Sandy D. McCloud, Sr. v. Mississippi Department of Human Services Marion County, Mississippi
215 So. 3d 1007
Miss. Ct. App. Hist.2017Background
- Parents M.M. and S.M. had seven older children adjudicated neglected and in DHS custody; a newborn, N.M., born Sept. 29, 2014, was sheltered Oct. 1, 2014 and placed in DHS custody.
- DHS petitioned alleging N.M. was a “child in need of special care” (statutorily defined by mental/physical illness), but presented no evidence that N.M. had any such illness.
- Youth court adjudicated N.M. a child in need of special care and kept N.M. in DHS custody; parents did not contest at adjudication but later moved under M.R.C.P. 60(b)(4) to set aside as void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The parents’ Rule 60(b)(4) motion alleged the petition failed to plead facts bringing N.M. within youth-court jurisdiction (petition alleged only ‘‘special care,’’ not neglect, abuse, delinquency, etc.).
- The youth court denied the 60(b)(4) motion without findings; the Court of Appeals reversed, holding the petition did not invoke youth-court jurisdiction because “child in need of special care” alone is not a listed basis for jurisdiction.
- Court remanded and allowed DHS ten days to file a proper petition (e.g., alleging neglect) if justified; noted later proceedings indicated DHS might be able to plead neglect based on subsequent conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the youth court had subject-matter jurisdiction over newborn N.M. | Appellants: petition did not plead facts making N.M. a child within youth-court categories; adjudication void. | DHS: shelter/adjudication proper under "child in need of special care" and based on siblings’ neglect (anticipatory neglect). | Court: Petition insufficient—"child in need of special care" (mental/physical illness) is not by itself a statutory basis for youth-court jurisdiction; judgment reversed. |
| Whether a Rule 60(b)(4) motion to set aside a void judgment was timely | Appellants: motion was timely as Rule 60(b)(4) has no strict deadline for void judgments. | DHS/guardian: motion untimely (filed months after adjudication). | Court: Timeliness not fatal; void-judgment relief is not time-barred if judgment is void. |
| Whether youth court may rely on siblings’ adjudication to assume jurisdiction over a newborn (anticipatory/derivative neglect) | Appellants: no statutory pleading of neglect for N.M.; cannot rely solely on siblings’ status without proper petition. | DHS: anticipatory neglect doctrine supports intervention for newborn given closely timed neglect findings for siblings. | Court: Recognized anticipatory/derivative neglect is a viable theory and Mississippi precedent suggests it would be adopted, but DHS failed to plead neglect for N.M., so jurisdiction was not properly invoked here. |
| Whether DHS may refile adequate pleadings after reversal | Appellants: sought return of child based on void adjudication. | DHS: later events may justify neglect petition; requested to proceed. | Court: Reversed and remanded, allowing DHS ten days to file a proper petition if justified. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re E.G., 191 So. 3d 763 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (standard of review for youth-court adjudications)
- Ravenstein v. Ravenstein, 167 So. 3d 210 (Miss. 2014) (Rule 60(b)(4) relief for void judgments has no effective time limit)
- Overbey v. Murray, 569 So. 2d 303 (Miss. 1990) (judgment void if court lacked jurisdiction or violated due process)
- In re M.R.L., 488 So. 2d 788 (Miss. 1986) (youth court exceeded authority when petition charged different jurisdictional basis than court’s finding)
- E.S. v. State, 567 So. 2d 848 (Miss. 1990) (siblings of abused child may be adjudicated neglected/abused based on potential harm)
- In re Aniylah B., 61 N.E.3d 216 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016) (endorsing anticipatory neglect doctrine permitting jurisdiction over newborn based on prior neglect of siblings)