K.D.F., et al. v. J.L.H
| Docket Number: | 2004-CA-01320-SCT Linked Case(s): 2004-CA-01320-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-25-2006 Opinion Author: Dickinson, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Adoption - Section 93-17-8(1)(c) - Termination of parental rights - Abandonment - Morally unfit - Recommendation of guardian ad litem - Temporary custody Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller, P.J., Diaz, Easley, Carlson and Graves, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Cobb, P.J., and Randolph, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - ADOPTION |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-09-2004 Appealed from: Jackson County Chancery Court Judge: Pat Watts, Jr.. Disposition: The chancellor entered an Opinion denying the Fosters' adoption petition and awarding temporary custody of Elizabeth to Harris. Case Number: 2002-1805PW |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | K.D.F. and J.C.F. |
E. FOLEY RANSON |
||
| Appellee: | J.L.H | DONALD P. SIGALAS |
|
|
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: | Adoption - Section 93-17-8(1)(c) - Termination of parental rights - Abandonment - Morally unfit - Recommendation of guardian ad litem - Temporary custody |
| Summary of the Facts: | John Harris had a relationship for a short time with Amy Rogers. After the relationship was over and Rogers had resumed a relationship with another man, Robert Hicks, Rogers revealed she was pregnant but claimed that the father was Hicks. While pregnant, Rogers went to work for Kim and Jack Foster. Rogers agreed to allow the Fosters to adopt her baby. After Rogers gave birth to Elizabeth, she executed a Consent to Adoption agreement with the Fosters. A Petition for Adoption, naming Rogers and Hicks as Elizabeth’s natural parents, was filed. Harris ran into Rogers at a grocery store where she showed him a picture of Elizabeth. After this encounter, Harris consulted an attorney about his potential parental rights. After this meeting, Rogers informed the Fosters that Harris, not Hicks, was Elizabeth’s biological father. Harris filed an objection to the Fosters’ Petition for Adoption. DNA testing proved Harris was Elizabeth’s biological father. The Fosters filed an Amended Petition for Adoption and for Termination of Parental Rights, naming Harris as the defendant. Harris then filed a Motion to Establish Paternity and an Answer to the Fosters’ Petition. The chancellor denied the Fosters’ adoption petition and awarding temporary custody of Elizabeth to Harris. The Fosters then filed a Motion for New Trial, to Alter and Amend Judgment and for Reconsideration. The chancellor entered an Order denying the Fosters’ requested relief, but awarding physical custody of Elizabeth to the Fosters until the Judgment is enforceable or until further order. The Fosters filed an appeal. The Fosters also filed an Application for Stay of Judgment Pending Appeal seeking to retain physical custody of Elizabeth during the appeals process. The chancellor entered a Judgment granting physical custody of Elizabeth to the Fosters until final decision on appeal, subject to Harris’ visitation as previously ordered. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Adoption The Fosters argues that the chancellor erred in denying their petition to adopt Elizabeth and to terminate Harris’ parental rights. In a contested adoption, section 93-17-8(1)(c) requires the chancellor to determine first whether or not the objecting parent is entitled to so object under the criteria of section 93-17-7 and then determine the custody of the child in accord with the best interests of the child and the rights of the parties as established by the hearings and judgments. The petitioners carry the burden to show by clear and convincing evidence that the objecting parent has either abandoned or deserted the child or is mentally or morally or otherwise unfit to rear or train the child. 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 Fosters argue that Harris abandoned Elizabeth and that he is mentally and morally unfit to rear and train Elizabeth. Harris became aware that Elizabeth was his child in July 2002. Immediately thereafter, Harris contacted the Department of Human Services and an attorney to assess his potential parental rights. Harris frequently bought presents for Elizabeth and delivered them to the Fosters. From October 12, 2002, until the last day of trial, Harris regularly paid child support, without a court order, amounting to $1,824.60. He also attended parenting classes. Under the totality of the circumstances, the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in making the determination that Harris did not manifest his severance of all ties with the child. With regard to the Fosters’ claim that Harris is mentally and morally unfit to raise Elizabeth, they point to Harris’ longtime substance abuse and chemical dependency and his self-described ‘incurable disease’ as evidence of his unfitness. The chancellor recognized that, at the time of the hearing, Harris had been clean and sober for nearly seven years. Additionally, the record indicates Harris is an active member and meeting leader for both Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous. The chancellor’s decision was not manifestly wrong, as it was supported by credible evidence. Issue 2: Recommendation of guardian ad litem The Fosters argue that the chancellor did not properly consider the recommendations of the guardian ad litem when deciding not to terminate Harris’ parental rights and permit their adoption of Elizabeth. She found that Harris had abandoned Elizabeth because he knew, or should have known, he was the father. There is no requirement that the chancellor defer to the findings of the guardian ad litem. After considering all the evidence, the chancellor was free to, and indeed obligated to, come to his own conclusions on the issues. Issue 3: Temporary custody The Fosters argue the chancellor erred in awarding temporary physical custody of Elizabeth to Harris without making an on-the-record finding pursuant to the Albright factors. When deciding a custody dispute between a natural parent and a third party, the chancellor must employ the natural parent presumption. In order to overcome this presumption there must be a clear showing that the parent has abandoned the child, or the conduct of the parent is so immoral as to be detrimental to the child, or the parent is unfit mentally or otherwise to have the custody of his or her child. Absent clear proof of one of the above circumstances, the natural parent is entitled to custody of his or her child. A finding of abandonment or unfitness is necessary to award custody to a third party against a natural parent and must be done before any analysis using the Albright factors to determine the best interests of the child. Because the Fosters never satisfied this requirement, the chancellor’s award of temporary physical custody of Elizabeth to Harris is affirmed. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
