In the Interest of A.J.M., a Minor
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-00883-COA Linked Case(s): 2003-CA-00883-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Date: 10-19-2004 Opinion Author: Griffis, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Abused child - Venue - Section 43-21-155(2) - Admission of reports - Guardian ad litem - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges and Lee, P.JJ., Irving, Myers, Chandler, Barnes and Ishee, JJ. |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-14-2003 Appealed from: Rankin County Youth Court Judge: Kent McDaniel Case Number: 4872 |
|
| Note: | Link Inactive | |
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: | Abused child - Venue - Section 43-21-155(2) - Admission of reports - Guardian ad litem - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | The Rankin County Attorney filed separate pleadings entitled, “Petition for Child to be found Sexually Abused,” alleging that A.J.M. was sexually abused by J. B. Goodsell and asking the Rankin County Youth Court to adjudicate A.J.M. to be a sexually abused child, within the purview of the Mississippi Youth Court Law, and enter a “no contact order” against Goodsell. At one time, Goodsell was the attorney of E.J.M., the mother of A.J.M. Goodsell and E.J.M eventually began a romantic relationship. At the beginning of the hearing on the petitions, E.J.M.’s attorney moved for the court to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction and venue. The court denied the motion, adjudicated A.J.M. to be a sexually abused child, and ordered no contact whatsoever between A.J.M. and Goodsell. E.J.M. appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Venue E.J.M. argues that since the petitions identified A.J.M.’s custodian as her grandmother, who resided in Hinds County, venue was not proper under section 43-21-155. For an abused or neglected child, under subsection (2) of section 43-21-155, the location of the occurrence of the abuse or neglect does not determine venue. Instead, venue is proper in the county where the child's custodian resides or in the county where the child is when the report is filed. A.J.M’s custodian when the petitions were filed was her grandmother, who resided in Hinds County. E.J.M. lived in Rankin County. Therefore, venue in the Rankin County Youth Court could not be based on the residence of A.J.M.’s custodian. However, A.J.M. was attending school in Rankin County when the report was made to the Rankin County Youth Court Intake Unit. Therefore, it was not reversible error for the Rankin County Youth Court to determine that venue was proper in Rankin County. Issue 2: Admission of reports E.J.M. argues that the youth court erred by relying on the report made by the court appointed special advocate and the attached exhibits, because the report was not formally admitted into evidence. In admitting the reports, exhibits and interviews of A.J.M. in lieu of live testimony, the court asked E.J.M.'s counsel whether E.J.M. wanted to take live testimony and subject the child to another examination. E.J.M.’s counsel advised the court that E.J.M. had no desire for A.J.M. to be subjected to live testimony. The only concern that E.J.M.'s counsel voiced was that E.J.M. had not been interviewed by any of the agencies involved in the report. Therefore, E.J.M. failed to make a contemporaneous objection to the decision to rely on the reports, exhibits and interviews of A.J.M., and the issue is waived. Issue 3: Guardian ad litem E.J.M. argues that the court failed to appoint a guardian ad litem or an attorney to represent A.J.M. However, the record contains multiple references to the appointment of both a guardian ad litem and counsel. Issue 4: Burden of proof E.J.M. argues that the State failed to meet its burden of proof because the reports the court relied on in rendering its decision were never admitted as testimony and there is no indication that the touching was sexual. At no time did E.J.M. or her counsel make any evidentiary objections regarding the report being admitted in lieu of live testimony. Therefore, this issue is waived. In addition, the record contained substantial evidence that a court might reasonably have ruled A.J.M. to be a sexually abused child. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
