In Re The Guardianship of Williams
| Docket Number: | 2004-CA-01886-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-30-2006 Opinion Author: Southwick, J. Holding: REVERSED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Custody - Natural parent - Section 93-13-1 Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee and Roberts, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CUSTODY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-19-2003 Appealed from: Holmes County Chancery Court Judge: Janace Harvey Goree Disposition: CHANCELLOR UPHELD APPOINTMENT OF MATERNAL AUNT AS GUARDIAN OF THE ESTATE OF CHILD; APPOINTED NATURAL FATHER AS CO-GUARDIAN OF THE ESTATE Case Number: 02-0187 |
|
| Consolidated: Consolidated with 2004-CA-01887-COA In Re: The Guardianship of Kiyanna Teleshia Anderson: Dave Anderson v. Laura Hoover; Holmes Chancery Court; LC Case #: 02-0188; Ruling Date: 09/19/2003; Ruling Judge: Janace Goree Consolidated with 2004-CA-01888-COA In Re: The Guardianship of Claira Shameka Williams: Dave Anderson v. Laura Hoover; Holmes Chancery Court; LC Case #: 02-0189; Ruling Date: 09/19/2003; Ruling Judge: Janace Goree | ||
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | In Re The Guardianship of Dae'Tavious Levar Williams: Dave Anderson |
BRYANT WANDRICK CLARK,
ROBERT GEORGE CLARK |
||
| Appellee: | Laura Hoover | DENNIS C. SWEET |
|
|
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: | Custody - Natural parent - Section 93-13-1 |
| Summary of the Facts: | The unmarried mother of three minor children died soon after the birth of her last child. The mother’s sister was appointed guardian of the person and the estate of all the children even though they had always lived with their father. The deceased’s sister and mother arranged for a malpractice suit to be brought on the children’s behalf against various medical providers. After the suit was settled, the children’s father sought to be named as their sole guardian. Instead, he was appointed as co-guardian and the guardianship by the children’s aunt continued. The father appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The father argues there is no meaningful evidence to support that he is unsuitable to serve as guardian of the children. The primary reason that the chancellor made the father share the guardianship responsibilities with the children’s aunt is that she pursued the wrongful death suit. Different ways in which his lack of zeal with the litigation reflected itself were stated in the chancellor’s findings. The father failed to pay for the expenses for the funeral of the children’s mother; the aunt paid them. Finally, the father was found not to have been candid about his support for the children, testifying that he was financially supporting them when instead it was a governmental benefits program providing support. Section 93-13-1 makes a surviving parent the preferred guardian for children. No distinction is made between situations in which the parents had been married and those in which they were not. Only if the parent is “unsuitable” will someone else be named to displace the natural guardianship possessed by natural parents. In order to overcome the presumption of the appropriateness of custody by a natural parent, there must be a clear showing that the parent has abandoned the child, immoral conduct by the parent is detrimental to the child, or the parent is unfit to have custody of the child. Accepting the chancellor’s conclusions that the father exhibited neither good judgment nor willingness to accept responsibility for some of the difficult decisions that fell to him after the death of the children’s mother, he was not shown to be unable to manage his children’s estate. The chancellor was likely correct in her implied finding that the children’s aunt would be better at handling the estates than the father would be. That is not enough to deny the natural father his statutory right to guard both the person and the estates of his children. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
