A.B. v. Lauderdale County Dep't of Human Serv.
| Docket Number: | 2006-CA-01362-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-CA-01362-COA ; 2006-CT-01362-SCT ; 2006-CT-01362-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-17-2008 Opinion Author: GRIFFIS, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Termination of parental rights - Appointment of attorney - Service Judge(s) Concurring: LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., CHANDLER, BARNES, ISHEE AND CARLTON, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): ROBERTS, J. Dissenting Author : IRVING, J., with separate written opinion. Dissent Joined By : KING, C.J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-13-2006 Appealed from: Lauderdale County Youth Court Judge: Frank M. Coleman Disposition: PARENTAL RIGHTS TERMINATED Case Number: 03-329 |
|
| Note: | This opinion was later reversed and remanded by the Supreme Court on 6/25/2009. See the SCT opinion at: http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/CO56817.pdf | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | A.B. AND B.B. |
JAMES A. WILLIAMS |
||
| Appellee: | LAUDERDALE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | KATHERINE JANE CALDWELL |
|
|
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 - Appointment of attorney - Service |
| Summary of the Facts: | A.B. and B.B. are the parents of three children. At some point while A.B. was pregnant with the third child, the Lauderdale County Department of Human Services became aware of allegations that the other two children were living in a poorly kept house and were being exposed to drugs. After an investigation, DHS took custody of the children including the third child after he was born. Thereafter, A.B. and B.B. entered into a service agreement with DHS that was intended to make A.B. and B.B. fit to rear their children. The court returned custody of the three children to A.B. and B.B. because they had completed their service agreement. Subsequent inquiries by DHS revealed that A.B. and B.B. appeared to be taking adequate care of the children. DHS was relieved of any further responsibility for the children. A.B. was later arrested for possession of drugs. DHS filed a petition to terminate A.B. and B.B.’s parental rights. The court ordered that the parental rights of A.B. and B.B. be terminated. A.B. and B.B. appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Appointment of attorney A.B. argues that she was not appointed an attorney at the neglect hearing. However, the record is void of any request by her for an attorney and there is nothing that indicates that the court should have sua sponte appointed an attorney. Issue 2: Propriety of termination A.B. and B.B. argue that the court erred in terminating their parental rights. The petitioner must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the objecting parent has either abandoned or deserted the child or is mentally or morally or otherwise unfit to rear or train the child. The court must then consider whether termination is in the best interest of the child. The youth court found that the parents have failed to eliminate prior behavior identified by the child caring agency and the court. A.B. admitted to using crystal methamphetamine while pregnant. The father, B.B., had been arrested on drug charges and was not present during the current termination of parental rights proceedings. Both parents have served time in prison on drug-related charges. The parents were given another chance to show that they could adequately care for their children. They failed. The possibility of drug use, coupled with the fact that A.B. was neglecting her children, was half-naked in bed with a strange man, was non-responsive to the social worker, claimed to have just fed breakfast to her children at 2:00 p.m., and refused to give a hair sample for a drug test after her urine sample came back diluted, all show that A.B. provided an unreasonable and unsafe environment for her children. Issue 3: Service B.B. argues that he did not receive notice or summons regarding the neglect hearing. However, the record shows that the Lauderdale County Sheriff's Department committed a diligent search in trying to serve B.B. with notice of the adjudicatory hearing. B.B.'s failure to appear in court, coupled with a recent arrest for methamphetamine, show his current unfitness to be a parent and his failure to eliminate prior behavior. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
