B.S.G. v. J.E.H
| Docket Number: | 2005-CP-02318-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-05-2007 Opinion Author: ISHEE, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Termination of parental rights - Erosion of relationship - Section 93-15-103(3)(b) - Durable legal custody - Petition for in forma pauperis Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: Juvenile Justice |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-14-2005 Appealed from: Lauderdale County Youth Court Judge: Frank M. Coleman Disposition: JUDGMENT TERMINATING PARENTAL RIGHTS Case Number: YC-99-183 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | B. S. G. |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | J. E. H. | PRO SE |
|
|
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 - Erosion of relationship - Section 93-15-103(3)(b) - Durable legal custody - Petition for in forma pauperis |
| Summary of the Facts: | Following the birth of E.D., the youth court granted emergency custody of E.D. to the Department of Human Services and ultimately granted relative placement with her maternal aunt, W.P. The youth court later entered a judgment of disposition, after an adjudication of neglect was entered, ordering legal custody of E.D. to remain with Human Services and physical custody to remain with W.P. The court further ordered that B.S.G., E.D.’s mother, enter drug rehabilitation treatment and aftercare, as well as submit to unannounced drug screens and any other terms decided by Human Services. The court ordered strictly supervised visitation between B.S.G. and E.D. and stated the rights of the natural father, D.C.D., would be considered upon his release from prison. Following a review hearing, the court placed full physical and legal custody of E.D. back with B.S.G., with Human Services to supervise the placement for a period of ninety days. Human Services petitioned the court for an adjudication of neglect, after discovering B.S.G. would leave E.D. with her maternal grandmother for extended periods of time. At a hearing on the petition for adjudication of neglect, the parties entered into an agreed resolution and the youth court entered a consent judgment. The youth court returned physical and legal custody to B.S.G., pending her completion of the service agreement with Human Services and after Human Services performed a home study. Several months later, the Human Services designee petitioned the youth court for a custody order and a formal adjudication of neglect, stating that E.D. was in need of proper care and placement because B.S.G. had tested positive for cocaine. At the disposition hearing, B.S.G. did not contest the allegation of testing positive for cocaine. The youth court entered an order adjudicating neglect. Physical and legal custody of E.D. was again placed with her maternal aunt, W.P. Human Services was ordered to monitor the placement of E.D. for ninety days. The youth court later ordered physical custody of E.D. returned to B.S.G., with legal custody to remain with Human Services. In a judgment of disposition, the youth court again reinstated physical and legal custody of E.D. with W.P. Eventually, the youth court ordered full custody of E.D. placed with her maternal uncle and his spouse, C.D. and D.D. John Howell, the appointed guardian ad litem throughout the proceedings, filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of B.S.G and D.C.D. Following a hearing, the youth court entered a judgment terminating the parental rights of B.S.G. and D.C.D. The judgment stated that full legal and physical custody of E.D. was to continue with C.D. and D.D. The court also ordered that C.D. and D.D. have full authority and consent for relative adoption of E.D. B.S.G. appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | B.S.G. argues that if there is erosion of her relationship with E.D. then it is due to B.S.G. being prohibited from communicating with E.D., either by the trial court, W.P., or D.D., and not her unwillingness to communicate with E.D. The record provides adequate substantial evidence and a rational trier of fact could have found that termination of parental rights was in E.D.’s best interest. B.S.G.’s arguments merely place blame for the repercussions of her life choices on the other persons involved, who have maintained E.D.’s best interest throughout the past seven years. Not only did B.S.G.’s mother, sister, brother, and sister-in-law give her every opportunity to get herself clean and in a position to properly care for E.D., but also both the youth court and Human Services extended every opportunity and resource so that she could be reunited with E.D. The record shows three petitions for adjudication of neglect directly related to B.S.G.’s drug abuse. B.S.G.’s history of drug abuse, her inability to complete the court’s requirements to regain custody, coupled with her present incarceration and the testimony presented during the hearing, support the court’s determination that reunification with B.S.G. was not in E.D.’s best interest. While section 93-15-103(3)(b) is not an applicable ground for termination since B.S.G. presumably had contact with E.D. within the statutory period of one year, the youth court’s determination to terminate parental rights is sufficiently supported with the application of the other listed grounds. B.S.G. also argues that the youth court erred by not considering alternatives to termination of parental rights, specifically, durable legal custody. Durable legal custody is not a mandatory option for the court and ultimately the paramount concern in determining proper disposition continues to be the best interest of the child, not reunification of the family. B.S.G. also argues that her due process rights were violated when the youth court denied her petition for in forma pauperis and her request for counsel. The record shows that the Mississippi Supreme Court held that the youth court’s denial of In Forma Pauperis Appeal should be denied. Thus, the doctrine of res judicata applies to this issue. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
