198 So. 3d 436
Miss. Ct. App.2016Background
- Hayden born 2007 to teenage parents Brittany Raines and James Boyd; Brittany voluntarily gave temporary custody to her mother, Deanna, by agreed order in July 2008.
- James had two separate one-year incarcerations (2008–2009 and 2011–2012); paternity later established by DNA and child-support orders entered in separate proceedings.
- From April 2012 James and Brittany stabilized: they lived together, had a second child, maintained regular visitation with Hayden, and sought custody in June 2013.
- Chancellor held a July 2014 hearing and awarded joint custody to James and Brittany, changed Hayden’s surname to Boyd, terminated James’s support obligation in this case, and granted limited grandparent visitation to Deanna.
- Deanna appealed, arguing (1) the chancellor misapplied law in awarding custody, (2) she was entitled to more grandparent visitation, and (3) the chancellor lacked authority to terminate child support or order a name change because DHS and the Department of Health were not parties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Deanna) | Defendant's Argument (James/Brittany) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether James could invoke natural-parent presumption (i.e., whether presumption was rebutted by abandonment/desertion) | Deanna: James abandoned/deserted Hayden by long absences and limited support | James: He never voluntarily relinquished custody, remained involved, and did not abandon or desert Hayden | Court: Presumption not rebutted; chancellor’s factual finding that James did not abandon/desert was not manifestly wrong; James entitled to custody under natural-parent presumption |
| Whether Brittany, who voluntarily relinquished custody in 2008, met the standard to regain custody | Deanna: Brittany forfeited the presumption and cannot regain custody absent clear-and-convincing showing that change is in child’s best interest | Brittany: Contended Albright factors favor her and joint custody with James is appropriate | Court: Brittany did relinquish custody, so Grant’s clear-and-convincing-best-interest standard applies; chancellor applied Albright but not clear-and-convincing; error was harmless because James (entitled to custody) consented to joint custody, rendering Brittany’s separate claim moot |
| Grandparent visitation scope under Miss. Code §93-16-3(2) | Deanna: Entitled to more extensive visitation | James/Brittany: Parents had not unreasonably denied visitation; limited visitation appropriate | Court: Statute requires showing parents unreasonably withheld visitation; no such showing at time of hearing because parents lacked custody then; limited visitation affirmed |
| Chancellor’s power to terminate child support and order birth-certificate name change when DHS/Dept. of Health not parties | Deanna: Orders are void or beyond chancellor’s authority because DHS and Dept. of Health were not parties | James/Brittany: Court acted within equitable authority; practical relief appropriate | Court: Deanna lacks standing to appeal termination of support and name-change aspects (no personal injury shown); court did not reach merits of those actions |
Key Cases Cited
- Albright v. Albright, 437 So.2d 1003 (Miss. 1983) (factors used to determine child’s best interest in custody disputes)
- Davis v. Vaughn, 126 So.3d 33 (Miss. 2013) (natural-parent presumption; third party must prove abandonment/desertion by clear and convincing evidence)
- Grant v. Martin, 757 So.2d 264 (Miss. 2000) (natural parent who voluntarily relinquished custody forfeits presumption and may reclaim custody only by clear and convincing proof that change is in child’s best interest)
- Smith v. Smith, 97 So.3d 43 (Miss. 2012) (standard of review: chancery findings reversed only if manifestly wrong or incorrect legal standard applied)
- Vaughn v. Davis, 36 So.3d 1261 (Miss. 2010) (discusses parental rights and role of grandparents as caretakers; relevant to natural-parent presumption analysis)