Estate of Justin v. Smith, 130 So. 3d 508

Background

Justin Smith married Holly; Holly gave birth to Halley in 2000 and Justin signed the birth certificate and acted as Halley’s father for ~8 years.
Multiple DNA tests during divorce proceedings showed Justin was not Halley’s biological father and later identified Joseph Montgomery as biological father; Justin’s name was removed from Halley’s birth certificate after his death.
Justin died in July 2009 before the divorce was final; Holly was appointed administratrix and initially had a chancery order declaring Holly and Palyn as Justin’s sole heirs.
Halley (through a guardian ad litem) sought reconsideration, asserting she was Justin’s in loco parentis child and therefore a wrongful-death beneficiary under Miss. Code § 11-7-13.
The chancery court found Halley was in loco parentis but that an in loco parentis child is not a wrongful-death beneficiary under § 11-7-13; the court also found the presumption of paternity had been rebutted.
On appeal, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed, holding the wrongful-death statute’s definition of “children” does not include in loco parentis children and the Court may not judicially expand the statute.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Halley)	Defendant's Argument (Holly/Chancellor)	Held
Whether an in loco parentis child qualifies as a wrongful-death beneficiary under Miss. Code § 11‑7‑13	In loco parentis children should be included as wrongful-death beneficiaries on public-policy and child‑best‑interest grounds	§ 11‑7‑13’s text includes natural, illegitimate, and adopted children but is silent as to in loco children; statute must be strictly construed and cannot be judicially expanded	Held: No — in loco parentis children are not wrongful-death beneficiaries under § 11‑7‑13
Whether prior paternity presumption was rebutted such that Halley is not Justin’s child for wrongful-death purposes	Halley conceded in loco parentis status but argued earlier adjudications may have preserved legal paternity at death	Multiple DNA tests and records rebutted paternity presumption; Montgomery shown to be biological father and Justin’s presumption of paternity was rebutted	Held: The chancery court did not err in finding the presumption of paternity rebutted
Whether descent-and-distribution authority (prior paternity adjudications) controls wrongful-death beneficiary status	Halley (in dissent) argued prior judicial recognitions of paternity could mean she remained Justin’s legal child at death	Majority: wrongful-death beneficiaries are determined by § 11‑7‑13, not by intestacy statutes; Hogan and descent cases are inapplicable here	Held: Majority rejects using descent-and-distribution to expand § 11‑7‑13; dissent would remand to examine when paternity adjudications were effective
Whether courts should import workers’ compensation or other statutes’ in loco language into § 11‑7‑13	Halley urged analogy to statutes that expressly include in loco children	Majority: those statutes expressly include in loco beneficiaries; § 11‑7‑13 is silent and must be strictly construed	Held: Rejected — statutes with explicit language differ; court will not rewrite § 11‑7‑13

Key Cases Cited

Fortinberry v. Holmes, 42 So. 799 (Miss. 1907) (recognition of in loco parentis doctrine)
Farve v. Medders, 128 So.2d 877 (Miss. 1961) (definition and elements of in loco parentis)
Smith v. Garrett, 287 So.2d 258 (Miss. 1973) (wrongful-death statute is to be strictly construed)
Longleaf Forest Prods., Inc. v. Hopkins, 349 So.2d 523 (Miss. 1977) (workers’ compensation statute expressly covered in loco children)
Hogan v. Buckingham ex rel. Buckingham, 730 So.2d 15 (Miss. 1998) (discussion of prior paternity adjudications and heirship determinations)
Burley v. Douglas, 26 So.3d 1013 (Miss. 2009) (distinguishing standing to bring wrongful-death claim from entitlement to recover under the wrongful‑death statute)
Rafferty v. Perkins, 757 So.2d 992 (Miss. 2000) (DNA test results may rebut presumption of legitimacy)