Chism v. Bright
| Docket Number: | 2011-CT-01472-SCT Linked Case(s): 2011-CT-01472-SCT ; 2011-CA-01472-COA ; 2011-CA-01472-COA |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-11-2014 Opinion Author: Lamar, J. Holding: Reversed and remanded. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Termination of parental rights - Section 93-15-103(1) - Prerequisites for termination Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Dickinson and Randolph, P.JJ., Kitchens, Chandler, Pierce, King and Coleman, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-08-2011 Appealed from: UNION COUNTY CHANCERY COURT Judge: C. MICHAEL MALSKI Disposition: Appellant's parental rights terminated |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Jimmy Ray Chism, Jr. |
GREGORY M. HUNSUCKER, JAK M. SMITH |
|
|
| Appellee: | Abby Gale Morris Chism Bright | J. MARK SHELDON, JANA L. DAWSON | ||
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: | Termination of parental rights - Section 93-15-103(1) - Prerequisites for termination |
| Summary of the Facts: | Jimmy Chism Jr. and Abby Chism Bright were divorced in 2008. Under the divorce decree, the parties had joint legal custody of their son, Abby had primary physical custody, and Jim had regular, unrestricted visitation. After an incident in which Jim was arrested for public intoxication, Abby filed an emergency petition for modification of Jim’s visitation rights. The chancellor entered an order for modification of visitation which required that all Jim’s visitation periods be supervised by his mother; prohibited alcohol or drugs from being in the son’s presence during his visitation periods with Jim; and prohibited Jim from operating any motor vehicle with his son as a passenger. The order also provided that if Jim failed to report to the U.S. Army training facilities on a certain date, that all visitation would cease until Jim met certain conditions. Jim did not report to the United States Army, and he did not begin satisfying the court’s requirements to reinstate his visitation until July 15, 2009, when he admitted himself to a facility for alcohol treatment. Upon his discharge, he attempted to resume his visitation with his son. When Abby did not respond to requests, Jim filed a complaint for citation of contempt. Abby then filed a countercomplaint for termination of Jim’s parental rights. Ultimately, the chancellor allowed Jim to have supervised visitation with his son on two occasions. After Jim failed two drug tests in the spring of 2010, he was encouraged to enter treatment. After he burglarized one of his neighbor’s homes while intoxicated, he admitted himself into a treatment facility where he stayed for ninety-five days until he was discharged. After trial started, he again consumed large amounts of alcohol and Xanax and broke into a neighbor’s house. After trial resumed, Jim provided testimony from his parents, his sister, and his girlfriend. All four acknowledged that Jim had a substance-abuse problem, but all four also believed he was on the road to recovery and that terminating his parental rights was not in his son’s best interest. The chancellor entered an order terminating Jim’s parental rights and providing that Jim could have contact with his son after Jim had been sober for a six-month period following his release from jail. Jim appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the termination. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The chancellor found that Jim’s parental rights should be terminated because he exhibited “ongoing behavior which would make it impossible to return the minor child to his care and custody because he has a diagnosable condition, specifically alcohol and drug addiction, unlikely to change within a reasonable time which makes him unable to assume minimally, acceptable care of the child . . . .” But neither the chancellor nor the Court of Appeals addressed subsection (1) of section 93-15-103, which sets out three prerequisites that must be met before the court may invoke any specific ground for termination. The prerequisites include that the child has been removed from the home of its natural parents and cannot be returned to the home of his natural parents within a reasonable length of time or the parent is unable or unwilling to care for the child; relatives are not appropriate or are unavailable; and adoption is in the best interest of the child. Here, it is undisputed that the couple’s son was not removed from the home of his natural parents. And the record does not show that Jim is unable or unwilling to care for his son. Simply because Jim might not be the best choice to be his son’s full-time custodial parent does not mean that he is unable to care for his son. It is undisputed that Jim wants to be a part of his son’s life and that they have a very loving relationship. Thus, the termination order is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
