Lucas v. Hendrix
| Docket Number: | 2011-CA-00015-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-17-2012 Opinion Author: Roberts, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Child custody - Custody to third party - Unfit natural parent - Section 93-5-24(1)(e) - Termination of parental rights - Natural parent presumption Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Barnes, Carlton, Maxwell and Russell, JJ. Judge(s) Concurring Separately: Fair, J., Joined by Lee, C.J., and Ishee, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CUSTODY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-06-2011 Appealed from: Lowndes County Chancery Court Judge: Dorothy W. Colom Disposition: APPELLANT FOUND UNFIT AND CUSTODY OF HIS TWO MINOR CHILDREN AWARDED TO MATERNAL GRANDPARENTS Case Number: 2010-0538-C |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Adam Lucas |
CHUCK EASLEY
DAVID NEIL MCCARTY |
|
|
| Appellee: | Jeannie H. Hendrix and John F. Hendrix | WILLIAM PAUL STARKS II | ||
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Child custody - Custody to third party - Unfit natural parent - Section 93-5-24(1)(e) - Termination of parental rights - Natural parent presumption |
| Summary of the Facts: | Adam Lucas and Shannon Moore were involved in a romantic relationship that resulted in the birth of their sons Tyler in 1999 and Cody in 2001. Lucas and Moore never married; but according to the chancellor’s final judgment, paternity of Tyler and Cody had been adjudicated, and Lucas was the natural father of the two boys. After Lucas and Moore ended their relationship, Moore became the primary caregiver for Tyler and Cody. Moore, Tyler, and Cody lived with the boys’ maternal grandparents Jeannie and John Hendrix. Moore died in October 2005. After Moore’s death, Lucas took over as primary caregiver for the boys with much assistance from the Hendrixes. Lucas married Heather Lucas, who had three children from a prior relationship. Tyler and Cody frequently saw the Hendrixes during the week and often stayed overnight on weekends. In 2012, the Hendrixes filed a petition for custody alleging Lucas’s behavior was “unstable” and exposed Tyler and Cody to “inappropriate habits and lifestyles.” They also alleged that Tyler and Cody were severely neglected. In their petition, they sought legal and physical custody of the boys, with Lucas to have supervised visitation. They did not seek termination of Lucas’s parental rights. The chancellor found that Lucas was unfit as a parent, granted him visitation, and granted custody of Tyler and Cody to the Hendrixes. Lucas appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Custody Lucas argues that the chancellor used an incorrect legal standard by failing to apply an Albright analysis before granting the Hendrixes custody of Tyler and Cody. In Albright v. Albright, 437 So. 2d 1003, 1005 (Miss. 1983), the Mississippi Supreme Court outlined multiple factors to be considered when determining which natural parent should receive custody of the child. A different analysis must be applied when adjudicating custody between a natural parent and a third party, such as in this case. In custody cases involving a natural parent and a third party, a presumption exists that the natural parent is the best custodian for his child. However, this natural-parent presumption may be overcome by clear and convincing evidence that the parent has abandoned the child; or the conduct of the parent is so immoral as to be detrimental to the child; or the parent is unfit mentally or otherwise to have the custody of his or her child. In this case, the chancellor relied on section 93-5-24(1)(e) because Moore, the boys’ natural mother, was deceased; therefore, Lucas was the sole remaining natural parent. If a chancellor finds the remaining natural parent to be unfit, as she did in this case, then the statute gives the chancellor the authority to grant custody to a third party. The chancellor determined that Lucas was unfit and that it would be in the best interests of Tyler and Cody to be in the custody of the Hendrixes; therefore, no further inquiry was necessary. Lucas also argues that the chancellor erred in finding by clear and convincing evidence that he was an unfit parent. However, the chancellor provided thorough findings of facts in regard to her determination that Lucas was an unfit parent, including Lucas’s alcohol abuse; the condition of Lucas’s home; his inability to maintain steady employment; and the lack of supervision the boys received in their hygiene, school work, and other activities. Lucas also argue that the chancellor erred in considering Lucas’s wife’s alleged drug possession and public intoxication when determining his fitness as a father. It is clear the chancellor acknowledged the wife’s conduct, but the chancellor’s opinion spoke primarily of Lucas’s legal and substance troubles as a basis for a finding of unfitness. Issue 2: Termination of parental rights Lucas argues that the Mississippi Legislature has not addressed the process for the termination of parental rights when not in the context of adoption or foster parenting; therefore, the chancellor had no authority to terminate his. Section 93-5-24 provides the basis for the chancery court to grant custody to a third party upon a finding that the child’s natural parents have abandoned or deserted the child, or that the child’s natural parent is unfit to properly raise him. Applying this statute, the chancellor found Lucas to be unfit and awarded custody to the Hendrixes. A finding of unfitness did not terminate Lucas’s parental rights; instead, Lucas lost his natural-parent presumption. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
