## Facts

- Dorothy Elisabeth (“Beth”) Hollon and Timothy Paul (“Tim”) Hollon married in 1994 and had one child, Zachary (born 1996); Beth also had an older child from a prior marriage living in the home.
- Beth worked as an on-site apartment manager with a relatively regular schedule; Tim worked irregular shifts as a police officer.
- After marital separations in 1997 and 1998, Tim moved to his parents’ home; Zach remained with Beth.
- Beth took in a roommate, a police officer who worked at the apartment complex; Tim alleged Beth and the roommate had a homosexual relationship, which Beth denied.
- Tim made repeated unauthorized entries into Beth’s apartment and photographed the premises to support his allegations; Beth reported the conduct to police.
- The parties obtained a divorce on irreconcilable differences; custody, support, and costs were contested.
- The chancellor awarded primary physical custody to Tim, granted Beth visitation, ordered Beth to pay child support, and allowed Tim to claim the child as a tax dependent.

## Issues

1. Whether the custody award was supported by substantial evidence under the child’s best interests when evaluated using the *Albright* factors.
2. Whether the chancellor applied an erroneous standard by treating an alleged same-sex relationship as determinative of “moral unfitness” in the custody analysis.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Mississippi reversed and remanded.
- The court held the chancellor abused discretion by placing disproportionate weight on alleged moral unfitness tied to a purported homosexual relationship.
- The court found the custody decision inadequately explained and insufficiently grounded in a balanced, factor-by-factor *Albright* analysis.

## Legal Principles

- Child custody must be determined by the child’s best interests using the *Albright* factors, with findings adequate to show how the factors were weighed.
- “Moral fitness” is one factor and should not control the custody result absent a concrete showing of adverse effect on the child.
- Conflicting evidence of a parent’s private relationship, without specific findings tying it to harm to the child, does not justify shifting custody away from a parent who has provided continuity of care.
- Appellate review may find abuse of discretion where the chancellor’s analysis is materially incomplete or dominated by a single factor without evidentiary support for the overall best-interests determination.

## Conclusion

The court set aside the award of primary physical custody to the father because the chancellor’s reasoning centered on alleged moral unfitness based on a purported same-sex relationship and did not reflect a supported, comprehensive application of the *Albright* best-interests factors; the case was remanded for a renewed custody determination consistent with those requirements.


Hollon v. Hollon, 784 So. 2d 943 (Miss. 2001)