AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 93-5-24, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO CREATE A REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION IN FAVOR OF JOINT CUSTODY WITH EQUAL PARENTING TIME IN ALL CUSTODY MATTERS; TO PROVIDE THAT THE PRESUMPTION SHALL BE REBUTTABLE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE; TO PROVIDE THAT A COURT SHALL CONSIDER THE SAFETY AND WELL-BEING OF THE PARTIES AND CHILDREN; TO PROVIDE THAT THE PRESUMPTION THAT JOINT CUSTODY AND EQUALLY SHARED PARENTING TIME IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD SHALL NOT APPLY IF A DOMESTIC ABUSE PROTECTION ORDER IS BEING OR HAS BEEN ENTERED AGAINST A PARTY BY ANOTHER PARTY OR ON BEHALF OF A CHILD AT ISSUE IN THE CUSTODY HEARING; TO REQUIRE A COURT TO DOCUMENT THE REASONS FROM DEVIATING FROM THE PRESUMPTION UNLESS BOTH PARENTS PETITION FOR A DEVIATION; TO CLARIFY THAT THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY TO ALL CUSTODY DETERMINATIONS; TO PROVIDE FOR THE CALCULATION OF CHILD SUPPORT WHERE THE COURT AWARDS JOINT CUSTODY WITH EQUALLY SHARED PARENTING TIME; TO AMEND SECTION 43-19-101, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO CONFORM; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.
Summary
SB 2688 would change Mississippi child-custody law to create a rebuttable presumption that joint custody with equally shared parenting time is in the best interest of the child in all custody matters. Courts would still be required to consider the safety and well-being of the parents and children, and the presumption would not apply against a party who is subject to, or has been subject to, a domestic abuse protection order in the custody case. If a court departs from the presumption, it must document its reasons unless both parents jointly ask for a deviation.
The bill also creates a new framework for child support in shared-parenting cases. It defines a “day” for parenting-time purposes, sets a minimum of 88 days per year to qualify for a shared parenting time credit, and establishes a sliding scale of child-support adjustments based on the number of days each parent has the child. It further allows courts discretion in applying the credit when the custodial parent receives certain public benefits, including CHIP, TANF, SNAP, or Medicaid. The bill amends the existing child-support statute to conform and makes the new rules effective July 1, 2026.
Impact
The bill would amend Section 93-5-24 of the Mississippi Code to make equal shared parenting the starting point in custody determinations, while preserving existing domestic-violence protections and the court’s ability to award sole custody when warranted. It would also add detailed child-support calculation rules for shared parenting arrangements and revise Section 43-19-101 to coordinate those calculations with Mississippi’s general child-support guidelines. In practice, the measure would affect chancery courts, divorcing or separated parents, and child-support enforcement by requiring more findings and documentation in custody deviations and by changing how support is calculated in joint-custody cases.
Sentiment
The bill’s stated purpose and caption suggest a strong pro-joint-custody policy, and the text reflects a clear preference for equal parenting time. Because no committee transcripts or votes were provided, there is no recorded public debate in the materials to indicate formal support or opposition. Based on the bill language alone, the measure appears designed to standardize shared parenting outcomes while retaining exceptions for safety and abuse concerns.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the new rebuttable presumption favoring joint custody with equal parenting time, which could be seen as limiting judicial discretion in individual best-interest determinations. Another likely area of debate is the domestic-violence exception: the bill excludes cases involving protection orders, but it still requires courts to apply and rebut the presumption in other cases, which may raise concerns about how safety evidence is weighed. The child-support credit provisions may also be controversial because they reduce support in shared-parenting cases and give courts discretion when the obligee receives public assistance, potentially affecting lower-income families and cases with uneven actual caregiving.