Thomas v. Byars


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2005-CA-00792-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 01-23-2007
Opinion Author: MYERS, P.J.
Holding: Vacated in Part, Affirmed in Part

Additional Case Information: Topic: Child custody - Jurisdiction - Section 43-21-151 - Necessary parties
Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE, P.J., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): CARLTON, J.
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 03-10-2005
Appealed from: WASHINGTON COUNTY CHANCERY COURT
Judge: Marie Wilson
Disposition: ADJUDICATION OF PATERNITY AND CUSTODY OF MINOR CHILD AWARDED TO NATURAL FATHER
Case Number: 041269

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: SERNIA THOMAS




ALSEE MCDANIEL



 

Appellee: RENOVIELLE D. BYARS NICK CRAWFORD  

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 - Jurisdiction - Section 43-21-151 - Necessary parties

Summary of the Facts: In 1999, a four-year-old child, Jozcelyn Thomas, was abandoned by her mother, Sernia Thomas. Jozcelyn was taken to the Mississippi Department of Human Services which contacted the maternal grandparents, Frank and Helen Johnson, and requested that they care for Jozcelyn, along with Thomas’ three other children. The Youth Court of Washington County awarded temporary custody through an emergency custody order to the Johnsons. When Thomas finally returned to Washington County, she was charged with child desertion. She pled guilty and was sentenced to one year of house arrest, placed on probation for four years, and ordered to participate in parenting classes. Around this same time, Helen Johnson approached Renovielle Byars, the alleged father, and asked whether he wanted to take custody of Jozcelyn. Byars declined. Byars only provided the Johnsons with a total of $750 to assist with the support of Jozcelyn. However, since Jozcelyn’s birth, Byars claimed her as his dependent for the purposes of his state and federal tax returns. MDHS filed a complaint on behalf of the Johnsons, who had custody of Jozcelyn, seeking to establish paternity and other relief against Byars. Byars filed a cross-complaint seeking custody of Jozcelyn. Thomas, the mother, was allowed to intervene into the chancery court custody suit and filed an answer to Byars’ cross-complaint, together with her cross-complaint seeking custody. The chancery court awarded custody of Jozcelyn to Byars. Thomas appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Pursuant to section 43-21-151, the youth court has exclusive original jurisdiction over cases involving abused, neglected, or delinquent children. This jurisdiction conferred upon the youth court continues until the child’s twentieth birthday, unless terminated sooner by order of the youth court. When a youth court order and a chancery court order conflict in a case regarding an abused or neglected child, the order of the youth court predominates because jurisdiction over the child resides in the youth court. In this case, the youth court initiated jurisdiction when it issued an emergency custody order granting custody of Jozcelyn to her grandparents as a result of her mother’s desertion. The jurisdiction retained by the youth court is exclusive and original and was still in effect when the chancery court issued the order awarding Byars custody of Jozcelyn. Therefore, the portion of the chancery court order inasmuch as it awards custody to Byars is vacated. Because the portion of the order pertaining to custody is vacated, discussion of whether the grandparents were necessary parties to the suit involving custody is moot. The issues of paternity and child support are left undisturbed, because they were properly within the parameters of the chancery court’s authority to decide. Had the chancery court had proper jurisdiction to award custody of Jozcelyn to her father, then the grandparents would have been proper, but not necessary, parties to the custody case. Furthermore, the absence of such a proper party would not render the chancellor’s decree void.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court