Green v. Miss. Dep't of Human Servs.
| Docket Number: | 2008-CA-02130-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-27-2010 Opinion Author: Carlton, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Termination of parental rights - Due process - Court-appointed counsel Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Barnes, Ishee and Maxwell, JJ. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Roberts, J. Concurs in Result Only: Griffis, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-09-2006 Appealed from: Hancock County Chancery Court Judge: Carter Bise Disposition: DENIED MOTION TO SET ASIDE 2006 JUDGMENT TERMINATING PARENTAL RIGHTS Case Number: 2003-344 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Teresa Green and Samuel Nickel |
JIMMY D. MCGUIRE |
||
| Appellee: | Mississippi Department of Human Services | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: SARA HARVEY ROBERTS |
|
|
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 - Due process - Court-appointed counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Teresa Green and Samuel Nickel are the biological parents of three children. DHS filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Teresa and Samuel. Evidence at the trial to terminate Teresa’s and Samuel’s parental rights revealed a pattern of drug use and an inability to care for the children. The chancery court made a bench ruling to terminate Teresa’s and Samuel’s parental rights. Teresa and Samuel appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Teresa and Samuel argue that the chancery court deprived them of due process by not appointing counsel to represent them during the termination of parental rights proceedings in chancery court. They also argue that the chancery court erred in terminating their parental rights. However, they neither provide argument nor provide any case law with respect to that assignment of error. Therefore, the Court will only address the issue of due process. One of the most important factors to be considered in applying the standards for court appointed counsel is whether the presence of counsel would have made a determinative difference. The appointment of counsel in termination proceedings is wise but not mandatory, and courts should determine the need for court-appointed counsel on a case-by-case basis. Here, Teresa never mentioned to the chancery court that she lacked the financial means to hire an attorney to represent her. In fact, prior to the hearing, Teresa enjoyed the representation of an attorney. Her attorney withdrew approximately one week prior to the hearing for reasons unclear from the record. Teresa informed the chancery court that she wished to proceed with the hearing, and she did not seek a continuance in order to seek substitute counsel. Samuel was represented by counsel at the trial. Furthermore, the presence of an attorney would not have made a determinative difference in the outcome of the proceeding. Significantly, Teresa was represented by counsel at the hearing on the motion to set aside the amended judgment, and after considering her motion, the chancellor found her arguments lacked merit. The evidence presented at the termination hearing overwhelmingly supported the chancellor’s decision to terminate Teresa’s parental rights. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
