Heffner v. Rensink


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2005-CA-01549-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 10-03-2006
Opinion Author: Lee, P.J.
Holding: REVERSED AND REMANDED

Additional Case Information: Topic: Termination of parental rights - Appointment of guardian ad litem - Section 93-15-107(1) - In camera interview - Section 43-21-261 (3)
Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Myers, P.J., Southwick, Irving, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee and Roberts, JJ.
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 07-01-2005
Appealed from: Bolivar County Chancery Court
Judge: William Willard
Disposition: HEFFNER’S PETITION FOR MODIFICATION DENIED.
Case Number: 2002-0016

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Kimberly Rensink Heffner




CHERYL ANN WEBSTER



 

Appellee: Darin R. Rensink DARIN R. RENSINK (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 - Appointment of guardian ad litem - Section 93-15-107(1) - In camera interview - Section 43-21-261 (3)

Summary of the Facts: Kimberly Heffner and Darin Rensink were granted a divorce. The chancellor awarded Heffner sole legal and physical custody of the couple’s daughter, subject to liberal visitation with Rensink. The chancellor ordered Rensink to pay $275 per month in child support in addition to $3,277.50 owed by Rensink for past due child support and medical expenses. Rensink filed for a modification of the parties’ visitation, to which Heffner filed a counterclaim arguing that Rensink had unclean hands due to his failure to conform with the court’s support order. The chancellor modified both visitation and custody, giving Rensink and Heffner joint legal custody. Heffner sought modification of the modification, alleging that the child had been mistreated during a visit at Rensink’s home in Iowa. Heffner also requested an increase in child support and requested that Rensink’s visitation be limited to supervised visitation. Rensink filed a counterclaim for contempt, to which Heffner filed a counterclaim seeking to terminate Rensink’s parental rights. The chancellor denied the motion for modification of child support but ordered that an adult female be present at all times during Rensink’s visitation with the child. The chancellor further ordered that no adult male was to dress or bathe the child, whether she was in Rensink’s or Heffner’s custody. The chancellor also denied Rensink’s counterclaim for contempt. Heffner appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Section 93-15-107(1) requires a guardian ad litem to be appointed to protect the interest of the child in the termination of parental rights. The failure to appoint a guardian ad litem in a termination of parental rights proceeding constitutes reversible error. The chancellor in this case erred in failing to appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the child’s interest. During the hearing on the matter, the chancellor states that he met in camera with the DHS social worker in order to discuss the investigation by DHS concerning the child. Heffner argues that it was reversible error for the chancellor to conduct the interview in camera with no record for review. Section 43-21-261 (3) states that upon request, the parent, guardian or custodian of the child who is the subject of a youth court case or any attorney for such parent shall have the right to inspect any record, report or investigation which is to be considered by the youth court at a hearing. Therefore, it was error for the chancellor to refuse to allow the parties to review the child’s records and to conduct the interview with the social worker in camera.


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