Mississippi 50/50 custody law: the new equal parenting-time presumption explained (2026)

Mississippi does now have a statutory presumption of equal parenting time, applied by the chancery court — but it reaches only new cases. Since 1 July 2026, § 93-5-24(2)(a)(i) of the Mississippi Code has read: “There shall be a rebuttable presumption that joint custody and equally shared parenting time is in the best interest of the child.” It was added by House Bill 1662, approved by the Governor on 8 April 2026.

Two limits sit in the same subsection. The presumption is “rebuttable by a preponderance of the evidence”, and a court that does not award joint custody with equally shared parenting time “shall document the reasons for deviating from the presumption”. And it applies only to initial temporary and initial final custody orders entered after 1 July 2026 — expressly not to modifications of an existing order.

What the 2026 law actually says

Custody sits in Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-24, in Title 93 (Domestic Relations), Chapter 5. The section opens by requiring that “custody shall be awarded as follows according to the best interests of the child”. House Bill 1662 of the 2026 Regular Session rewrote it, effective 1 July 2026.

The new subsection (2) does three things. It creates the presumption just quoted. Where a court grants it, “the court shall construct a parenting time schedule which maximizes the time each parent has with the child” — no rotation pattern is prescribed. And on the joint petition of both parents, the court “may grant legal and/or physical custody to one (1) parent without documenting a reason for deviation”.

The scope limit is the part most often reported wrongly. Subsection (2)(e) says the presumption “shall only apply to initial temporary custody orders and initial final custody orders entered … after July 1, 2026”, and that it “shall not be applied to modifications of any custody orders entered before or after July 1, 2026”. The trigger is the date the order is entered — not the date a case was filed.

HB 1662 also repealed wording that older guides still quote as current law: the rule that joint custody could be awarded only “where irreconcilable differences is the ground for divorce … upon application of both parents”; the subsection allowing it “in other cases … upon application of one or both parents”; the separate presumption of joint custody where both parents agreed; and, from the definition of joint physical custody, the sentence about assuring the child frequent and continuing contact with both parents. The surviving subsections were renumbered (3) to (7).

Sources: [1], [2]

How a Mississippi chancellor decides

Mississippi has no statutory checklist of best-interests factors. The criteria are judge-made: the eleven Albright factors, from Albright v. Albright, 437 So. 2d 1003 (Miss. 1983) — among them continuity of care before the separation, parenting skills, emotional ties, moral fitness, the child’s home, school and community record, the child’s preference at a sufficient age, and the stability of each home. The best interest of the child remains, in the appellate courts’ phrase, the polestar consideration.

For a qualifying initial order the chancellor starts from the presumption, and a parent who wants something else must rebut it by a preponderance of the evidence. Subsection (2)(b) names five grounds: the parties have reached an agreement on all issues related to custody; the court finds that the other parent’s absence, mental illness, substance abuse or other circumstances are against the child’s best interest; the family-violence presumption in subsection (7)(a) is established; one parent is a registered sex offender or in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections; or “any other relevant factor that the court deems material”. That last ground is open-ended, so the list is not a closed set.

The family-violence presumption is separate and older: sole or joint custody to a parent with a history of perpetrating family violence is presumed detrimental to the child, rebuttable only by a preponderance of the evidence, and “the court shall make written findings to document how and why the presumption was or was not triggered”. And § 93-5-24 gives no presumption in favour of the mother.

In a modification case the new presumption plays no part, though the route survives: a joint-custody order can be changed on both parents’ petition, or “upon the petition of one (1) parent showing that a material change in circumstances has occurred”.

Sources: [1], [4]

Schedules, child support and what is not known

The statute asks for a schedule that maximises each parent’s time and names no rotation, so the pattern is whatever the parents propose or the chancellor writes. Alternating weeks, a 2-2-3 and other splits all land at or near half the nights; the practical questions are handover days and holidays. See 50/50 custody schedules, worked schedule examples and what a parenting plan covers.

Equal time does not switch child support off. Where it is ordered, § 93-5-24(2)(c) prescribes an offset unless the court finds a deviation is in the child’s best interest: run the § 43-19-101 guideline for each parent as if that parent were the payer, then “order the difference in the two (2) awards to be paid by the parent who has the higher adjusted gross income to the parent with the lower adjusted gross income”.

The guideline behind that arithmetic is unchanged. § 43-19-101 remains a rebuttable presumption expressed as a percentage of the paying parent’s adjusted gross income — 14 % for one child, 20 % for two, 22 % for three, 24 % for four and 26 % for five or more — displaceable only on a written or on-the-record finding that it would be unjust or inappropriate under the § 43-19-103 criteria. One of those criteria was already “the particular shared parental arrangement”, so a time-based deviation existed before 2026.

No official Mississippi figure for the share of orders awarding equal or approximately equal parenting time appears in the sources checked here. For the wider picture, see the United States custody-law page.

Sources: [1], [3]

The words Mississippi uses

• Joint custody — in § 93-5-24 this means joint physical and joint legal custody, so a parent claiming “joint custody” is claiming both.
• Joint physical custody — “each of the parents shall have significant periods of physical custody”. The definition alone does not mean equal time.
• Joint legal custody — shared decision-making over health, education and welfare; it obliges the parties to exchange information and to confer with one another.
• Equally shared parenting time — the 2026 phrase, and the one about days and nights. The statute sets no percentage and no rotation.
• Albright factors — the eleven judge-made best-interests factors; a custody appeal is usually argued as an abuse of discretion in the chancellor’s “Albright analysis”.
• Chancellor / chancery court — the judge and court that decide custody; appeals go to the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Sources: [1], [4]

Recent changes in Mississippi

• 1 July 2026 In force

  The equal parenting-time presumption takes effect

  From this date the presumption applies to initial temporary and initial final custody orders entered by the court. A chancellor who orders anything else must document the reasons. Equal-time cases get the statutory support offset. Modifications are expressly excluded.

  Official source: HB 1662, text as sent to the Governor

• 8 April 2026 Approved by the Governor; Chapter 467, Laws of 2026

  HB 1662 becomes law

  It passed the House on 11 February, the Senate in amended form on 5 March, and both chambers adopted a conference report at the end of the month. Before it, joint custody in a contested case was available only in an irreconcilable-differences divorce on both parents’ application, or otherwise at the court’s discretion on application.

  Official source: Mississippi Legislature, HB 1662 history

• 11 March 2026 Died on calendar

  SB 2027, the Senate companion, died

  SB 2027 would also have amended § 43-19-101 itself and would have switched the presumption off against a party subject to a domestic abuse protection order. Neither feature is in Mississippi law.

  Official source: Mississippi Legislature, SB 2027 history

• 3 February 2026 Died in committee

  HB 980 would have changed how support is calculated

  HB 980 would have replaced the percentage guideline with an income-shares model using both parents’ income. It died, so the flat percentage of the paying parent’s adjusted gross income stands.

  Official source: Mississippi Legislature, HB 980 history

• 12 March 2025 Died on calendar

  SB 2484 (2025) came closest before

  SB 2484 contained substantially the presumption later enacted, including an equal-time support calculation. It passed the Senate and a House committee, then died on the House calendar.

  Official source: Mississippi Legislature, SB 2484 history

• 4 March 2025 Died in committee

  HB 1304 (2025) died in the Senate

  HB 1304 would have allowed joint custody in any type of divorce and required a schedule favouring both parents equally where one parent had paramount physical custody. It died in the Senate Judiciary committee.

  Official source: Mississippi Legislature, HB 1304 history

• 5 March 2024 Died in committee

  HB 1292 (2024), the first attempt in this run

  HB 1292 would have created a rebuttable presumption of equal (50-50) joint custody in divorce proceedings. It died in House Judiciary B.

  Official source: Mississippi Legislature, HB 1292 history

Frequently asked questions

Sources