In Re: S.T.M.M.
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-01283-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-14-2006 Opinion Author: Roberts, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Termination of parental rights - Section 93-15-103(3)(e) - Mission statement - Continuance - Reasonableness of agreement Judge(s) Concurring: Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Southwick, Irving, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes and Ishee, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: King, C.J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CUSTODY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-11-2005 Appealed from: Forrest County Youth Court Judge: Michael McPhail Disposition: YOUTH COURT TERMINATED MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS TO ALL FOUR CHILDREN. Case Number: 18-YC-04-P-0853-245 |
|
| Consolidated: Consolidated with 2005-CA-01284-COA In Re: S.S.A.R., a Minor; Forrest Youth Court; LC Case #: 18-YC-04-P-0855-247; Ruling Date: 03/11/2005; Ruling Judge: Michael McPhail; Consolidated with 2005-CA-01285-COA In Re: C.A.R., Jr., a Minor; Forrest Youth Court; LC Case #: 18-YC-04-P-0856-248; Ruling Date: 03/11/2005; Ruling Judge: Michael McPhail; Consolidated with 2005-CA-01286-COA In Re: T.T.T.M., a Minor; Forrest Youth Court; LC Case #: 18-YC-04-P-0854-246; Ruling Date: 03/11/2005; Ruling Judge: Michael McPhail | ||
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | In Re: S.T.M.M., a Minor |
SHEILA HAVARD SMALLWOOD |
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(3)(e) - Mission statement - Continuance - Reasonableness of agreement |
| Summary of the Facts: | Following allegations of neglect, a mother’s four children were removed from her custody, and she entered into an agreement with the Department of Human Services that stipulated those tasks she would have to complete to reunite her family. After over a year and a half, and several review hearings tracking her progress, it was determined that the mother had failed to comply with the agreement, and, coupled with the lack of any clean drug test, the mother’s parental rights were terminated. The mother appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Termination of parental rights The mother argues that the court erred in terminating her parental rights. While the service agreement entered into by the mother and DHS required her to take random drug tests throughout her period of review, the record indicates that she failed to take a single drug test. At the hearing, she explained that the reason she had failed to take a drug test was that she could not afford to as her income, at least at the time of the hearing, was $500 per month. This excuse was lackluster at best as the social worker testified that she informed the mother the day of the hearing that DHS would pay for a drug test if she took one that day, but the mother refused, stating that she would test positive. Given these facts, reasonable men could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that termination was appropriate under section 93-15-103(3)(e). Many other requirements of the service agreement were also not completed, to include drug tests, parenting classes, and anger management classes. The mother explained that her inability to complete parenting classes or anger management classes was a result of her lack of transportation, money for gasoline, and scheduling conflicts between the classes and her job(s). Given the time frame she had to complete the requirements, almost a year and a half, this excuse was lacking as well. DHS provided these classes free of charge to her with the only real requirement being she attend the classes. Issue 2: Mission statement The mother argues that the Department failed to implement a reasonable plan or optimize any resource to assist in the reunification of this family, in accordance with its mission statement. However, the record shows that DHS made every effort to assist the mother to reunite her family under conditions that would promote the children’s safety and well being. Issue 3: Continuance The mother argues that she was making progress towards completion of her service agreement in that she was currently employed and enrolled in anger management and parenting classes, and given more time she could have completed the service agreement requirements. Based on the facts surrounding the motion for continuance, giving substantial weight to the time in which the mother had to complete the service agreement’s requirements, the lower court’s denial of her motion for continuance did not result in a manifest injustice. Issue 4: Reasonableness of agreement The mother argues that the requirements of the service agreement were financially out of reach, and DHS should have known they would have been unattainable given her income. It is evident that the reason the mother did not comply with the service agreement is not the cost of the requirements, but her lack of desire to do so, failing even to complete those requirements with no cost. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
