134 So. 3d 369
Miss. Ct. App.2014Background
- Robert and Annie Alexander (great-grandparents) petitioned the Chancery Court for visitation with their great-grandchildren under Miss. Code Ann. § 93-16-3 (Grandparents’ Visitation Act).
- Julia “Beth” Lott, the children’s mother, moved to dismiss, arguing great-grandparents lack standing under § 93-16-3.
- The chancellor denied the motion, found the Alexanders had established a viable relationship, that Lott unreasonably denied visitation, and that visitation was in the children’s best interests, and awarded visitation.
- On appeal, the sole dispositive question was statutory: whether “grandparent” in § 93-16-3 includes great-grandparents.
- The Court reviewed statutory text and precedent, emphasizing that the term “grandparent” is plain and ordinarily means “parent of one’s mother or father,” and that courts may not add words to a statute.
- The Court reversed, holding that great-grandparents are not grandparents under § 93-16-3 and therefore lack standing to seek visitation under that statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether great-grandparents have standing under Miss. Code § 93-16-3 to seek visitation | Alexanders: they are “grandparents” within the statute and therefore may petition for visitation | Lott: statute’s plain language limits petitioners to grandparents (parent of a child’s parent), excluding great-grandparents | Court: Reversed — § 93-16-3 does not include great-grandparents; Alexanders lack statutory standing |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parents have a fundamental right to make decisions concerning care, custody, and control of their children)
- Stacy v. Ross, 798 So.2d 1275 (Miss. 2011) (Mississippi statute is narrower than Washington’s and permits only grandparents to seek visitation under defined circumstances)
- Smith v. Wilson, 90 So.3d 51 (Miss. 2012) (Mississippi’s grandparent-visitation statute is narrow and does not permit any person to seek visitation)
- Martin v. Coop, 693 So.2d 912 (Miss. 1997) (factors limiting court orders to avoid interfering with parental rights)
- T.T.W. v. C.C., 839 So.2d 501 (Miss. 2003) (deference to chancellor’s factual findings; statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Wallace v. Town of Raleigh, 815 So.2d 1208 (Miss. 2002) (courts must not add to or subtract from plain statutory language)
- Cole v. Thomas, 735 S.W.2d 333 (Ky. Ct. App. 1987) (refusing to extend grandparent-visitation statute to great-grandparents where statute’s language was plain)