Sheyuna Vance v. Mississippi Department of Human Services
203 So. 3d 11
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Vance got custody of her son Perris in a 2008 Kentucky divorce; the father Harris paid court-ordered child support to Vance.
- In April 2009 Vance began receiving AFDC (Title IV-D) benefits; MDHS sent a "Notice of Redirection" and child-support payments were redirected to MDHS.
- Perris was removed from Vance’s custody in 2011 and placed successively with his grandmother, in foster care, then with an aunt, then back in foster care, and later returned to the grandmother; disbursements were placed on hold in April 2011.
- Perris reunified with Vance in May 2014; approximately $25,000 in child support remained on hold with MDHS.
- Vance sued in chancery court seeking the entire held sum; the chancellor apportioned the funds pro rata among the family members who had custody during the accrual period and ordered support accrued while Perris was in foster care returned to the father.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the pro rata distribution but reversed the return-to-father ruling, holding MDHS may reimburse foster-care costs and distribute any excess in the child’s best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Vance was entitled to the entire held child-support fund despite youth-court custody changes | Vance: original support order was never judicially modified; she remains the payee and thus entitled to all funds | State: Vance’s AFDC participation assigned her payee rights to MDHS by statute, allowing MDHS to control disbursement | Held: Participation in AFDC statutorily amended the payee designation; pro rata disbursement to custodial caregivers affirmed |
| Whether MDHS must return support collected while child was in foster care to the noncustodial parent | Vance: (implicit) funds belong to custodial parent on reunification | State: MDHS can use collected support to reimburse foster-care maintenance and use excess for child’s best interest | Held: MDHS entitled to reimbursement for foster-care payments; excess to be disbursed in child’s best interests; trial court erred returning funds to father |
| Whether a youth-court removal alters the payee under the original support order | Vance: youth-court removals should not change payee without judicial modification | State: statutory assignment via Title IV-D, not the youth-court action, controls here | Held: The youth-court removal did not effect the change; AFDC assignment (statute) did |
| Standard of review for factual vs. statutory questions | Vance: (implicit) chancellor’s distribution should stand | State: statutory interpretation reviewed de novo; chancellor’s factual allocations reviewed for clear error | Held: factual findings upheld; statutory interpretation applied de novo supporting partial reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Blount, 913 So. 2d 326 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (youth court removal does not terminate noncustodial parent’s support obligation to designated payee)
- Brown v. Mississippi Department of Human Services, 806 So. 2d 1004 (Miss. 2000) (MDHS may retain only amount necessary to reimburse government for welfare payments; custodial parent may recover any excess)
- Hughlett v. Romer-Sensky, 497 F.3d 557 (6th Cir. 2007) (Title IV-D distribution principles identify the family as ultimate beneficiary after permissible reimbursements)
- Finn v. State, 978 So. 2d 1270 (Miss. 2008) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)