In re N.W.
| Docket Number: | 2007-CA-00709-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-03-2008 Opinion Author: Carlson, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Custody - Notice of hearings - M.R.A.P. 10(b)(3) - Section 43-21-557 Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Diaz, P.JJ., Graves, Dickinson, Randolph and Lamar, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Easley, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CUSTODY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-19-2007 Appealed from: Hinds County Youth Court Judge: William Louis Skinner, II Disposition: The Hinds County Youth Court entered an order finding a minor child to have been physically abused by his father and giving custody of the minor child to his mother. Case Number: 19,522 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | IN THE INTEREST OF N. W. |
JOHN R. REEVES,
J. JUSTIN KING |
||
| Appellee: | Unknown | S. MALCOLM O. HARRISON |
|
|
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: | Custody - Notice of hearings - M.R.A.P. 10(b)(3) - Section 43-21-557 |
| Summary of the Facts: | The Hinds County Youth Court entered an order finding a minor child to have been physically abused by his father and giving custody of the minor child to his mother. The minor child’s father appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The father argues that he was not given notice of the various hearings in youth court. The scant record in this case does not contradict the father’s assertions that he never received notice for these various hearings, including the hearing resulting in the youth court’s entry of the Adjudicatory Order, which is the primary focus of this appeal. Concerning process, or notice, the youth court docket merely states “02/20/07: Summons.” This notation on the docket is certainly not proof that the summons was issued, much less served, upon the father as typically would be indicated by the return on the summons which is glaringly absent in the record. Under the express language of M.R.A.P. 10(b)(3), any summonses issued in this case, and returns thereon, should have been included in the record, even absent designation, since the record is devoid of any appearance made by the father in the youth court proceedings. The responsibility to designate the appropriate portions of the record on appeal necessarily falls upon the parties to the appeal, and more specifically, in this case, the father. Notwithstanding this failure to designate any summonses issued in this case, the lack of proof in the record concerning notice to the father at these various hearings, and most importantly, the adjudicatory hearing of March 13, 2007, means that this case must be remanded. In addition, the youth court judge failed to comply with the provisions of section 43-21-557 prior to the commencement of the adjudicatory hearing on March 13, 2007. Such noncompliance with these statutory requirements is reversible error. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
