Jimmy Ray Chism, Jr. v. Abby Gale Morris Chism Bright
152 So. 3d 318
| Miss. | 2014Background
- Jimmy Ray Chism Jr. and Abby Gale Morris Chism Bright married in 2003; Johnny born 2004; divorce in 2008 with joint legal custody and Abby primary physical custody; Jim had regular visitation.
- July 2008 incident: Jim arrested for public intoxication while Johnny was with Jim’s parents; resulted in an emergency modification order requiring supervised visitation, DHS hair testing, and potential inpatient treatment.
- Jim complied slowly, beginning treatment in July 2009; visitation resumed sporadically with supervision; Abby sought termination of Jim’s parental rights after continued issues.
- Guardian ad Litem Jonathan Martin recommended limited visitation; Jim's attempts to increase visitation continued but were affected by relapses and legal troubles.
- Jim admitted to relapse and crimes at trial (2010–2011); Dr. Fleming testified to possible recovery with treatment; trial court terminated parental rights under §93-15-103(3)(e)(i) but this decision did not assess the §93-15-103(1) prerequisites.
- Supreme Court reverses the termination for lack of compliance with the prerequisites of §93-15-103(1) and remands for proper consideration of grounds and best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prerequisites of §93-15-103(1) were satisfied before termination. | Chism: prerequisites unmet; termination improper. | Bright: grounds met due to ongoing addiction and destabilizing behavior. | Reversed and remanded for proper analysis of §93-15-103(1). |
| Whether termination can be sustained under §93-15-103(3) without meeting §93-15-103(1). | Chism: cannot terminate without §93-15-103(1) prerequisites. | Bright: statutory grounds allow termination given instability. | Reversed and remanded; prerequisites must be addressed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. Supreme Court 1982) (fundamental liberty interests require clear and convincing evidence for termination)
- Gunter v. Gray, 876 So.2d 315 (Miss. 2004) (strict scrutiny; structures governing termination limited by statute)
- Leverock v. Hamby, 23 So.3d 424 (Miss. 2009) (three prerequisites for §93-15-103(1) leadership the grounds must be considered)
- W.A.S. v. A.L.G., 949 So.2d 31 (Miss. 2007) (review of termination findings requires clear and convincing evidence)