S.F. v. Lamar County Department of Child Protection Services by Marcus Davenport, L.J.F. and Z.E.F., Minors, by and Through Their Next Friend, Marcus Davenport, 373 So.3d 985

Background

Three sisters (Z.F., L.F., K.F.) alleged sexual abuse by their adoptive stepfather, J.F.; DNA confirmed J.F. was the father of Z.F.’s child and children were removed from the home.
Z.F. was adjudicated abused and L.F. neglected; children were placed with maternal grandparents and later in foster/therapeutic placements.
CPS originally opened a service plan for reunification with mother S.F., but alleged S.F. continued a relationship with J.F., violated a no-contact order, and failed to protect the children.
The youth court found S.F. lacked protective capacity, changed permanency to adoption, and terminated parental rights under Mississippi Code §§ 93-15-115, -119, and -121.
The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed, applying the manifest-error/clear-and-convincing standard; a dissent argued the evidence was sparse, the GAL’s investigation was inadequate, jurisdiction over an 18‑year‑old was dubious, and best‑interest findings were absent.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether clear and convincing evidence supported termination of S.F.’s parental rights	S.F.: record lacks clear and convincing proof of abandonment/unfitness or irreparable erosion; she provided support, visited, sought therapy	State/CPS: S.F.’s continued relationship with J.F., refusal to believe/ protect, and conduct evinced abandonment and lack of protective capacity	Majority: Affirmed termination—youth court’s factual findings (abandonment/lack of protective capacity; erosion/antipathy) supported by clear and convincing evidence; deferential manifest‑error review
Whether youth court had jurisdiction to terminate rights as to Z.F., who was 18 at hearing	S.F./Z.F.: termination statute defines child as <18; once 18, youth court lacks jurisdiction over termination	State: jurisdiction attached when petition filed while child <18 and statutes allow youth‑court jurisdiction to continue for foster‑care subjects until older ages	Majority: Jurisdiction proper—court held jurisdiction attached at filing and continued; issue without merit
Admissibility/sufficiency of GAL and social‑worker evidence (hearsay and investigation adequacy)	Plaintiffs: GAL relied on uncorroborated hearsay, did not interview custodians or collect school/medical records; testimony insufficient for clear and convincing proof	State: relied on GAL and social‑worker testimony and case file materials to show protective incapacity and erosion of relationship	Majority: credited GAL/social‑worker evidence as part of the record; dissent: criticized reliance on hearsay and incomplete GAL investigation
Whether termination was in the children’s best interests / permanency outcome	Plaintiffs: no evidence adoption or realistic permanency was likely; court made no express best‑interest findings; termination harms children (loss of benefits, stability)	State: termination required to obtain a permanent, stable plan and protect children	Majority: Held termination appropriate to permit permanent/stable planning; dissent: held court failed to make/find best‑interest factual findings and reversed approach

Key Cases Cited

Ethredge v. Yawn, 605 So. 2d 761 (Miss. 1992) (standard for clear and convincing evidence and review)
In re V.M.S., 938 So. 2d 829 (Miss. 2006) (parental‑rights termination and best‑interest analysis)
S.N.C. v. J.R.D., 755 So. 2d 1077 (Miss. 2000) (definition/test for abandonment)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (due process requires clear and convincing evidence to terminate parental rights)
May v. Harrison Cnty. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 883 So. 2d 74 (Miss. 2004) (upholding termination where parent allied with perpetrator and failed to comply with plan)
S.R.B.R. v. Harrison Cnty. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 798 So. 2d 437 (Miss. 2001) (parental alliance with perpetrator justified termination)
Ballard v. Ballard, 255 So. 3d 126 (Miss. 2017) (limitations on relying on untested hearsay as substantive evidence)
Vance v. Lincoln Cnty. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 582 So. 2d 414 (Miss. 1991) (manifest error/substantial credible evidence standard of review)