David was living in Pensacola, Florida. Both daughters had lived exclusively with Tiffany since they were born. Over their lives, they would only have sporadic visitation with their father.
¶5. At the time this custody action was initiated, Claire was 13 years old and in 8th grade. Gabby was 10 years old and in 6th grade. Claire began experiencing behavioral issues while in elementary school. The problems continued for several years, becoming progressively worse over time.
¶6. In early 2023, Tiffany reached her breaking point after at least two incidents involving the police. In one incident, there was a squabble between Tiffany and Claire over the teenager’s phone. The two of them were screaming at each other which resulted in calls to the sheriff’s department. In the second incident, Claire allegedly threatened her family with a knife. From her mother’s viewpoint, this threatened not just Tiffany, but also Claire’s little sister Gabby, as well as others in Tiffany’s home. Police were called again.
¶7. As a result of these incidents, Tiffany reached out to the girls’ father for help. Consequently, David brought Claire to live with him in Pensacola. Gabby remained with her mother in Ocean Springs.
¶8. Less than a month later, David initiated this custody action. In his first petition, David
1 We use pseudonyms to protect the privacy of minor children. Custody of Claire is ultimately not at issue here.
3
sought permanent physical custody of both daughters. His second petition requested temporary custody over both girls while the case proceeded through chancery court. Tiffany then filed a competing motion seeking both permanent and temporary custody of Claire and Gabby as well.
¶9. After an initial hearing, the chancery court awarded David temporary physical custody of Claire, with temporary physical custody of Gabby remaining with her mother. The court’s order also granted David temporary visitation with Gabby, but explicitly held “the Defendant [Tiffany] is not awarded any visitation until further order of the court.” The chancellor further specified, “during all visitation at [David’s] home, the minor children shall be supervised at all times due to threats of violence between the children that have occurred.” Lastly, in the temporary custody order, the chancellor required that “[Claire] shall have a psychological evaluation immediately.”
¶10. Less than 2 months later, the chancery court held a “hearing for review of the prior order of the court” and entered an Amended Temporary Order. The split in custody between the parents remained the same, but the chancery court changed the visitation terms to allow Tiffany and David to have both girls together for a week each. The chancellor also noted “[Claire] may need [to] have a second p[sy]chological evaluation at the mother’s discretion.”
¶11. The custody trial took place over 3 days, with the first two days occurring consecutively in May, and the final day occurring much later in August. During trial, the chancery court heard testimony from Tiffany, David, and David’s wife Leigh Anne Clark.
¶12. The chancery court subsequently entered its final order on the custody issue, which
4
we will discuss more fully below. The order included an analysis of all the Albright factors. Seven of the twelve factors were found neutral. Four factors were found to be in favor of Tiffany, including continuity of care and parenting skills.
¶13. As for David, the chancellor found his long, steady period of self-employment favored him. And “any other factors Relevant to the Parent-Child Relationship or the Child’s Best Interest,” the catch-all factor, was found to “highly favor[] David,” as well. This was due to an event that dramatically unfolded during trial, which the chancery court explained:
A major issue in this litigation has been [Claire]’s access to social media, whether [Claire] and/or Tiffany were truthful with David about the child’s presence on social media, and the method of communication between the child and Tiffany while in David’s custody. Three days after the second day of trial, in an emergency filing, David discovered Tiffany and [Claire] had been in communication with each other through various forms of social media behind David’s back. It came to the [c]ourt’s attention that the minor child had either an iPhone or a flip phone, had two accounts on Instagram, and five e-mail accounts.
¶14. All of this was “unknown” to the child’s father. While David was left in the dark, Tiffany knew to some extent what was going on, as did others who were “allied” with the mother and daughter. During the trial, one of the mother’s “friends who was in the courtroom texted another minor child” with a message for Claire “to delete all of her social media accounts.”
¶15. Once this became known to the father—and ultimately, the chancery court—the chancellor took the situation extremely seriously. “The issue of honesty between the parents and child had been a major issue” the court recounted, and found this was another example of how Tiffany was undermining David despite the court’s order placing temporary custody
5
of Claire with him. The chancery court found “Tiffany chose to manipulate the child into maintaining a secret and deceitful line of communication,” and determined this continued pattern of conduct by the mother would be weighed in favor of the father.
¶16. The chancery court awarded legal custody of both daughters to both parents. But as to physical custody, the chancellor ultimately determined that David would take physical custody of Claire, where she had been since the temporary order was entered, and Gabby would stay with Tiffany. Since the girls were being separated, the court ordered that “David and Tiffany shall exercise visitation so that the sisters are together as much as possible.”
¶17. David filed a post-trial motion seeking modification of the chancellor’s order, arguing “the court erred in the awarding of physical custody of the youngest child [Gabby] to the mother, Tiffany.” The chancery court entered a blanket judgment of denial.
¶18. Aggrieved, David appeals the chancery court’s ruling awarding custody of Gabby to Tiffany. Tiffany responds in opposition; however, she does not cross-appeal the chancellor’s decision granting custody of Claire to David.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶19. Our “standard of review concerning child custody is limited.” Embrey v. Young, 337 So. 3d 247, 254 (¶23) (Miss. Ct. App. 2021). “Matters involving child custody are within the sound discretion of the chancellor.” Smith v. Bellville, 301 So. 3d 678, 682 (¶8) (Miss. Ct. App. 2020). And “[t]he chancellor has the ultimate discretion to weigh the evidence the way he sees fit.” McLellan v. McLellan, 397 So. 3d 860, 867 (¶27) (Miss. Ct. App. 2024).
¶20. This Court “will not disturb a chancellor’s judgment when supported by substantial
6
evidence unless the chancellor abused his discretion, was manifestly wrong, clearly erroneous, or an erroneous legal standard was applied.” Embrey, 337 So. 3d at 254 (¶23) (quoting Woodham v. Woodham, 17 So. 3d 153, 156 (¶6) (Miss. Ct. App. 2009)). In other words, “findings of fact made by the chancellor may only be disturbed if they are not supported by substantial, credible evidence.” Ellis v. Ellis, 952 So. 2d 982, 989 (¶15) (Miss. Ct. App. 2006).
¶21. Ultimately, “the issue is not whether this Court ‘agrees with the chancellor’s ruling’ but only whether ‘substantial evidence’ supports the chancellor’s ruling.” McLellan, 397 So. 3d at 867 (¶25) (quoting Hammers v. Hammers, 890 So. 2d 944, 950 (¶14) (Miss. Ct. App. 2004)). “So long as there is substantial evidence in the record that, if found credible by the chancellor, would provide support for the chancellor’s decision, this Court may not intercede simply to substitute our collective opinion for that of the chancellor.” Id. (quoting Hammers, 890 So. 2d at 950 (¶14)).
DISCUSSION
¶22. David raises three issues on appeal, and the most extensively developed is his argument that the chancery court erred in its Albright analysis. See Albright v. Albright, 437 So. 2d 1003, 1005 (Miss. 1983). Specifically, he “believes the [c]hancery [c]ourt was in error in not awarding him the Albright factors of (1) Parenting Skills, (2) Willingness & Capacity to Provide Primary Child Care, (3) Stability of the Home Environment, (4) Moral Fitness, (5) Child’s Preference, and (6) Health of the Parents.”
¶23. David further argues it was “error to split [the daughters] up and instead have them
7
travel every weekend to and from Pensacola wherein they can’t participate in extra-curricular activities each Friday nor church on Sundays.”
¶24. Last, he argues that the chancery court erred “in ordering that all orders NOT consistent with the Court’s . . . Judgment of Custody . . . SHALL REMAIN in full force and effect.”
¶25. Finding no abuse of discretion in the chancellor’s findings, we affirm.
I. Whether the chancery court erred in awarding physical custody of Gabby to Tiffany.
¶26. As an initial matter, we point out that a significant portion of David’s argument on appeal focuses on the issue of Tiffany’s credibility. He essentially asks this Court to make its own credibility determinations and re-weigh the evidence.
¶27. However, it is well established in our caselaw that “[t]he chancery court is ‘vested with the responsibility to hear the evidence, assess the credibility of witnesses, and determine ultimately what weight and worth to afford any particular aspect of proof.’” Hackler v. Hackler, 296 So. 3d 773, 778-79 (¶35) (Miss. Ct. App. 2020) (quoting Garner v. Garner, 283 So. 3d 120, 140 (¶84) (Miss. 2019)).
¶28. “The credibility of the witnesses and the weight of their testimony, as well as the interpretation of evidence where it is capable of more than one reasonable interpretation, are primarily for the chancellor as the trier of facts.” Embrey, 337 So. 3d at 258 (¶42) (quoting Myers v. Myers, 270 So. 3d 1060, 1065 (¶14) (Miss. Ct. App. 2018)). Accordingly, “this Court is not in the position to assign credibility to the evidence presented[.]” Hackler, 296 So. 3d at 778-79 (¶35).
8
¶29. “The relationship of parent and child is not for the benefit of the parent but for the child.” Hendrix v. Whitt, 373 So. 3d 778, 787 (¶33) (Miss. Ct. App. 2023) (quoting Matthew Thompson, Mississippi Divorce, Alimony & Child Custody § 14.2 (2018)).
¶30. In the chancery court’s “original determinations of the custody of a minor child, the child’s best interest and welfare is the ‘polestar consideration[.]’” Id. (quoting Latham v. Latham, 357 So. 3d 1157, 1161 (¶8) (Miss. Ct. App. 2023)). The point is for the chancellor to “identify the custody arrangement that would be in the child’s best interest—not to determine what is in either parent’s best interest or which parent is the better person.” Embrey, 337 So. 3d at 256 (¶29) (emphasis added) (quoting Vassar v. Vassar, 228 So. 3d 367, 375 (¶26) (Miss. Ct. App. 2017)).
¶31. The chancery court evaluates the child’s best interests by applying the Albright factors to each parent’s circumstances. Id. In essence, chancellors must use these factors to ask which parent would better serve the needs of the impressionable and maturing child. See Matthew Thompson, Mississippi Divorce, Alimony & Child Custody § 12:2 (“the needs of the child as an impressionable and maturing person being prepared for his or her role in society must be given serious and conscientious consideration”).
¶32. The Albright factors include:
(1) the child’s age, health, and sex; (2) the parent with the continuity of care prior to the separation; (3) the parent with the best parenting skills and the willingness and capacity to provide primary child care; (4) the parents’
employment and the responsibilities of that employment; (5) the parents’
physical and mental health and age; (6) the emotional ties of the parent and child; (7) the parents’ moral fitness; (8) the child's home, school, and community record; (9) the child’s preference at the age sufficient to express a preference by law; (10) the stability of the parents’ home environments and
9
employment; and (11) other factors relevant to the parent-child relationship.
Hendrix, 373 So. 3d at 787-88 (¶33) (citing Albright, 437 So. 2d at 1005).
¶33. “We review the chancellor’s application of the Albright factors for abuse of discretion, giving deference to the weight []he assigned each factor.” Baird v. Baird, 434 So. 3d 284, 291 (¶19) (Miss. Ct. App. 2025) (quoting McLellan, 397 So. 3d at 867 (¶27)). Crucially, “[t]his Court does not reweigh the Albright factors.” Id. (emphasis added). Instead, “we review the evidence and testimony presented at trial to ensure the chancery court’s ruling was supported by credible evidence.” Id.
¶34. Here, “[t]he transcript reflects that at trial, the chancellor heard evidence and testimony about the children’s physical and emotional health, school and community record, as well as each party’s parenting style, mental and physical health, home environment, employment, and continuity of care from the time periods before and after the entry of the temporary order.” Baird, 434 So. 3d at 292 (¶23).
¶35. Our review of the final order reveals that the chancellor performed a complete Albright analysis and addressed all 12 factors. The chancellor found the majority of the factors were neutral: age, health, and sex of the child; willingness and capacity to provide primary child care; employment responsibilities; physical and mental health and age of the parents; emotional ties between parent and child; moral fitness; and the home, school and community records of the child.
¶36. The chancellor then found 4 factors favoring Tiffany, and 2 factors favoring David. For Tiffany: continuity of care; parenting skills; child’s preference; and “home stability.”
10
Conversely, the chancellor found the “employment stability” factor “favors David,” and the catch-all provision of “other factors relevant” to the child’s best interests “highly favors David.”
¶37. In essence, the chancellor found both David and Tiffany to be fit and capable parents; neither were deemed unfit. The chancellor then made the discretionary decision that awarding Tiffany custody of Gabby, separately from Claire, was in the best interests of Gabby.2
¶38. We address David’s challenges to specific factors in turn, as they relate to custody of Gabby at issue.
1. Parenting Skills
¶39. “David maintains this is manifestly wrong and/or clearly erroneous” for the chancellor to find this factor favors Tiffany. David argues:
Tiffany was befriending the children rather than effectively parenting them.
Tiffany’s parenting was one which not only looked away from bad conduct but went so far as to endorse and encourage bad conduct. She also engaged in a pattern of secreting and encouraged clandestine conversations between her and the child since she knew it would be adverse to her in this custody litigation.
Tiffany has . . . condone[d] and encourage[d] the child to deceive and lie to the father . . . . Tiffany would communicate with the child at inappropriate times[,] . . . while the child was at school and during the middle of the night or early morning hours even on school nights. Tiffany was failing to teach her children to have any respect for authority or authority figures in their lives.
2 The temporary order, which was entered approximately a year before trial, awarded Tiffany physical custody of Gabby and David physical custody of Claire, and granted David visitation with Gabby. Both parties testified that they were never married and that in the years before the entry of the temporary order, the parties were separated and living in different states. During this time, Tiffany primarily cared for both girls. The chancellor acknowledged this testimony in his final order.
11
¶40. As such, David asserts that “[w]hen comparing the parenting skills of the parents, it is clear that the David’s parenting skills far exceed that of Tiffany and this factor should be awarded heavily to the father.”
¶41. The parenting skills “factor ‘encompasses a parent’s ability to provide physical care, emotional support, discipline, and guidance.’” Scott v. Le, 373 So. 3d 1067, 1073 (¶27) (Miss. Ct. App. 2023) (quoting Deborah H. Bell, Bell on Mississippi Family Law § 12.03[4][a], at 389-90 (3d ed. 2020)).
¶42. The chancellor determined that the parenting skills factor favored Tiffany. The chancellor considered the fact that:
Tiffany confirmed she has been the parent until recently to take the children to doctor or dental visits, attend school functions and teacher conferences, rather than David.
Tiffany has a good relationship with the children. Tiffany works one job, and at times has worked two jobs. Tiffany lives with her husband, their two younger sons, and her two elderly aunts. Tiffany explains her family helps with these girls when they are together.
The chancellor also specifically found that “David and Tiffany offered many examples of the lack of proper parenting the other parent has. The [c]ourt noted the ability of David and Tiffany to communicate with each other has been very strained.”
¶43. The evidence in the record shows that Tiffany gave testimony about her parenting skills. The trial transcripts reflect:
[Court]: And the records indicate dad is strict and mom not so much. Is that a fair statement from the counseling records, Mom?
[Tiffany]: I have rules, but I have different kind of rules. I’m more about values and integrity. . . . I have, like, bedtime and what time you’re allowed to do stuff. I just wasn’t physical with her. It was
12
more like punishing, like, taking away a phone or taking away privileges, like, watching TV or - - like that.
....
[Tiffany]: I have rules, that’s literally why I had originally sent her [Claire]
there [to David’s house], because she wasn’t obeying the rules.
There was also evidence to support finding that Tiffany’s husband and her great aunts take care of the children when Tiffany works late and is not home.
¶44. “Substantial deference is given to a chancellor’s findings, as the chancellor ‘has the ultimate discretion to weigh the evidence the way he sees fit in determining where the child’s best interest lies.” Stuckey v. Stuckey, 341 So. 3d 1030, 1037 (¶16) (Miss. Ct. App. 2022) (quoting Stewart v. Stewart, 309 So. 3d 44, 84 (¶128) (Miss. Ct. App. 2020)). We find no error in the court’s reasoning.
2. Willingness and Capacity to Provide Primary Care
¶45. Next, David argued the chancellor erred by finding “simply that ‘Both parents seek custody,’” because “[t]he fact that both parents seek custody ignores the ‘capacity’ to provide for the children.” He alleges that “Tiffany lacks any true willingness and ability to provide the primary care for the children as the children are in control while under the custody of the mother.” He asserts “[w]e can’t ignore the fact that the [c]ourt considered the husband and aunt as part of the reason” Tiffany was favored.
¶46. Here, the chancery court found that “Both parents seek custody” and determined that this factor was equal between Tiffany and David.
¶47. “This Court is not permitted to reweigh the evidence to make our own independent determination.” Ingram v. Ingram, 419 So. 3d 991, 995-96 (¶8) (Miss. Ct. App. 2025). And
13
“[a]fter our review of the record, we find no clear error or abuse of discretion in the chancellor’s consideration of th[is] factor[.]” Id.
3. Stability of the Home Environment
¶48. Next, David claims error under this factor because “[t]he only facts the [c]ourt relied on to make this determination is the fact that both parents had lived in three different locations over the course of the children’s lives.” He contends that “[a]lthough the parents living in differing locations is part of this factor (which are equal between these two parents), what goes on in that home also plays a very significant part of this factor.”
¶49. According to him, “there is no stability in the mother’s home and [Gabby] is likewise subjected to that same living environment in the mother’s home,” whereas “[his] home provides a much more stable environment and effective parenting which serves both children’s best interest.”
¶50. “When weighing the stability of the home environment, our courts have considered numerous factors which contribute to a favorable home environment.” Tilley v. Gibbs, 387 So. 3d 64, 79 (¶34) (Miss. Ct. App. 2024) (quoting Montgomery v. Montgomery, 20 So. 3d 39, 46 (¶34) (Miss. Ct. App. 2009)).
¶51. The chancery court’s order reflects that the court bifurcated this factor into two parts, separating stability of the home from stability of employment. The chancellor’s findings regarding the circumstances of David’s and Tiffany’s homes included, respectively:
David lived in his home in Pensacola for the past two years. Previously he was in Raymond, Mississippi, previously two years in Clinton, Mississippi.
Tiffany has resided in her current home with the family members identified
14
[husband Daniel, their two sons, and her two great aunts] for eight years.
Tiffany previously lived in St. Martin for one year, and in Shreveport for five to six years.
¶52. The record reflects evidence to support the chancellor’s findings of fact. Given our very limited standard of review, we find no error in the court’s finding.
4. Employment of Each Parent
¶53. David asserts that the chancellor “correctly determined that this factor favored [him].” Nevertheless, he argues “Tiffany’s work history has likewise not been beneficial for the minor children. Working primarily as a waitress she has worked varying hours which take her away from home at night leaving it up to the stepfather and elderly aunt to parent[.]”
¶54. Here, the chancery court made findings of fact that “Tiffany has worked in the food service business for several years. During this litigation, she took a lab tech job in a dental clinic. Prior to the last hearing, she ended that employment and is back in the food service industry. She prefers to work days and usually can do so, although some nights are made available to her.”
¶55. “Again, the chancellor is the ultimate fact-finder, and we cautiously review the record to determine whether the chancellor’s finding of fact is supported.” Wilbourn v. Wilbourn, 388 So. 3d 580, 594 (¶49) (Miss. Ct. App. 2024). Having reviewed the evidence, we find the record contains support for the chancellor’s findings under this factor.
5. Moral Fitness
¶56. David argues, “[t]he proof in this case is replete with example after example of the Tiffany’s dishonesty.” David points out that the counseling “records reflect that [Claire] was
15
‘smoking marijuana daily while living in Ocean Springs and her mother’s house, was mostly unsupervised and also witnessed her mother smoking marijuana regularly.’” He contends that “[t]his is an environment that neither child should be left in.”
¶57. “Despite the examination of the record and extensive argument that [David’s] counsel makes of how each Albright factor was proved, it is the chancery court’s findings, not a party’s argument, that we review.” Hendrix, 373 So. 3d at 795 (¶55).
¶58. Under this factor, the chancery court’s findings subject to our review include:
David has three criminal convictions from 24 years ago. David has one burglary conviction and two LSD convictions. David is not involved in any religious fraternal organization or club.
Although David has his criminal convictions, he does appear by his dress, his appearance and his conversational skills to now be a sober person. He reports he has paid his debt to society and is no longer involved in any kind of controlled substance habits.
Tiffany has no criminal convictions. Tiffany attends Church of Cedar Lake for 3 ½ years, previously attended Church of the King for 10 years. Tiffany reported she thinks now about going to a church located right around the corner from her home, although she has not made that transfer yet.
Tiffany and David both confirmed [Claire]’s difficulty with being truthful over the last couple of years. On the other hand, [Gabby] is a very honest, smart child with no behavioral issues in school or at home.
¶59. David is correct that Tiffany’s behavior was less than ideal. However, the chancery court specifically addressed her manipulations of her daughter and admonished her for it.
¶60. “[T]he chancellor ‘clearly agonized over his decision’” here, but “the central fact of the present case seems to be beyond dispute: both [Tiffany] and [David] love and care for their daughter [Gabby], and there is no basis in the record for concluding that either party is
16
[morally] an unfit parent.” Id. at 793 (¶50).
¶61. We find “the evidence presented at trial showed that [Tiffany] possessed sufficient . . . overall ability to parent.” Ellis, 952 So. 2d at 995-96 (¶¶32-33). Accordingly, “consideration of her actions and inactions by the lower court was proper.” Id. at 996 (¶33).3 6. Child’s Preference
¶62. “David maintains that the [c]ourt finding that the Albright factor the ‘Child’s Preference, If The Child Is At Least 12 Years Old’ favors the mother is manifestly wrong and/or clearly erroneous.” He points out that “[Gabby] was not twelve years of age at the time of the testimony[.]” And “there is no testimony or other proof before the [c]ourt regarding that child’s preference other that the self-serving hearsay of the mother.” David further argues that “there is absolutely no proof that [Gabby] continues to desire to live with her mother if [Claire] continues to live with her father as the [c]ourt has awarded.”
¶63. Pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated § 93-11-65:
[I]f the court shall find that both parties are fit and proper persons to have custody of the children, and that either party is able to adequately provide for the care and maintenance of the children, the chancellor may consider the preference of a child of twelve (12) years of age or older as to the parent with whom the child would prefer to live in determining what would be in the best interest and welfare of the child.
(Emphasis added). This Court has explained that “the chancellor must consider the child’s preference when assessing what is in the best interest of the child,” but “[t]his election of
3 Although “[t]his Court is concerned with . . . [Tiffany]’s alleged emotional manipulation of their [eldest daughter], [Claire], as well as placing [Claire] in the middle of their arguments with one another,” ultimately, “our review of the record reveals no manifest error in the chancellor’s finding regarding this factor.” Watts v. Watts, 99 So. 3d 751, 759-60
(¶22) (Miss. Ct. App. 2012).
17
preference is not outcome determinative of the issue.” Holmes v. Holmes, 958 So. 2d 844, 848 (¶15) (Miss. Ct. App. 2007).
¶64. The chancellor’s order stated: “[i]t is reported that both children wish to reside in Mississippi with their mother.”
¶65. David is correct as to Gabby’s age—the undisputed evidence shows that Gabby was only 11 years old when the chancellor received testimony from Tiffany about both girls’ preferences. But the record also shows that Gabby turned 12 years old during the course of the trial proceedings.
¶66. Here, “[a] reading of the chancellor’s opinion above reveals that he considered many factors in determining the placement of the children.” Bredemeier v. Jackson, 689 So. 2d 770, 777 (Miss. 1997). And “[a]lthough the court had no statutory basis for considering [Gabby]’s preference,” our Supreme Court has held that “this does not make the chancellor’s decision manifestly wrong.” Id.
7. Health of the Parents
¶67. Lastly, David claims,“[w]hile the Court states the mother, Tiffany doesn’t have any health issues, it was less than two years ago she reported that she had anxiety, panic attacks and high blood pressure[.]” He argues that “[e]ven if she had claimed that this was all related to issues she had with [Claire], then this would further support the fact that she doesn’t have the capacity to be the primary caretaker of the children.”
¶68. Again, “[d]espite the examination of the record and extensive argument that [David’s] counsel makes . . . it is the chancery court’s findings, not a party’s argument, that we review.”
18
Hendrix, 373 So. 3d at 795 (¶55).
¶69. The chancellor’s findings for this factor include:
David is 44 years of age. David graduated from high school and attended junior college for two years. David is in good health. David takes thyroid and blood pressure medicine. David has worked in the tile business for 10 years.
Tiffany is 40 years of age. Tiffany holds a bachelor’s degree in sociology and non-profit studies. Tiffany is in good physical and mental health and takes no medication.
¶70. Upon review, we find no abuse of discretion in the chancellor’s statements or findings here.
¶71. In conclusion, we affirm the chancery court’s determination as to the Albright factors. “In doing so, we hew closely to our standard of review, which defers greatly to the trial court’s findings.” Hackler, 296 So. 3d at 779 (¶40). “[N]ot only did the chancellor have the benefit of the parties’ words, he alone among the judiciary observed their manner and demeanor.” Id. (quoting Culbreath v. Johnson, 427 So. 2d 705, 708 (¶41) (Miss. 1983)). Crucially, “[h]e was there on the scene,’ and ‘smelled the smoke of battle,’ and ‘sensed the interpersonal dynamics between the lawyers and the witnesses and himself.’” Id. (quoting Culbreath, 427 So. 2d at 708 (¶41)).
II. Whether the chancellor erred by separating the two siblings.
¶72. For his second issue, David challenges the chancery court’s finding that his youngest daughter should continue to live with her mother. According to David, the chancery “[c]ourt initially separated the children due to it being during the school year and the allegations of threats of [Claire] toward her sister [Gabby].” He argues “[t]hat has been resolved however,”
19
as “[Claire] was sent to counseling and it’s reported that there is no viable threat.”
¶73. In further support of his argument, David cites to a case in which our Supreme Court “discussed the preference to keep siblings together unless there is some overriding reason they should be separated.” See Sellers v. Sellers, 638 So. 2d 481, 484 (Miss. 1994). The Sellers Court held: “The Court shall in all cases attempt insofar as possible, to keep the children together[;]” as “[i]t is well recognized that the love and affection of a brother and sister at the ages of these children is important in the lives of both of them and to deprive them of the association ordinarily would not be in their best interests.” Id. Therefore, “in the absence of some unusual and compelling circumstance dictating otherwise, it is not in the best interest of children to be separated.” Id.
¶74. First, the aspect of the “separation of the siblings was an issue that the chancellor had the discretion to weigh as []he saw fit.” Embrey, 337 So. 3d at 259 (¶43). To be clear, “there was no requirement that the chancellor specifically address the question of siblings and custody.” Id. (quoting Dunnam v. Dunnam, 270 So. 3d 245, 250 (¶19) (Miss. Ct. App. 2018)).
¶75. Second, “[i]t is not a separate Albright factor but a question which the chancellor may consider along with the best interest of the child.” Id. (quoting Dunnam, 270 So. 3d at 250 (¶19)). And ultimately, “a desire to avoid ‘the separation of siblings should not override a child’s best interest in a custody determination.’” Id. (quoting Riley v. Heisinger, 302 So. 3d 1243, 1258 (¶60) (Miss. Ct. App. 2020)).
¶76. Here, the record established a history of Claire making threats against Tiffany, Gabby,
20
and other members of Tiffany’s household. As such, the evidence supports that the chancery court had some basis for separating the siblings during this volatile period of the older daughter’s childhood.
¶77. And the record indicates the chancellor took the separation of these two sisters into consideration when he made his ruling. The trial court’s order expressly directed that the parents “shall exercise visitation so that the sisters are together as much as possible” and “the children should be together every weekend, for each holiday and any school breaks.” By including these directives, the chancellor’s order emphasized the importance of Claire and Gabby spending time with each other.
¶78. Furthermore, David attempts to use our precedent to apply an automatic custody award in his favor—that since he was awarded custody of one daughter, he should automatically obtain custody of the other. But this is not nearly what our law provides. Instead, as always, our polestar consideration is the best interests of the child. After three days of trial, the record was replete that it was only Tiffany who had reared the two girls — and that the continuity of care factor was near exclusive to her, as she was the one who took the girls to the doctor, to their extracurricular activities, and in all respects for many years was their sole parent. It is not in dispute that it was Tiffany who had to reach out to David to help parent, because he was near-absent from the lives of his daughters and had taken no responsibility for them.
¶79. Meanwhile, David complains that the sisters are separated by the distance of Pensacola to Ocean Springs — about 2 hours down I-10. But David himself chose to live
21
in Clinton and in Raymond during their earliest years, a distance of over 3 hours from his daughters. The distance may not be ideal, but the modern digital world accommodates separation more readily than in the past, as the miles between the sisters can be abated by video chats, group messages, and other forms of communication.
¶80. Therefore, taking the totality of the circumstances presented in the record, we conclude this was a proper exercise of the chancellor’s discretionary authority and we find no error.
III. Whether the chancery court erred in its order that other rulings remain in full force and effect.
¶81. David’s last issue raised is that “the [c]ourt erred in ordering the last Paragraph of the . . . Judgment of Custody . . . which states . . . all orders not consistent herewith shall remain in full force and effect.” However, David fails to cite any authority to his argument.
¶82. “The argument shall contain the contentions of appellant with respect to the issues presented, and the reasons for those contentions, with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record relied on.” M.R.A.P. 28(a)(7). “It is the duty of the appellant to provide authority in support of an assignment of error.” Est. of Roosa v. Roosa, 376 So. 3d 1225, 1229 (¶16) (Miss. Ct. App. 2023) (quoting Herrin v. Perkins, 282 So. 3d 727, 732 (¶21) (Miss. Ct. App. 2019)).
¶83. This Court has explained that “[c]itation of some relevant authority—whether from other jurisdictions or secondary sources—is an important feature of appellate practice.” Roosa, 376 So. 3d at 1230 (¶16) (quoting Henderson v. Copper Ridge Homes LLC, 273 So. 3d 750, 758 (¶38) (Miss. 2019) (Kitchens, P.J., concurring)). The “[f]ailure to cite authority
22
to support an argument renders an issue procedurally barred.” Wackenhut Corp. v. Fortune, 87 So. 3d 1083, 1094 (¶35) (Miss. Ct. App. 2012).
¶84. Because no authority is cited, we will not consider this issue on appeal.
CONCLUSION
¶85. After review, we find that the chancery court conducted a thorough Albright analysis and exercised its discretionary authority in granting custody of Gabby to Tiffany. Further, the split of custody and separation of the siblings was within the chancellor’s discretion. As such, we find no error and affirm the chancery court’s order.
¶86. AFFIRMED.
BARNES, C.J., CARLTON AND WILSON, P.JJ., WESTBROOKS, McDONALD, LAWRENCE, EMFINGER, WEDDLE AND LASSITTER ST. PÉ, JJ., CONCUR.