Pritchett v. Pritchett ex rel. in the Interest of Pritchett
161 So. 3d 1106
Miss. Ct. App.2015Background
- James Pritchett pleaded guilty in 2010 to fondling a minor and was incarcerated; Amanda Pritchett received primary custody of their two children after their 2011 divorce.
- In April 2013 Amanda petitioned the chancery court to terminate James’s parental rights under Miss. Code Ann. § 93-15-103 and to allow surname changes; she also sought contempt relief over a contested Franklin Templeton account.
- A guardian ad litem (GAL) was appointed; the GAL reported minimal contact between James and the children and recommended termination.
- James, incarcerated in MDOC, filed three pro se letters claiming indigency, requesting appointment of counsel, and asking the court to arrange his transportation to the hearing; the chancery court did not appoint counsel and proceeded in his absence.
- The chancery court terminated James’s parental rights citing § 93-15-103 and ordered relief on the account and fees; James appealed pro se.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (James) | Defendant's Argument (Amanda) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the chancery court erred by failing to appoint counsel for an indigent, incarcerated parent | James argued he was indigent, requested counsel three times, and lacked ability to secure transportation; presence of counsel was necessary for due process | Amanda proceeded without arguing for appointment; decree entered following hearing | Court reversed and remanded for the chancery court to determine indigency and whether counsel must be appointed under Lassiter and to arrange participation/presence |
| Whether the court should have arranged transportation for James from MDOC to testify | James argued he could not arrange his own transport and needed the court’s assistance (e.g., writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum) | Amanda relied on proceeding in James’s absence and GAL report | Court found failure to address transportation requests problematic and remanded so court can make appropriate arrangements |
| Whether § 93-15-103 authorized termination where children remained with the mother and were not removed from the home | James argued statute inapplicable; termination prerequisites not met | Amanda argued grounds in § 93-15-103(3) supported termination (e.g., prolonged imprisonment, erosion of relationship) | Court held § 93-15-103(1) prerequisites were not shown (children were not removed, relatives not shown unavailable, adoption not shown) and ruled statute was misapplied; reversal required |
| Whether other procedural defects (GAL notifications, evidence of account liquidation, jury trial rights) warranted review | James raised multiple procedural objections (GAL process, lack of evidence, contempt ruling) | Amanda defended chancery court findings and GAL report | Court declined to address remaining issues on appeal because remand likely to render them moot; focus limited to counsel/transport and statutory misapplication |
Key Cases Cited
- Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of Durham Cnty., 452 U.S. 18 (1981) (due-process framework for appointing counsel in parental-termination proceedings; case-by-case state determination)
- Chism v. Bright, 152 So.3d 318 (Miss. 2014) (statutory prerequisites of § 93-15-103(1) must be satisfied before invoking termination grounds)
- K.D.G.L.B.P. v. Hinds Cnty. Dep’t of Human Servs., 771 So.2d 907 (Miss. 2000) (application of Lassiter; counsel not mandatory where parent had notice, opportunity, and outcome would be unchanged)
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972) (parental rights are a fundamental liberty interest warranting protection)