R.B. and A.C.P. v. Winston County Department of Child Protection Services;, 291 So.3d 1116

Tina (b. 2008) and Aaron (b. 2012) entered CPS custody March 9, 2014 after parents were homeless and children were living in a car; youth court later adjudicated the children neglected.
Rachel moved to Oklahoma in May 2014 and had no in‑person contact with the children for nearly three years; Alex was incarcerated from mid‑2014 until 2016 and had very limited contact while incarcerated and after release.
CPS developed reunification service plans; the youth court held a permanency hearing and in August 2015 changed both children’s permanency plans to adoption, finding CPS had made reasonable efforts over a reasonable period and the parents had failed to substantially comply.
DHS filed a TPR petition (filed Feb 2016; amended Aug 2016); guardian ad litem and CPS witnesses reported prolonged parental absence, inconsistent communication, and that the children were thriving in stable foster placements.
Chancellor terminated both parents’ rights (Oct 25, 2017), citing statutory grounds for TPR (failure to provide necessities; failure to exercise reasonable visitation/communication; substantial erosion of parent‑child relationship) and that termination was in the children’s best interests.
On appeal, parents challenged (1) whether CPS had used reasonable efforts over a reasonable period, and (2) sufficiency of clear‑and‑convincing evidence supporting TPR; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CPS used reasonable efforts over a reasonable period before TPR	Parents: CPS failed to use reasonable efforts; chancellor erred by deferring to youth court	DHS: Youth court had held permanency hearing and found CPS used reasonable efforts; TPR court must confirm that finding	Court: Chancellor correctly required youth‑court finding per §93‑15‑115(c); youth court had made that finding and it was not appealed
Whether clear and convincing evidence supported TPR (statutory grounds & best interest)	Parents: They substantially complied / made recent progress; evidence insufficient for statutory grounds or best interests	DHS: Evidence of prolonged absence, little support or contact, instability, and erosion of relationship justified TPR	Court: Clear and convincing evidence supported termination on grounds (d)–(f) and TPR was in the children’s best interests

Blakeney v. McRee, 188 So. 3d 1154 (Miss. 2016) (standard of review for chancery findings in TPR cases: manifest error/substantial credible evidence)
W.A.S. v. A.L.G., 949 So. 2d 31 (Miss. 2007) (requires clear and convincing evidence to support factual findings in TPR)
E.K. v. Miss. Dep’t of Child Prot. Servs., 249 So. 3d 377 (Miss. 2018) (legal questions, including statutory interpretation, reviewed de novo)
Barnes v. McGee, 178 So. 3d 801 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (parental rights are fundamental but may be terminated where prolonged absence, neglect, or failure to visit causes substantial erosion; one statutory ground suffices)