Wells v. Smith
| Docket Number: | 2009-CT-01955-SCT Linked Case(s): 2009-CA-01955-COA ; 2009-CA-01955-COA ; 2009-CT-01955-SCT ; 2009-CT-01955-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-26-2012 Opinion Author: Waller, C.J. Holding: Court of Appeals reversed; Circuit court affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Child custody - Third-party custody - Natural-parent presumption - In loco parentis - Albright analysis - Best interest of child - Desertion Judge(s) Concurring: Carlson, P.J., Randolph, Lamar, Kitchens, Chandler and Pierce, JJ. Dissenting Author : Dickinson, P.J. Dissent Joined By : King, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CUSTODY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-30-2009 Appealed from: Tippah County Chancery Court Judge: Glenn Alderson Disposition: Awarded custody to Appellant. Case Number: 2008-160-A |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | In the Matter of the Petition of William Smith and Wife Sarah Smith for the Adoption of Jason Wells, a Minor Child: Tara Wells |
JOHN D. WEDDLE |
||
| Appellee: | William Smith and Sarah Smith | JOE M. DAVIS JOHN A. FERRELL |
|
|
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 - Third-party custody - Natural-parent presumption - In loco parentis - Albright analysis - Best interest of child - Desertion |
| Summary of the Facts: | William and Sarah Smith are the grandparents of Jason Wells. Jason’s mother, Tara Wells, is Sarah’s daughter. The Smiths filed a petition for temporary and permanent custody of Jason. They later filed a separate petition for adoption and to terminate the parental rights of Tara and Robert Johnson, the biological father. The chancellor declined to terminate Tara’s and Robert’s parental rights but awarded the Smiths primary custody of Jason. Tara appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case for the chancery court to determine whether Tara had relinquished her right to the natural-parent presumption by deserting Jason. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | In custody battles between a natural parent and a third party, it is presumed that it is in the child’s best interest to remain with his or her natural parent. To be awarded custody, therefore, the third party must first clearly rebut the natural-parent presumption or preference; if it is successfully rebutted, the chancellor must then examine the Albright factors and determine that third-party custody serves the best interest of the child. The natural-parent presumption can be rebutted by a clear showing that the parent has abandoned the child; the parent has deserted the child; the parent’s conduct is so immoral as to be detrimental to the child; or the parent is unfit, mentally or otherwise, to have custody. In loco parentis can — in very limited, unique situations — sometimes be used to help rebut the natural-parent presumption. In loco parentis exists when one person undertakes care and control of another in absence of such supervision by the latter’s natural parents and in absence of formal legal approval, and is temporary in character and is not to be likened to an adoption which is permanent. Grandparents who stand in loco parentis have no right to the custody of a grandchild, as against a natural parent, unless the natural-parent presumption is first overcome by a showing of abandonment, desertion, detrimental immorality, or unfitness on the part of the natural parent. Thus, the Smiths’ standing as in loco parentis is insufficient to overcome the natural-parent presumption. The Smiths argue that the chancellor actually relied on Tara’s desertion of Jason — not the Smiths’ standing as in loco parentis — to find that Tara had relinquished the natural-parent presumption. The chancellor found that Tara’s “long and continuous absences,” her failure “to exercise her parental rights,” and her failure to “fulfill her parental responsibilities” had caused the Smiths to stand in loco parentis. These actions are consistent with desertion, which means to forsake a person, institution, cause, etc., having a moral or legal claims upon one or to forsake one’s duty, one’s post or one’s party. Though the chancellor never explicitly used the term “desertion,” his description of Tara’s behavior met the definition of the term. The record supports desertion as well. The chancellor’s order further stated that “due to [the Smiths] being found to stand in the position of in loco parentis concerning [Jason,] the Court shall use the factors found in Albright . . . ” to determine custody. This statement was erroneous, because in loco parentis does not rebut the natural-parent presumption so that an Albright analysis is warranted. Reversal is not required for this misstatement, however. The chancellor found, and the record supported, desertion. The natural-parent presumption, therefore, was properly rebutted, and an Albright analysis was justified on that basis. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
