L.O. v. G.V.


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2008-CA-01992-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 06-22-2010
Opinion Author: Griffis, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Termination of parental rights - Section 93-15-103 - Abandonment - Deep-seated antipathy - Best interest of child
Judge(s) Concurring: Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Ishee, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ.
Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Barnes, J.
Concurs in Result Only: King, C.J.
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 11-05-2008
Appealed from: Forrest County Chancery Court
Judge: James H.C. Thomas, Jr.
Disposition: PARENTAL RIGHTS OF THE MOTHER WERE TERMINATED
Case Number: 98-0760-GN-TH

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: L.O.




BRANDON LARUE BROOKS



 

Appellee: G.V. 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 - Section 93-15-103 - Abandonment - Deep-seated antipathy - Best interest of child

Summary of the Facts: Jenny is the natural daughter of Lori and George. An order was entered establishing paternity and child support against George. Lori was given primary physical custody, and George was given reasonable rights of visitation. Later, an agreed order was entered by the parties. The order stated that a material change in circumstances justified a modification of custody. George was given temporary physical custody of Jenny until further notice of the chancery court. The order also gave Lori supervised visitation rights. Following trial, the chancellor entered an order granting George permanent physical custody of Jenny. Lori was given reasonable rights of visitation, and she was required to pay $150 per month in child support. Lori eventually ceased to exercise her visitation. Lori filed a petition for contempt alleging that she had been denied visitation. George filed a counterpetition for contempt, modification, and/or termination of parental rights. The chancellor found that Lori had not been a part of Jenny’s life for more than two years prior to the filing of termination proceedings and that there is antipathy and anger from Jenny toward Lori. Accordingly, the chancellor found that Lori’s parental rights should be terminated. Lori appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Lori argues that George did not prove grounds for the termination of her parental rights by clear and convincing evidence. Section 93-15-103 establishes grounds for the termination of parental rights. The chancellor found that Lori’s drug use and her relationship with a fellow drug user, the father of another of her children, created an inability for Lori to have a relationship with Jenny. Although the chancellor’s finding of abandonment was improper based on the evidence in the record, there is substantial evidence to support the chancellor’s finding of deep-seated antipathy. Lori argues that there was no clear and convincing evidence that she abandoned Jenny; therefore, her parental rights were improperly terminated. Abandonment is any conduct by a parent which evinces a settled purpose to forego all duties and relinquish all parental claims to the child. The chancellor concluded that George met his burden of proving the ground for termination of Lori’s parental rights under section 93-15-103(3)(b) which states that a parent has made no contact with a child three years of age or older for a period of one year. However, the evidence in the record is, at best, inconclusive as to this finding. The chancellor’s statement that Lori was not a part of Jenny’s life for the two years prior to the filing of termination proceeding is not supported by clear and convincing evidence in the record. The uncontroverted testimony of Lori’s stepmother established that Lori visited with Jenny during the weekends that Jenny spent at the stepmother’s home. She testified that those weekends continued until February 2006. Termination proceedings were filed in February 2007, so at most, there was only one year that Lori did not see Jenny. Furthermore, during that year, Lori actively pursued her right to visitation with Jenny by filing proceedings with the chancery court. However, section 93-15-103(3) is clear that only one ground is necessary to terminate parental rights. Because the chancellor properly found deep-seated antipathy on the part of Jenny toward Lori, the lack of clear and convincing evidence to support the finding of abandonment is harmless error. Lori further argues that her parental rights should not have been terminated because her visitation rights were frustrated by George. However, there is minimal evidence, if any at all, to show that George actively interfered with Lori’s visitation rights. Once a statutory ground for termination has been satisfied, the chancellor must determine whether the termination of parental rights in the best interest of the child. Here, the chancellor found that it was in Jenny’s best interest to maintain her living environment with her current family – father, stepmother, and stepbrothers. There is substantial evidence to support the chancellor’s finding. At many times throughout the custody proceedings, Lori chose not to exercise her visitation rights. Lori has continued to stay in contact with a fellow drug user, because he is the father of her youngest child. Lori testified that she is cured of her drug addiction; however, she has refused to attend any support group meetings recommended by both her inpatient drug treatment program. There was substantial evidence of Jenny’s anger toward Lori after Lori ended her visitation with Jenny. The chancellor’s finding that Jenny would be best served by remaining in her stable home environment without reintroducing Lori into her life is supported by the evidence in this case.


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