Blevins v. Bardwell
Supreme Court of Mississippi
784 So. 2d 166 (2001)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Adam Blevins (defendant) and Dawn Bardwell (plaintiff) met in the United States Air Force (Air Force) and had a child named Darby. Adam and Dawn were not married. Dawn left the Air Force while she was pregnant, but reenlisted after Darby was born. Because the Air Force prohibited single custodial parents from enlisting, Adam and Dawn agreed to a temporary court order granting Adam custody of Darby. Adam and Dawn’s relationship subsequently deteriorated. Dawn filed a petition for custody of Darby in the Chancery Court of the Second Judicial District of Harrison County. Adam had moved to Kentucky to care for his father, who was suffering from acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) and cancer. At trial, Adam presented evidence that Dawn was evaluated by a psychiatrist and found to have an adjustment disorder with depressed mood and a provisional schizoid personality disorder. Dawn presented evidence that Adam smoked cigarettes and that Adam’s father smoked three or four packs of cigarettes per day. The chancery court awarded Adam and Dawn joint legal custody of Darby and awarded Dawn primary physical custody. In doing so, the chancery court addressed Dawn’s mental health, but ruled that all best-interests-of-the-child factors that favored one parent over the other, including the health of the parents and the home environments, favored Dawn. Adam appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Pittman, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.