Griffith v. Pell
| Docket Number: | 2002-CT-00532-SCT Linked Case(s): 2002-CT-00532-SCT ; 2002-CT-00532-SCT ; 2002-CT-00532-SCT ; 2002-CT-00532-SCT ; 2002-CT-00532-SCT ; 2002-CA-00532-COA ; 2002-CA-00532-COA |
|
| Supreme Court: |
Opinion Date: 07-29-2004 Opinion Author: Waller, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Paternity - Termination of parental rights - Scope of paternity action Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Cobb, P.J., Easley, Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz and Graves, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS Writ of Certiorari: Granted Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-12-2002 Appealed from: Warren County Chancery Court Judge: Jane R. Weathersby Disposition: Denied a motion declaring Robert to be the father of the child in question, terminated Robert's parental rights, and entered an order setting support payments to be paid by Sonny with reasonable visitation. Case Number: 00-072GN |
|
| Consolidated: Consolidated with 2003-CA-00202-SCT Robert "Sonny" Pell v. Sue Ann Pell; Warren Chancery Court; LC Case #: 98-284-GN; Ruling Date: 11/22/2002; Ruling Judge: Jane R. Weathersby | ||
| Note: | The court of appeals affirmed the chancery court which held that, due to the peculiar circumstances of these cases, the issue of what was in the best interest of the minor child should be decided in the appeal of the divorce action. The supreme court reversed the chancellor's termination of Robert's parental rights and remanded for a determination of custody, support and visitation issues, directing the chancellor to consider, among other things, the agreement between Robert and Sonny as to the custody and support of the minor child and any other evidence pertaining to the best interest of the child insofar as Robert is concerned. The supreme court affirmed the court of appeals' holding that paternity suits should properly decide only issues of biology and support, and affirmed the court of appeals' holding that a best interest determination is inappropriate for paternity suits. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Joseph Griffith |
PATRICIA PETERSON SMITH |
||
| Appellee: | Sue Ann Pell, Next Friend and Parent of S. A. P., Minor | MARK W. PREWITT |
|
|
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: | Paternity - Termination of parental rights - Scope of paternity action |
| Summary of the Facts: | Prior to their marriage, but while Robert Pell and Sue Ann Pell were dating and then cohabiting, Sue Ann gave birth to a minor daughter. About a year after divorce proceedings were commenced, Sue Ann gave birth to a second child, and Robert, believing he was not the father of the second child, filed a motion for genetic testing to determine paternity of Sue Ann's first child who was the subject of the custody issue in the divorce proceedings. The genetic testing conclusively showed that Robert was not the natural father of the minor child in question. The final decree of divorce did not grant Robert any rights of visitation. Sue Ann filed a paternity action against Joseph Griffith, the biological father of the child. The parties to the paternity suit entered into an agreed order declaring Griffith the biological father, ordering child support, and stating that all other matters would be decided by the chancellor at a later date. Later, Robert and Griffith filed a motion for declaratory judgment, requesting that Robert be declared the legal father of the child arguing that not only that this declaration would be in the best interest of the child but that Sue Ann should be estopped from denying Robert’s paternity as well. Griffith agreed to relinquish all parental rights and allow Robert to adopt the child. The chancellor denied their motion for declaratory judgment, set child support payments, and granted Griffith reasonable visitation. Both actions were separately appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the chancery court which held that, due to the peculiar circumstances of these cases, the issue of what was in the best interest of the minor child should be decided in the appeal of the divorce action. The Supreme Court granted certiorari on the paternity appeal and consolidated the two appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Termination of parental rights Sue Ann argues that the paternity proceedings foreclosed any rights of custody or visitation Robert may have had with regard to the minor child. Merely because another man was determined to be the minor child's biological father does not automatically negate the father-daughter relationship held by Robert and the minor child. Because Robert supported and cared for the minor child as if she were his own natural child, under state law, he may be required to pay child support for the minor child. It therefore follows that he may be awarded custody and/or visitation rights with the minor child. The chancellor's termination of Robert's parental rights is reversed and remanded for a prompt determination of custody, support and visitation issues. Issue 2: Scope of paternity action The Court of Appeals held that custody and visitation issues should be addressed in a divorce or similar proceeding where the issue of what is in the best interest of the child may be addressed and that paternity suits should properly decide only issues of biology and support. This holding is correct. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
