Blakeney v. McRee
2016 Miss. LEXIS 87
Miss.2016Background
- In 2006 John and Wanda Blakeney were arrested for murders witnessed by their two young children, A.B. and C.B.; John was convicted of one murder and sentenced to life. The children have lived with their maternal grandmother Carolyn McRee and her husband Don since the arrests.
- In April 2012 the McRees petitioned in chancery court to adopt A.B. and C.B.; the petition did not seek statutory termination of parental rights but an adoption would terminate those rights.
- John (pro se) contested the adoption; he was transported from prison, participated at an evidentiary hearing in January 2014, cross‑examined witnesses, and testified without counsel. A guardian ad litem (GAL) investigated and recommended termination and adoption.
- The chancellor granted the adoption, terminated John’s parental rights, and changed the children’s surname to McRee. John appealed pro se raising (inter alia) denial of appointed counsel and insufficiency of the statutory basis for termination.
- The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed: it held the court’s failure to make an on‑the‑record Lassiter analysis was harmless and that substantial credible evidence supported termination and adoption based on incarceration, erosion of the parent‑child relationship, risk to the children, and the children’s settled placement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Right to appointed counsel in contested adoption/termination | John: chancery should have appointed counsel to represent him at the adoption/termination hearing. | McRees/State: no per se right; court followed Lassiter factors and John received a fair hearing; presence of counsel would not have changed outcome. | Majority: Chancellor erred by not making an on‑the‑record Lassiter inquiry but error was harmless; no outcome‑determinative need for counsel under facts. |
| 2) Statutory grounds required to terminate parental rights | John: chancellor lacked explicit statutory findings (§93‑17‑7 / §93‑15‑103) to terminate rights. | McRees: court may consider the statutory factors and grant adoption when parent is unfit or relationship is eroded; adoption decree terminates rights. | Court: although chancellor did not cite the exact statutory procedure, clear and convincing evidence (incarceration, erosion of relationship, risk of harm, children’s settled placement) supports finding of unfitness and affirms termination. |
| 3) Failure to consider less‑restrictive alternatives / pretrial motions | John: court ignored motions seeking custody to his parents or supervised visitation; §93‑15‑103(4) requires alternatives be considered. | McRees: no other party pursued custody; John’s parents never sought custody or acted to visit; only realistic options were adoption or retention by McRees. | Court: Chancellor implicitly considered alternatives; given record and lack of actions by John’s parents, denial of alternatives was not error. |
| 4) Exclusion of witnesses / adequacy of GAL investigation | John: he was prevented from calling witnesses and GAL failed to interview provided witnesses. | McRees: John did not attempt to secure or present witnesses at trial and cited no authority showing GAL dereliction; trial record shows opportunity to cross‑examine and present evidence. | Court: Issues waived/lacking proof and argument unsupported by authority; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lassiter v. Dep’t of Social Servs. of Durham Cty., 452 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1981) (Due Process test for appointing counsel in parental‑rights termination: case‑by‑case balancing).
- Vance v. Lincoln Cty. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 582 So.2d 414 (Miss. 1991) (incarceration and erosion of parent‑child relationship can support termination).
- K.D.G.L.B.P. v. Hinds Cty. Dep’t of Human Servs., 771 So.2d 907 (Miss. 2000) (Lassiter factors adopted for Mississippi review).
- A.B. v. Lauderdale Cty. Dep’t of Human Servs., 13 So.3d 1263 (Miss. 2009) (clarifying standard of review for termination: clear and convincing evidence; deference to chancellor on factual findings).
- Pritchett v. Pritchett, 161 So.3d 1106 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (example where failure to provide counsel and other due‑process defects required reversal).
- In re T.M., 319 P.3d 338 (Haw. 2014) (state constitution can require appointed counsel for indigent parents in termination proceedings).
- Ethredge v. Yawn, 605 So.2d 761 (Miss. 1992) (discussing burden and standard for termination appeals).