In re Smith v. Smith
2012 Miss. LEXIS 352
| La. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- William and Sarah Smith, grandparents of Jason Wells, petitioned for temporary and permanent custody and later adoption and termination of Tara Wells’ and Robert Johnson’s parental rights.
- Chancery court awarded the Smiths primary custody but did not terminate Tara’s or Robert’s rights, finding Tara’s long absences prevented parental responsibility.
- The court concluded the Smiths stood in loco parentis and conducted an Albright best-interest analysis, ultimately awarding custody to the Smiths.
- Mississippi law requires a clear showing of abandonment, desertion, or unfitness to overcome the natural-parent presumption before considering third-party custody; Albright factors follow such a showing.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, remanding to determine whether Tara abandoned the child, not merely whether the Smiths stood in loco parentis.
- The Mississippi Supreme Court holds Tara deserted Jason; the natural-parent presumption was overcome, making an Albright best-interest analysis proper and affirming the chancery court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether desertion, not in loco parentis, overcomes the natural-parent presumption | Smiths argue Tara’s long absences show desertion, overcoming the presumption. | Wells argues no explicit abandonment finding; natural-parent presumption remains. | Desertion found; presumption overcome. |
| Whether standing in loco parentis can rebut the natural-parent presumption | Smiths rely on in loco parentis status to justify custody. | Tara contends in loco parentis cannot rebut the presumption alone. | In loco parentis insufficient to overcome the presumption. |
| Whether an Albright best-interest analysis was proper after finding desertion | With desertion shown, Albright analysis is appropriate to determine best interest. | Desertion does not apply if there is no clear abandonment finding. | Albright analysis proper once desertion is established. |
| Whether the court’s reliance on Albright was erroneous due to misstatements about grounds | Court’s misstatement about Albright should not affect outcome since desertion supports rebuttal. | Dissent argues misstatements invalidate the Albright analysis. | No reversible error; desertion supports Albright use. |
Key Cases Cited
- Albright v. Albright, 437 So.2d 1003 (Miss. 1983) (lists factors for best interest in custody cases)
- Pell v. Pell, 881 So.2d 185 (Miss. 2004) (overtones that in loco parentis can be considered in unique contexts)
- J.P.M. v. T.D.M., 932 So.2d 760 (Miss. 2006) (discusses in loco parentis and abandonment concepts)
- Ethredge v. Yawn, 605 So.2d 761 (Miss. 1992) (grandparent rights and natural-parent presumption framework)
- In re Custody of M.A.G., 859 So.2d 1001 (Miss. 2003) (requires clear evidence to overcome natural-parent presumption)