E.K. v. Mississippi Department of Child Protection Services, 249 So. 3d 377

E.K., a minor with significant developmental and medical disabilities, was the subject of a DHS investigation after law-enforcement contacts concerning mother Elizabeth King in Dec. 2015; DHS initially opened a prevention/monitoring case.
DHS alleged mother tested positive for marijuana and later refused further drug testing; an intake order required monitoring and a service agreement was entered by Elizabeth.
After Elizabeth allegedly stopped cooperating with drug tests, DHS filed a formal neglect petition (Count 1) charging neglect based on a single factual paragraph referencing Elizabeth’s statement she was "tired and frustrated" and would not take more drug tests.
Summons for the adjudication hearing were returned unserved for both parents; Elizabeth nonetheless appeared at the adjudication hearing (without on-the-record waiver or being informed of rights), and Timothy received no notice.
At the adjudication hearing DHS testimony noted the home "checked out fine," but the youth court adjudicated E.K. neglected; the court then ordered hair-follicle tests and DHS custody orders followed for a time.
The Supreme Court of Mississippi vacated and rendered judgment for the Kings, concluding notice/waiver defects, an insufficient petition, and insufficient evidence required reversal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Notice / waiver of process & right to counsel	Elizabeth did not knowingly waive service or counsel; Timothy received no notice	DHS argued proceedings were proper/apparent waiver by appearance	Court: Elizabeth’s rights were not ascertained on the record; Timothy had no notice—adjudication void on these grounds
Sufficiency of neglect petition	Petition’s single paragraph failed to plead facts tying parental conduct to child neglect	DHS relied on statutory definition and investigation to support pleading	Court: Petition legally insufficient—did not fairly apprise parties of circumstances to be adjudicated
Sufficiency of evidence for adjudication	Kings: evidence at adjudication did not establish neglect or causal harm to E.K.	DHS: positive test/refusal to test warranted concern and monitoring	Court: Evidence insufficient—testimony showed home "checked out fine" and no causal link between mother’s drug use/refusal and neglect
Orders for drug tests and custody following adjudication	Kings: Orders were void because adjudication and notice were defective	DHS: Orders were within court authority to protect child based on monitoring findings	Court: Orders tied to a defective adjudication; without proper adjudication and notice, subsequent orders were invalid

In re J.P., 151 So. 3d 204 (Miss. 2014) (appellate standard and notice requirements under Youth Court Act)
A.B. v. Lauderdale Cty. Dep’t of Human Servs., 13 So. 3d 1263 (Miss. 2009) (standards for youth court review and monitoring authority)
In re N.W., 978 So. 2d 649 (Miss. 2008) (reversal where parent lacked notice of adjudication)
In Interest of Dennis, 291 So. 2d 731 (Miss. 1974) (petition must fairly apprise parties of specific circumstances to be adjudicated)
In Interest of C.R., 604 So. 2d 1079 (Miss. 1992) (preponderance-of-the-evidence standard and review of sufficiency of evidence in neglect adjudications)
Sharp v. State, 127 So. 2d 865 (Miss. 1961) (notice to parent is an indispensable prerequisite to youth court jurisdiction)