Dale Patrick Miller v. Jessica Dawn Smith
229 So. 3d 100
| Miss. | 2017Background
- Dale Miller and Jessica Smith divorced; issues before the chancery court were custody/visitation for two children, Smitty (Smith’s child from prior relationship) and Morgan (biological child of Miller and Smith).
- DNA testing established Miller is biological father of Morgan only; Miller claimed he stood in loco parentis to Smitty (signed birth certificate, raised him).
- Allegations that Miller sexually abused Smith’s older daughter (Kristen) led to supervised visitation recommendations and appointment of a guardian ad litem.
- Chancellor found Miller did not stand in loco parentis to Smitty, terminated his parental rights as to Smitty, and awarded custody of the children to Smith (later proceedings awarded Miller custody of Morgan in a separate action).
- During trial Miller was removed from the courtroom while Kristen (a 17-year-old) testified; Miller’s counsel remained; Miller objected that he had no means to observe testimony.
- On appeal, Court of Appeals affirmed; Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed termination as supported by substantial evidence but held Miller’s removal was constitutional error under the state constitution (Article 3, §25) though harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Miller) | Defendant's Argument (Smith) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether chancellor abused discretion in terminating Miller’s parental rights to Smitty (in loco parentis) | Miller: he treated Smitty as his own, signed birth certificate, raised him — so he stood in loco parentis and parental-rights termination was improper | Smith: Miller was not biological father of Smitty, had gaps in contact/support, failed to rebut natural-parent presumption; evidence supports chancellor | Court: Affirmed — substantial evidence supports chancellor’s finding Miller did not stand in loco parentis; termination upheld |
| Whether removing Miller from courtroom during Kristen’s testimony violated confrontation/presence rights | Miller: removal violated Sixth Amendment confrontation and Article 3, §25 (right to prosecute/defend in person), and prejudiced his defense | Smith: Confrontation Clause is criminal-only; counsel was present so no violation of state presence clause | Court: Sixth Amendment does not apply in civil case (overruled prior dicta); removal violated Article 3, §25 but was harmless error because Miller failed to show prejudice (counsel present; no showing his presence would have changed questioning) |
Key Cases Cited
- Albright v. Albright, 437 So.2d 1003 (Miss. 1983) (custody-factor framework cited)
- Farve v. Medders, 128 So.2d 877 (Miss. 1961) (definition and test for in loco parentis)
- Logan v. Logan, 730 So.2d 1124 (Miss. 1998) (in loco parentis requirements explained)
- In re Waites, 152 So.3d 306 (Miss. 2014) (limits on using in loco parentis to rebut natural-parent presumption)
- Rollins v. State, 970 So.2d 716 (Miss. 2007) (prejudice requirement where defendant removed from courtroom/viewing method failed)
- Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420 (U.S. 1960) (Confrontation Clause limited to criminal prosecutions)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1999) (most constitutional errors may be harmless)