How to modify child custody and parenting time in Mississippi

Sources last checked 8 November 2026. Information only, not legal advice. This page rests on Mississippi Code section 93-5-24 (custody, joint custody and family violence), read from a FindLaw copy current as of 1 January 2025, and on one Mississippi Supreme Court decision, Mabus v. Mabus (2003), read on FindLaw. We read no other case, so the ordinary-modification test below comes from a single decision. Read what we could not confirm below.

Mississippi divorce kitChild custody in MississippiModifying child support and spousal support in MississippiAfter your divorce: changing a support or custody order

The short version

  • Joint custody orders. Section 93-5-24(6) says an order for joint custody “may be modified or terminated upon the petition of both parents” or on one parent’s petition “showing that a material change in circumstances has occurred”.
  • Other custody orders. The statute we read states no test for changing an order that gave one parent custody. In Mabus the Mississippi Supreme Court set out the test for an ordinary modification; see the next section.
  • Support. For child support or spousal support see modifying support in Mississippi.

The ordinary modification test, from Mabus v. Mabus (2003)

  • Three things to prove. Quoting an earlier case, the court said the parent asking for the change must prove “a substantial change in circumstances has transpired since issuance of the custody decree”, that the change “adversely affects the child’s welfare”, and that the child’s best interests “mandate a change of custody”.
  • Burden and standard. The burden is on the person asking for the change, by a preponderance of the evidence, to show a material change in circumstances in the custodial home.
  • Look at everything together. Courts consider “the totality of the circumstances”, and even if a change has occurred the judge must separately find that it adversely affects the child.
  • Guiding principle. The court called “the best interest and welfare of the child” the polestar consideration in any custody matter.
  • Outcome in Mabus. The mother’s request to change to joint legal custody failed because she did not meet her burden of proving a material change.

What section 93-5-24 says

  • Custody options, subsection 1. The court awards custody according to the best interests of the child: joint physical and legal custody, joint physical with legal custody to one parent, joint legal with physical custody to one parent, or sole physical and legal custody to one parent. In limited cases of abandonment or unfitness it may go to another person.
  • Joint custody, subsections 2 to 4. In a divorce on irreconcilable differences, joint custody may be awarded on application of both parents. In other cases it may be awarded on application of one or both parents. There is a presumption that joint custody is in the child’s best interest where both parents have agreed to it.
  • Modification, subsection 6. The material-change test in the short version above applies to joint custody orders.
  • No preference for mothers, subsection 7. There is “no presumption” that the mother should have legal or physical custody.
  • Records, subsection 8. A parent cannot be denied access to the child’s medical, dental and school records only because that parent is not the custodial parent.
  • Family violence, subsection 9. Where custody is disputed, there is a rebuttable presumption that sole custody, joint legal custody or joint physical custody for a parent with a history of perpetrating family violence is detrimental to the child. It can be rebutted only by a preponderance of the evidence, and the court must make written findings.

Pros and cons of relying on this page

  • Pro. Every quotation is checked against the statute or decision text we read.
  • Con. The ordinary-modification test rests on one 2003 decision that itself quotes older cases. If you want to change only the visitation schedule, this page does not tell you the test.

What we could not confirm

  • Newer cases and visitation. Mabus is from 2003 and we read no later decision, so we cannot say whether the test has been refined. We also cannot say how courts treat a change of schedule alone.
  • Relocation. We read no Mississippi relocation rule.
  • Forms, fees and procedure. We did not confirm a statewide form, filing fees, fee waivers, the chancery court rules or any waiting period.
  • The rest of section 93-5-24. The copy we read did not include every subsection, for example 5(a) and 5(b).

Spot something out of date? See our corrections or email hello@thecusp.app.

Sources