A father’s financial circumstances became a central issue in a child-support dispute after he told a Mississippi court that an account once holding approximately $800,000 had been drained, leaving him homeless and without a regular income. Despite his claims that he could no longer afford payments, a judge ordered him to pay $600 a month for his young son. The father challenged the amount, arguing that the court had not properly established his ability to pay.In an opinion issued on November 10, 2026, available on Justia, the Mississippi Court of Appeals reversed the child-support order and sent the issue back to the lower court for a fresh calculation. However, the appeals court upheld a separate arrangement allowing the child’s mother to decide whether and when the father could visit their son.
Father said his $800,000 account had been depleted
William McLain and Tristan Davis were never married but had a son, identified in court documents as K.D., who was born in May 2023. In December 2023, the Mississippi Department of Human Services filed a complaint seeking to establish paternity and determine child support. Davis subsequently filed a petition requesting custody, supervised visitation and financial support.A September 2024 temporary order granted Davis physical and legal custody of the child and directed McLain to pay $350 a month in child support through the Department of Human Services. At a final hearing in March 2025, the court increased the monthly payment to $600. McLain challenged the decision, saying his financial circumstances did not support such an obligation.During the hearing, the parties discussed bank records showing that McLain had once held approximately $800,000 in a Trustmark account. He described the money as a gift from a friend and said he had supported himself with it for several years. However, he claimed the account had since been depleted, largely because of his gambling addiction. Davis questioned his explanations about the money’s origin, saying he had given different accounts involving his grandmother, friends, Bitcoin and stocks.McLain also testified that he had not held a regular job for nine years, had limited education and was now homeless. He said he had previously taken odd jobs, including cutting grass, but could no longer continue because of a back injury.
Why the appeals court overturned the $600 order
The appeals court found that the lower court had not adequately explained how it arrived at the $600 monthly payment. Under Mississippi law, child support for one child is generally calculated using 14% of the parent’s adjusted gross income. Courts can depart from these guidelines in appropriate circumstances, but they must explain their reasoning. The law also requires judges to gather sufficient information before imputing income to a parent who is unemployed or has no established earnings. Relevant considerations can include assets, education, health, employment history, job skills and local employment opportunities.In McLain’s case, his financial declaration listed no income and showed $31,000 in credit card debt. Although the chancellor referred to substantial deposits and withdrawals in his bank account, the actual statements were not included in the appellate record. The appeals court said there was no reliable way to verify the financial information or determine how the lower court calculated his ability to pay. It therefore reversed the $600 child-support order and remanded the issue for a more detailed assessment based on the statutory requirements.
Mother retained control over visitation
McLain also challenged the arrangement allowing Davis to determine visitation at her sole discretion. He argued that the decision effectively denied him access to his son. The lower court had cited his lack of meaningful participation in the proceedings, unemployment, homelessness and absence of an established relationship with the child, who was younger than three at the time.The appeals court majority upheld the arrangement, noting that McLain had not formally requested a specific visitation schedule or proposed conditions under which visits could take place. It said the arrangement gave him an opportunity to establish a relationship with his son and allowed him to return to court if Davis unreasonably refused visitation.However, Presiding Judge Wilson dissented on this issue, arguing that giving the mother complete discretion effectively denied the father an enforceable right to visit his child. He said the evidence did not establish that supervised visitation would pose an imminent risk of harm. His dissent was joined by four other judges: Westbrooks, Lawrence, McCarty and Weddle.
What happens next
The November 10 ruling affirmed the visitation decision but reversed and remanded the child-support issue for further proceedings. It did not eliminate McLain’s obligation to support his son; the lower court must determine an appropriate amount using sufficient financial evidence.The case highlights the distinction between a parent’s financial responsibility and visitation rights, with both decisions requiring courts to consider the child’s best interests and the evidence presented.