In the Interest of L.D.M.
| Docket Number: | 2001-CA-01203-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-19-2003 Opinion Author: Waller, J. Holding: Vacated and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Child custody - Recommendation of guardian ad litem Judge(s) Concurring: Pittman, C.J., McRae and Smith, P.JJ., Cobb and Carlson, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Dissenting Author : Easley and Graves, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CUSTODY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-13-2001 Appealed from: Warren County Youth Court Judge: H. Gerald Hosemann Disposition: Ordered that the custody of a four-year-old girl be taken from her grandmother and be given to her mother. Case Number: 7074 |
|
| Note: | Appellant's motion for payment of attorney's fees is denied. | |
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 - Recommendation of guardian ad litem |
| Summary of the Facts: | The Youth Court of Warren County ordered that the custody of a four-year-old girl be taken from her grandmother and be given to her mother. The grandmother appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The guardian ad litem who was appointed to protect the child's interests recommended that custody remain with the grandmother. The youth court failed to make a record of its consideration of the guardian ad litem's recommendation, and the grandmother argues this was error. Although there is no requirement that the youth court judge follow the recommendation of the guardian ad litem, the judge should earnestly consider the recommendation. When the court's ruling is contrary to the recommendation of a statutorily required guardian ad litem, the reasons for not adopting the guardian ad litem's recommendation shall be stated by the court in the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Here, the youth court did not address the guardian ad litem’s recommendations while it obviously disagreed with them. Therefore, the order is vacated and this case remanded for further proceedings. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
