Dalphanie Lofton v. Ruby N. Lofton
176 So. 3d 1184
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Grandmother Ruby Lofton sought grandparent visitation with her granddaughter Lauren after Lauren and her mother, Dalphanie, moved out of Ruby’s home in Oct. 2012 and thereafter denied Ruby access.
- Lauren (born Jan. 2010) and Dalphanie had lived with Ruby from 2010–Oct.2012; Ruby provided childcare and some financial support during that period.
- Two prior emergency-room incidents prompted DHS investigations involving Patrick Johnson; Dalphanie and Patrick later lived together and prevented Ruby from seeing Lauren.
- Ruby petitioned for grandparent visitation (Miss. Code Ann. § 93-16-3); the chancery court awarded progressively increased visitation (afternoons → one overnight monthly → one weekend monthly).
- Dalphanie and Patrick appealed, arguing Ruby failed to prove unreasonable denial of visitation and that visitation was not shown to be in Lauren’s best interests; the majority affirmed the chancery judgment.
- A dissent argued the chancery court lacked jurisdiction because not all necessary parties (possible legal/putative fathers) were joined; the majority disagreed, relying on the parents’ on-record admissions that they are Lauren’s parents and that no other party asserted parental rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ruby) | Defendant's Argument (Dalphanie & Patrick) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether grandparents proved parents unreasonably denied visitation | Ruby: parents cut off contact (changed phone, barred from complex, prevented approach in public); practical barriers made requests difficult | Parents: Ruby never requested visitation; denial was reasonable because Ruby (and her mother) had reported Patrick to DHS | Held: Court found evidence parents prevented visitation and their belief that Ruby reported DHS was unfounded; parents unreasonably denied visitation |
| Whether Ruby established a "viable relationship" under § 93-16-3(3) | Ruby: Lived with child >2.5 years, provided financial support and frequent visitation | Defendants did not dispute the viable-relationship elements | Held: Parties agreed viable relationship existed; court accepted it |
| Whether visitation is in the child’s best interest (Martin factors) | Ruby: factors (age, health, proximity, emotional ties, willingness to respect parental discipline) support visitation | Defendants: argued chancellor failed to address disruption and home suitability sufficiently | Held: Court found chancellor considered most Martin factors; testimony supported implicit findings on disruption and suitability; visitation awarded as in child’s best interest |
| Whether chancery court had jurisdiction due to joinder of necessary parties | Ruby: parents (Dalphanie & Patrick) admitted on record they are mother and father; no other party asserted parental rights | Defendants (dissent): necessary parties (legal/putative father identified on birth certificate) were not joined or served; omission is jurisdictional | Held: Majority: jurisdiction existed based on on-record admissions and absence of any assertion of parental rights by other putative/legal fathers; dissent would have vacated and remanded for joinder |
Key Cases Cited
- Martin v. Coop, 693 So.2d 912 (Miss. 1997) (sets multi-factor test for best interests in grandparent-visitation cases)
- Bolivar v. Wattman, 85 So.3d 335 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (joinder of natural parents is jurisdictional in grandparent-visitation actions)
- Morgan v. West, 812 So.2d 987 (Miss. 2002) (analysis of disruption and grandparent-home suitability under Martin)
- Townes v. Manyfield, 883 So.2d 93 (Miss. 2004) (chancellor must make findings under Martin factors)
- T.T.W. v. C.C., 839 So.2d 501 (Miss. 2003) (reversed where chancellor failed to consider most Martin factors)
- Arrington v. Thrash, 122 So.3d 144 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (standard of review: chancellor’s visitation findings afforded deference)