S.T. v. Harrison County Dep't of Human Services, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2011-CA-00066-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-26-2012 Opinion Author: Griffis, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Child custody - Neglected child - Section 43-21-105(l) - Aggravated circumstances - Section 43-21-603 - Family placement Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell and Fair, JJ. Dissenting Author : Russell, J. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Irving, P.J., Concurs in Part and Dissents in Part Without Separate Written Opinion Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CUSTODY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-07-2010 Appealed from: Harrison County Youth Court Judge: Michael Ward Disposition: INFANT T.T. FOUND TO BE NEGLECTED UNDER YOUTH COURT ACT Case Number: 24-YC-2010-P-1264 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | In The Interest Of: T.T.: S.T. |
MARGARET MCDOWELL MILLER |
||
| Appellee: | Harrison County Department of Human Services, Oki Ragins, Social Worker | ANGELIQUE CARTER WHITE |
|
|
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 - Neglected child - Section 43-21-105(l) - Aggravated circumstances - Section 43-21-603 - Family placement |
| Summary of the Facts: | The Mississippi Department of Human Services received an alert of potential abuse from Biloxi Regional Hospital stating S.T. was in the hospital to give birth to a child. The hospital had received an alert from the Mobile, Alabama, Department of Human Resources stating S.T. had two other children already in the custody of DHR, and DHR felt it was important for the newborn to be safe and free from abuse. DHS picked up T.T., the natural child of S.T., from the hospital and placed him in foster care. The youth court found T.T. to be a neglected child. The youth court held a joint permanency and disposition hearing, finding reunification with S.T. was not in the best interest of T.T. The youth court held T.T. should remain in the custody of Harrison County DHS and that DHS should prepare the necessary paperwork to terminate S.T.’s parental rights. S.T. appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Neglected child S.T. argues there was insufficient evidence presented to the youth court to find that T.T. was a neglected child because DHS failed to conduct any investigation into the alleged abuse upon which the youth court based its order. Section 43-21-105(l)(i), (iv) defines “neglected child” as one “[w]hose parent, guardian or custodian or any person responsible for his care or support, neglects or refuses, when able so to do, to provide for him proper and necessary care or support, . . . or other care necessary for his well-being,” or one “[w]ho, for any reason, lacks the care necessary for his health, morals or well-being.” Here, substantial evidence supports the findings of the youth court. S.T. has two children in the custody of DHR due to serious instances of alleged and ajudicated abuse. Further, another of S.T.’s children died, allegedly by Shaken Baby Syndrome. Not only are there several instances of documented injuries to these children, but the record is clear that S.T. continued to have a relationship with her boyfriend, who was accused of the abuse. Issue 2: Aggravated circumstances S.T. argues insufficient evidence supports the youth court’s finding of “aggravated circumstances” under section 43-21-603 because DHR’s removals of her children are not final decisions. The youth court found that the best interest of T.T. required that proceedings begin to terminate S.T.’s parental rights without a six-month period to work towards reunification with S.T. The youth court based this finding on DHR’s extensive file on T.T.’s siblings. The alleged and adjudicated abuse of the two children still in DHR custody and the deceased child is extensive. Each child has experienced broken bones that were unexplained by S.T. A court may find that if one child is abused, the child’s siblings are neglected. The basis is that a sibling has been harmed, and the potential harm to the other child is sufficient to warrant both children being removed from the harmful environment. Based on the evidence in the record, the potential harm to T.T. warrants his removal from the environment. Issue 3: Family placement S.T. argues that the youth court erred by failing to consider placing T.T. in the custody of her sister. T.T. had been in DHS custody since August 8, 2010; however, the sister’s affidavit was not presented to the youth court until the morning of the disposition hearing on December 22, 2010. This late notice of the sister’s willingness to take custody of T.T. left no time for DHS to investigate the placement. Regardless, this issue is not yet ripe for appellate review. S.T. now has the right to request a review of the disposition order and present evidence that her sister is available for relative placement. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
