Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

A minor child, J.B., was placed in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Child Protection Services (CPS) in May 2021 and subsequently placed with foster parents, John and Amy Caldwell, in June 2021. The initial permanency plan was reunification with a parent or placement with a relative. In October 2022, J.B.’s maternal great aunt, Wanda Hines, learned of the proceedings and sought placement of J.B. with her and her husband, James Hines, in Georgia. After the youth court terminated the parental rights of J.B.’s biological parents in December 2022, both the foster parents and the relatives sought to adopt J.B.The DeSoto County Chancery Court first granted the foster parents’ petition for adoption, but the relatives intervened and challenged the adoption, arguing that CPS policy and the foster contract required exhaustion of family placement options before adoption by non-relatives. CPS also sought dismissal or a stay, asserting ongoing efforts for relative placement. The chancellor initially issued a temporary order granting the foster parents custody and the relatives visitation, but the Supreme Court of Mississippi reversed this order on interlocutory appeal for lack of a hearing and remanded for a full hearing.On remand, the chancery court held a hearing and found that the best interest of the child was the controlling factor, not a preference for relatives. The court determined that J.B. had lived with the Caldwells for most of her life, was thriving in their care, and that placement with them would avoid unnecessary trauma. The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the chancery court’s decision, holding that the best interest of the child prevails over CPS policy or contractual arguments, and that substantial credible evidence supported the adoption by the foster parents. The court also rejected the relatives’ judicial estoppel argument. View "In the Matter of the Petition for the Adoption of the Minor Child v. Caldwell" on Justia Law

A married couple with two young children experienced a breakdown in their relationship, leading to separation in 2020. The husband, who lived near his supportive family, filed for divorce and sought primary custody of the children, citing concerns about the wife’s mental health, including her history of depression and suicide attempts. The wife, who lacked a family support network but maintained employment and support from friends, counterclaimed for divorce and also sought custody, alleging the husband’s controlling behavior and alcohol use. Both parties presented conflicting testimony regarding their roles as caregivers and the circumstances leading to their separation.The Choctaw County Chancery Court initially entered a temporary custody order, alternating physical custody every fifteen days. The parties later agreed to divorce on the ground of irreconcilable differences, leaving custody and support to the chancellor. After a trial, the chancellor applied the Albright factors and found that the mental health and moral fitness factors slightly favored the husband, awarding him primary physical custody while granting joint legal custody. The wife moved for a new trial and for the chancellor’s recusal, arguing errors in the Albright analysis and alleging judicial bias, but both motions were denied.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the chancellor’s findings under a deferential standard, asking whether they were supported by substantial evidence and whether the correct legal standards were applied. The court held that the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in weighing the mental health and moral fitness factors, nor was there reversible error in the lack of specific findings regarding detrimental impact. The court also found no merit in the claims of judicial bias or error in denying a new trial. The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the judgment of the Chancery Court. View "Edwards v. Edwards" on Justia Law

K.S. gave birth to her daughter, Jane, in August 2018 and struggled with ongoing methamphetamine abuse before, during, and after her pregnancy. Jane’s early life was marked by instability, with K.S. frequently leaving her in the care of relatives and exposing her to unsafe environments. After a series of rehabilitation attempts and relapses, Jane was adjudicated a neglected child by the Rankin County Youth Court in November 2019, and custody was transferred among family members. By early 2022, Jane was in the durable legal custody of M.F.D. and M.D., K.S.’s cousin and her husband.M.D. and M.F.D. filed a petition in the Rankin County Chancery Court in August 2022 to terminate K.S.’s parental rights and adopt Jane. Before trial, they requested the youth court to transfer jurisdiction to the chancery court, which the youth court granted, finding all matters resolved and the transfer in Jane’s best interest. The chancery court then held a trial, denied K.S.’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and terminated her parental rights based on abandonment, desertion, unfitness, and failure to provide for Jane’s needs. The court also found reunification was not in Jane’s best interest and subsequently granted the adoption. K.S. appealed the termination and later filed a Rule 60(b) motion to set aside the adoption, arguing lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, which was denied.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the consolidated appeals. It held that the chancery court had subject-matter jurisdiction to terminate K.S.’s parental rights because the youth court had formally relinquished jurisdiction, and no statute prohibited such transfer. The Court also found no manifest error in the termination decision, as substantial evidence supported the chancellor’s findings. Finally, the Court declined to adopt a rule requiring automatic stays of adoption proceedings pending appeals of termination orders. The judgments of the chancery court were affirmed. View "K.S. v. M.D. and M.F.D." on Justia Law

Lea and Ann Brent were married in 1953 and divorced in 1983. As part of their divorce, Lea agreed to pay Ann $5,600 per month in permanent periodic alimony until her death or remarriage. Ann died in 2015, never having remarried. Lea began paying less than the required amount in 2002, but Ann never filed a contempt action for the unpaid alimony. Lea died in 2021, and Ann’s Estate filed a probate claim against Lea’s Estate for unpaid alimony totaling $358,700, covering the period from 2002 to 2015.The Washington County Chancery Court found that the claim for unpaid alimony was valid but limited it to the period from July 2014 to November 2015 due to the seven-year statute of limitations. The court awarded Ann’s Estate $139,104, which included the unpaid alimony for that period plus 8 percent interest per annum. However, the court denied Lea’s Estate credit for partial alimony payments totaling $51,000 made between July 2014 and November 2015 and for a $75,143.28 life insurance proceeds payment made to Ann’s Estate in 2019.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case and found that the chancery court erred in denying Lea’s Estate credit for the partial alimony payments and the life insurance proceeds payment. The Supreme Court held that the total amount of credit exceeded the total amount owed for the relevant period, leaving no unpaid alimony to award Ann’s Estate. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the chancery court’s decision and rendered judgment in favor of Lea’s Estate. View "In re The Estate of Brent v. The Estate of Brent" on Justia Law

A sixteen-year-old female, through her mother, filed a petition to change her legal name to a more masculine one as part of her gender transition. Both parents consented to the name change. The Mississippi State Board of Health (MSBH) was named as a respondent and acknowledged the petition, stating it would annotate the minor’s birth certificate if the court ordered the name change.The Hinds County Chancery Court held a hearing on the petition, where the minor and her parents were present. The chancellor decided to dismiss the petition without prejudice, stating that the minor needed to mature more before the court would consider the name change.The petitioner appealed the decision. The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case and upheld the chancellor’s decision. The court emphasized that under Mississippi law, a chancellor may only grant a minor’s name change if it is clearly in the best interest of the child. The court found that the chancellor did not manifestly err in determining that the minor needed to mature more before making such a significant decision. The court also noted that the chancellor’s decision was consistent with Mississippi’s public policy against children receiving life-altering gender-transition assistance due to their lack of maturity. The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the chancellor’s dismissal of the name-change petition. View "In The Matter of The Petition of S.M.-B. v. Mississippi State Board of Health" on Justia Law

Nancy and Carlos Sistrunk were married in 1984 and separated in 2021. Nancy filed for divorce citing irreconcilable differences or, alternatively, adultery. They have four adult children, including Emily, who has Down syndrome and other health issues, making her incapable of self-support. Both parties agreed to proceed with the divorce based on irreconcilable differences. In 2023, Nancy filed a motion regarding the marital residence and child support for Emily, which Carlos opposed.The trial, primarily focused on financial issues and property division, was held in September 2023. The chancery court granted the divorce, divided the real and personal property approximately equally, and declined to award alimony, child support for Emily, or attorneys’ fees. The court failed to make specific findings of fact regarding the factors required for equitable distribution of assets, and many of its findings were unsupported by the record.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case. The court found that the chancery court did not make sufficient findings of fact regarding each applicable Ferguson factor, which is necessary for equitable distribution of marital property. The court noted that the chancery court's findings were not supported by substantial evidence, particularly regarding the parties' incomes and the dissipation of marital assets. The Supreme Court also highlighted the lack of consideration for the emotional value of the marital home and the financial needs of the parties, especially Nancy's role as Emily's primary caregiver.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reversed the chancery court's judgment on the equitable distribution of assets and related matters and remanded the case for further consideration. The chancery court was instructed to make specific findings of fact regarding each applicable Ferguson factor and to rectify unsupported findings. The court may also reconsider issues related to alimony, child support for Emily, and attorneys’ fees on remand. View "Sistrunk v. Sistrunk" on Justia Law

In this case, the appellant, X.G.C., appealed the termination of his parental rights over his child, V.I.C. The child was born in December 2019 and suffered multiple injuries while in the care of her parents, including a subdural hematoma and a fractured arm. The Jackson County Department of Child Protection Services (JCCPS) took custody of the child after determining that the injuries were consistent with abuse. Despite efforts to reunify the family, including a service plan and a ninety-day trial placement, the child sustained further injuries, leading to the termination of the father's parental rights.The Jackson County Youth Court initially placed the child in JCCPS custody and ordered efforts towards reunification. However, after the child sustained additional injuries during the trial placement with her father, the court changed the permanency plan to termination of parental rights. The court conducted multiple hearings and found that JCCPS had made reasonable efforts to assist the father in complying with the service plan, but he had failed to provide a safe environment for the child.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case and affirmed the youth court's decision. The court found that the statutory requirements for termination under Mississippi Code Section 93-15-115 were met, including the adjudication of the child as abused, the child's placement in JCCPS custody for over six months, and the father's failure to comply with the service plan. The court also determined that termination was appropriate under Section 93-15-119, as the father's conduct demonstrated a substantial risk to the child's safety and welfare. The court concluded that the youth court's findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the termination of parental rights was in the best interest of the child. View "X.G.C. v. Jackson County Department of Child Protection Services" on Justia Law

Jane's three young daughters were taken into custody by the Mississippi Department of Child Protection Services (CPS) due to unsafe living conditions and neglect. Jane had left her daughters with her disabled mother in a cramped, unsupervised apartment. CPS developed a service plan for Jane to regain custody, which included obtaining stable housing, employment, and transportation. Despite completing parenting classes and getting clean from drugs, Jane failed to comply with the other requirements. She did not secure stable housing or employment and did not regularly visit her daughters. Consequently, CPS petitioned to terminate her parental rights.The Monroe County Chancery Court held a termination hearing where CPS workers testified about Jane's noncompliance with the service plan and the unsafe conditions that led to the removal of her daughters. Jane testified about her efforts to get clean and find employment but admitted to various failures. The court-appointed Guardian Ad Litem recommended terminating Jane's parental rights, citing her unwillingness to provide for her daughters' basic needs. The chancellor found clear and convincing evidence supporting the termination based on statutory grounds, including abandonment, unwillingness to provide necessary care, failure to exercise reasonable visitation, and substantial erosion of the parent-child relationship.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case and affirmed the chancellor's decision. The court held that substantial evidence supported the termination of Jane's parental rights, emphasizing that her lack of effort to care for and visit her daughters, rather than her lack of money, was the reason for the termination. The court found that the termination was in the best interest of the children to ensure a permanent and stable future. View "J.J.B. v. Monroe County Department of Child Protection Services" on Justia Law

M.M. and J.B., Sr. were once married and had a daughter, L.B. After their divorce, J.B., Sr. married P.B. L.B. gave birth to J.J.W.B. in May 2018, but the child was removed from her custody due to her drug addiction. In August 2018, L.B.'s brother sought custody of J.J.W.B., and temporary custody was placed with J.B., Sr. and P.B. M.M. sought visitation rights in September 2018. The court granted custody to J.B., Sr. and P.B. and visitation rights to M.M. in October 2018. In July 2019, custody was again placed with J.B., Sr. and P.B., with continued visitation for M.M.In October 2020, J.B., Sr. and P.B. filed for voluntary termination of parental rights and adoption of J.J.W.B., which was granted in December 2020 without notifying M.M. M.M. filed a petition for contempt in January 2021 for not being allowed visitation, and later, in February 2022, she filed a motion to set aside the adoption. The Smith County Chancery Court denied the motions to dismiss filed by J.B., Sr. and P.B., reasoning that M.M. should have been notified of the adoption proceedings and that her visitation rights were not terminated by the adoption order.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case. The court held that M.M.'s motion to set aside the adoption was untimely and that she was not a necessary party to the adoption proceedings. Therefore, the court reversed the denial of the motion to dismiss M.M.'s motion to set aside the adoption. However, the court affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss M.M.'s contempt action, holding that the adoption did not extinguish her visitation rights. The case was remanded to the chancery court for further proceedings to determine visitation post-adoption. View "In Re The Adoption of J.J.W.B." on Justia Law

The case involves the termination of parental rights of S.D.P. and I.T.A. regarding their medically fragile child, I.T.A. Jr., who suffered a catastrophic brain injury at eight months old. The injury occurred while the child was in the care of his mother, S.D.P., and his maternal grandmother. The child was later diagnosed with numerous severe medical conditions, including blindness, deafness, and quadriplegia, requiring extensive and constant care. The parents provided inconsistent explanations for the injury, and the treating physicians found these explanations inconsistent with the child's injuries.The Harrison County Youth Court entered an emergency custody order, placing the child in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Child Protection Services (MDCPS). The court found the injury resulted from nonaccidental trauma and that the parents failed to comply with service agreements designed to prepare them to care for their child's medical needs. Despite efforts by MDCPS to reunify the family, the parents did not substantially comply with the service plan, leading the court to change the plan to adoption.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case and affirmed the youth court's decision to terminate the parental rights of both parents. The court found clear and convincing evidence that the parents were unfit to care for the child due to their insufficient understanding and ability to manage the child's extensive medical needs. The court emphasized that the child's survival depended on specialized care that the parents were unable to provide, despite having been given ample opportunity to learn. The court also dismissed the parents' argument regarding the insufficiency of the guardian ad litem's investigation, noting that the parents had waived this argument by not raising it in the lower court. View "S.D.P. v. Harrison County Department of Child Protection Services" on Justia Law