J. F. G. v. Pearl River County Department of Human Services
2016-CA-00099-COA
| Miss. Ct. App. | Jun 13, 2017Background
- DHS received August 2012 report of sexual abuse and mother's drug use; children placed in DHS custody and adjudicated neglected in November 2012.
- Parents entered service agreements with DHS in November 2012; both failed to complete them and faced additional arrests for drug-related offenses.
- DHS determined reunification was no longer in the children's best interests and changed the permanency plan to termination by April 2014; DHS filed a petition to terminate rights in October 2014.
- A one-day trial was held December 9, 2015; two DHS social workers and the GAL testified, detailing abuse, neglect, and parents’ noncompliance, and the guardians supported adoption.
- Chancellor terminated parental rights on December 17, 2015, finding grounds by clear and convincing evidence and that termination was in the children’s best interests.
- Appellants appealed asserting lack of clear and convincing evidence for grounds, failure to consider all evidence, and insufficient proof of grounds; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether grounds for termination were proven by clear and convincing evidence | G. contends no clear-and-convincing proof of a ground. | Pearl River County contends clear and convincing evidence supports a ground. | Yes; grounds established by clear and convincing evidence. |
| Whether the chancellor considered all evidence, including progress after termination was sought | G. argues the court ignored progress showing improvement. | G. contends court did not properly weigh post-plan evidence. | Record shows the court considered and found progress unpersuasive. |
| Whether prerequisites to termination were properly satisfied before addressing grounds | G. challenges application of prerequisites (custody >1 year, reasonable reunification efforts, etc.). | Pearl River County maintains prerequisites were satisfied and proper for termination analysis. | Prerequisites satisfied; proper to address grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re K.D.G. II, 68 So. 3d 748 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (credible proof required for clear and convincing standard in TPRs)
- W.A.S. v. A.L.G., 949 So. 2d 31 (Miss. 2007) (one ground sufficient for termination; statutory standard)
- Chism v. Bright, 152 So. 3d 318 (Miss. 2014) (prerequisites for termination proceedings)
- Estate of Elmore v. Williams, 150 So. 3d 700 (Miss. 2014) (statutory framework for proceedings; timing of amendments)
- City of Starkville v. 4-Cty. Elec. Power Ass’n, 909 So. 2d 1094 (Miss. 2005) (statutory interpretation and procedural posture in public entity actions)