Williams v. Williams
| Docket Number: | 2010-CA-00656-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-13-2011 Opinion Author: Carlton, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Adoption - Termination of parental rights - Due process - Failure to appoint counsel - M.R.E. 901(b)(7) - Admission of public records Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Maxwell and Russell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Myers, J. Nature of the Case: CIVIL - ADOPTION |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-29-2010 Appealed from: Lowndes County Chancery Court Judge: Kenneth M. Burns Disposition: ADOPTION OF SIX CHILDREN BY APPELLEES, TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS OF APPELLANTS, NATURAL PARENTS OF THE SIX CHILDREN Case Number: 1888 A-B |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | In The Matter of The Petition of Wesley Williams and Lindsey Williams for the Adoption of the Minor Child Described in the Petition: Dale Williams and Cathy Williams |
MATTHEW DANIEL WILSON |
||
| Appellee: | Wesley Williams and Lindsey Williams | MARC DARREN AMOS |
|
|
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 - Termination of parental rights - Due process - Failure to appoint counsel - M.R.E. 901(b)(7) - Admission of public records |
| Summary of the Facts: | Wesley and Lindsey filed a petition to adopt their nieces and nephews: Sarah Williams, Michael Williams, Paul Williams, Jamie Williams, Rachael Williams and Jimmy Williams. Dale and Cathy Williams are the biological parents of the children. Wesley and Dale are brothers. Dale and Cathy filed a response opposing the petitions for adoption. Dale and Cathy acted pro se, but they requested that the court appoint them an attorney because of their indigence. Dale also requested a change of venue so that he could compel the attendance of witnesses from Georgia, where the original guardianship proceedings were held. The chancellor denied their requests and proceeded with the hearing. At the hearing, Dale and Cathy reported a combined income of approximately $17,000 in 2007, and Dale testified that he made “a little bit more” than that amount in 2008. The record reflects that no tax returns or W2s were provided to prove any particular level of income. Dale stated that he and Cathy owned no assets of any worth. Dale also testified that Cathy did not have a job, but that she occasionally tried to sell scrap mental to help with the family’s expenses. Dale testified that Cathy lacked the ability to work full time because she had to care for Johnny, the couple’s infant. The chancellor admitted into evidence court records from Georgia which pertained to Dale and Cathy’s history with the Clayton County, Georgia, Department of Family and Children Services and Juvenile Court. Pursuant to a June 1, 2007 order of the Juvenile Court of Clayton County, Georgia, Wesley and Lindsey had been granted legal custody of all eight of the minor children. Wesley and Lindsey presented evidence showing that prior to the entry of the custody order, all eight of the children had been in the custody of the CCDFCS for the majority of the time since May 24, 2006. Wesley and Lindsey also presented evidence that the CCDFCS had an extensive history with Dale and Cathy’s failure to properly care for the children, their substance abuse, and the sexual abuse of the children. During the hearing, testimony was presented by various expert witnesses regarding the severe sexual, mental, and physical abuse that the children suffered at the hands of Dale and Cathy, and the physical and emotional effect on the children. After the hearing, the chancellor entered an opinion and judgment ordering the termination of Dale and Cathy’s parental rights as to each of the six children, and granted full custody to Wesley and Lindsey. Dale and Cathy appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Dale and Cathy argue that the chancellor violated their right to due process by failing to appoint counsel to represent them throughout the termination proceedings. In Lassiter v. Department of Social Services of Durham County, North Carolina, 452 U.S. 18 (1981), the United States Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether an indigent parent is entitled to appointment of counsel in a termination of parental rights proceeding under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the trial court's termination of parental rights where the trial court failed to appoint counsel for an indigent parent. The Supreme Court emphasized that the petition to terminate parental rights contained no allegations of neglect or abuse upon which criminal charges could be based, no expert witnesses testified, the case presented no troublesome points of law, and the presence of counsel could not have made a determinative difference. In K.D.G.L.B.P. v. Hinds County Department of Human Services, 771 So. 2d 907 (Miss. (Miss. 2000), the Mississippi Supreme Court held that the appointment of counsel in termination proceedings is wise but not mandatory, and courts should determine the need for court-appointed counsel on a case-by-case basis. Dale and Cathy claim that the petition for adoption states that the children experienced sexual abuse and horrific neglect while in the care of their parents, and they argue that if such accusations are corroborated and substantiated, then Dale and Cathy could face criminal charges. However, the allegations of Dale and Cathy’s criminal conduct occurred in the State of Georgia and that Mississippi possessed no jurisdiction to prosecute any offenses arising in Georgia. Additionally, the petition for adoption contains no allegations that Dale or Cathy abused the children. Dale and Cathy assert that the only direct testimony offered by Wesley and Lindsey was from their expert witnesses and that they needed an attorney to scrutinize the credentials of the expert witnesses and file motions in limine as to the experts’ conclusions. However, Wesley and Lindsey point out that the Clayton County Juvenile Court previously determined that Dale and Cathy were unfit parents. Therefore, the experts’ testimony was primarily admitted to justify Wesley and Lindsey’s adoption of the children and the welfare of the children while in their care. Dale and Cathy argue that they should have been appointed legal counsel because their case presented specially troublesome points of law. Dale and Cathy specifically allege that Wesley and Lindsey violated numerous rules of discovery, including the failure to designate their expert witnesses sixty days prior to the hearing. However, this case did not present any troublesome points of law, but rather focused on the well-being and general welfare of the children while in Wesley and Lindsey’s care. Dale and Cathy submit that having an attorney would have made a determinative different in the outcome of the case. However, the Clayton County Juvenile Court had already adjudicated Dale and Cathy to be unfit parents. M.R.E. 901(b)(7) allows the admission of public records upon proof that the public recorded documents are from the public office where items of that nature are kept. Since the chancellor requested the Clayton County Juvenile Court records from the Georgia Department of Family and Children’s Services office, and since these records constituted public records pursuant to Rule 901(b)(7), there was no abuse of discretion for the chancellor to admit those documents into evidence. Also, the chancellor fully explained the process of the proceedings to both Dale and Cathy, and both parties testified and fully participated in the hearing. Additionally, the evidence and testimony presented at the termination hearing overwhelmingly supported the chancellor's decision to terminate Dale and Cathy’s parental rights. The evidence supporting the chancellor's decision to terminate Dale and Cathy’s parental rights was so overwhelming that the presence of counsel would not have changed the outcome of the trial. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
