Neshoba County Dep't of Human Servs., et al. v. Hodge
| Docket Number: | 2004-CA-00699-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-03-2006 Opinion Author: King, C.J. Holding: AFFIRMED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Child custody - Adoption - Jurisdiction - Guardian ad litem recommendations - Motion for intervention - M.R.C.P. 24(a) Judge(s) Concurring: Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes and Ishee, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CUSTODY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-15-2003 Appealed from: Lauderdale County Chancery Court Judge: Sarah P. Springer Disposition: TERMINATED PARENTAL RIGHTS AND AWARDED THE ADOPTION OF THE MINOR CHILD TO THE HODGES Case Number: A-2180 S |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Neshoba County Department of Human Services, Barbara Jackson and Jerry Jackson |
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: HAROLD EDWARD PIZZETTA |
||
| Appellee: | Jeffery Hodge and Kimberly Hodge | JOHN E. HOWELL |
|
|
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: | Child custody - Adoption - Jurisdiction - Guardian ad litem recommendations - Motion for intervention - M.R.C.P. 24(a) |
| Summary of the Facts: | The Neshoba County Department of Human Services obtained custody of the minor child H.G. under an emergency order from the Neshoba County Youth Court. Jerry and Barbara Jackson, who contracted with DHS to serve as foster parents, volunteered to serve as foster parents to H.G. Two years later, Kimberly Hodge, an employee of the Department of Human Services, serving as homemaker to the Jacksons, filed a petition for the adoption of H.G. The court terminated the parental rights of the birth parents, and simultaneously approved the adoption of H G. by the Hodges. DHS filed a motion for reconsideration of the adoption decree or, alternatively, to stay the judgment pending appeal. The Jacksons filed a motion to intervene so that they might seek to adopt H. G. The chancery court denied the motion for intervention. After the chancellor recused herself, another judge summarily denied the motion for reconsideration. The Jacksons and the State of Mississippi appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Jurisdiction DHS and the Jacksons argue that the Lauderdale County Chancery Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the adoption proceeding because the Neshoba County Youth Court had paramount jurisdiction. They argue that the youth court established jurisdiction by its issuance of an emergency custody order. When the parties are first subject to the jurisdiction of the youth court for proceedings involving abuse and neglect, youth courts have priority. This holding, however, is limited to questions of priority jurisdiction in counties that have a county court sitting as a youth court in addition to a chancery court. Here, this is not a conflict between a county court sitting as youth court and a chancery court in the same jurisdiction. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the chancery court was proper. Issue 2: Guardian ad litem The Jacksons argue that the chancellor failed to address the guardian ad litem’s recommendations. The guardian ad litem recommended that the Hodges adoption request be denied, and that the Jacksons be allowed to adopt the minor child. The recommendations of the guardian ad litem are an additional consideration to aid the judge in his decision. There is no requirement that the judge follow the recommendations of the guardian ad litem. The general rule is that when the court's ruling is contrary to the recommendation of a statutorily required guardian ad litem, the reasons for not adopting the guardian ad litem's recommendation shall be stated by the court in the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Upon remand, the chancellor provided a very well written and detailed analysis of the guardian ad litem’s recommendations and her reasons for not following them. Even a cursory reading of the record demonstrates that it contains substantial evidence which supports the chancellor’s decision. Issue 3: Motion for intervention The Jacksons argue that the chancellor committed error when their motion for intervention was denied. However, the paramount interest to be considered in this case was that of the minor child, and not the desires of the Jacksons. The chancellor determined that although the Jacksons had an interest relating to the action, their failure to timely seek intervention as required by M.R.C.P. 24(a), precluded their intervention in this matter. Because the primary concern must be the child's best interest, the chancellor was not manifestly in error when the Jacksons were excluded as adoptive parents. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
