natural parent presumption | The Better Chancery Practice Blog

THE BENEFIT OF A WHOLESOME AND STABLE ENVIRONMENT

November 28, 2012 § Leave a comment

MCA 93-5-24(1)(e)(i) provides that, if the court finds both parents have abandoned or deserted a child, it may award physical and legal custody to ” … [t]he person in whose home the child has been living in a whoesome and stable environment.” And the case of Lucas v. Hendrix, 92 So.3d 699, 705-6 (Miss. App. 2012) says that once the chancellor has found that both parents have deserted the child, custody may be awarded per the statute without first addressing the Albright factors.

Those little gems are in ¶ 17 of the decision in Hamilton v. Houston, decided by the COA November 6, 2012.

In that case, the chancellor found that both of the natural parents had deserted the child. Once he made that finding, the chancellor did go through an Albright analysis, the result of which was to award custody of a minor child to the paternal grandparents over objection of the mother. The COA upheld the chancellor’s decision, and several points raised in Judge Maxwell’s opinion are ones you should file away for future use:

Desertion involves forsaking a person to whom one is legally obligated, or forsaking or avoiding one’s duty to that person. In re Leverock & Hamby, 23 So.3d 424, 429-30 (Miss. 2009).
Abandonment is relinquishment of a right or claim (¶ 17).
A finding of either abandonment or desertion by clear and convincing evidence is enough to rebut the natural parent presumption. In re Smith, 97 So.3d 424, 429-30 (Miss. 2012).
In this case, although both parents paid some support for the child, they both admitted that the money they paid was not sufficient to support him.
An unusual feature of this case was that the grandparents, who were awarded custody, did not file their own pleadings, but merely joined in their son’s (father of the minor child) petition for custody. The COA held that prayer in the son’s petition that he be awarded custody was adequate to empower the judge to adjudicate the issue in any way that was in the best interest of the child.

The fact pattern in this case should be unhappily familiar to any lawyer who has done much family law in the past several years. It seems that grandparents are more frequently becoming surrogate parents, and chancellors are more often called upon in these cases to be arbiters of the child’s best interest.

It appears to me that these cases are trending toward giving more weight to the quality of the parental relationship and less to the quantity. As in this decision, a parent who, for instance, provides some financial support but forsakes the parental duties of emotional support, presence, attention, and other parenting responsibilities, is at risk for a finding of desertion.

ADOPTION IS FOREVER

September 27, 2012 § Leave a comment

Most attorneys who have been in practice any appreciable length of time have been confronted with this scenario: maternal grandma and grandpa want to adopt junior because momma and daddy are only 19 years old, prefer meth and weekend partying to raising the tad and are willing to “sign the papers,” and everyone agrees it would be best for junior, all things considered.

That’s pretty much what happened in the case of D.M. v. D.R., 62 So.3d 920 (Miss. 2011). The young parents relinquished their parental rights, and the maternal grandparents adopted the child by decree entered December 25, 2005. Unfortunately, the adoptive father (maternal grandfather) died four months to the day after the adoption, and the adoptive mother (maternal grandmother) died eight months to the day after the adoption. The adoptive mother had named her son as testamentary guardian of the child, but he renounced the appointment.

The court appointed a guardian ad litem, who recommended that the child be placed in the custody of the paternal grandparents. The natural mother attempted through various pleadings and proceedings to get custody of the child, but the chancellor ruled that she had abandoned the child by virtue of her consent to the adoption, and that she no longer was entitled to the natural parent presumption.

In upholding the chancellor’s ruling, the court quoted from its decision in Griffith v. Pell, 881 So.2d 184, 187-188 (Miss. 2004):

A parent has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in the “companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children.” Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972). However, parental status that rises to the level of a constitutionally protected liberty interest does not rest solely on biological factors, but rather, is dependent upon an actual relationship with the child where the parent assumes responsibility for the child’s emotional and financial needs. As Justice Stewart observed in Caban v. Mohammed, 441 U.S. 380, 99 S.Ct. 1760, 60 L.Ed.2d 297 (1979) [Stewart, J., dissenting]: “Parental rights do not spring full-blown from the biological connection between parent and child. They require relationships more enduring.”

The court went on to hold that the mother had voluntarily relinquished her parental rightt when she consented to the adoption, and that act surrendered the natural parent presumption. Grant v. Martin, 744 So.2d 817, 820 (Miss.App. 1999). The court rejected the mother’s argument that she was entitled to reinstatement of the natural parent presumption on death of the adoptive parents. In conclusion, the court stated:

An adoption, once entered, acts as an irrevocable surrender of all rights, obligations and privileges of the natural parent with and to the child. This surrender is not invalidated upon the deaths of the adoptive parents, and the natural parent is not entitled to resume the parent-child relationship, including the right to assert the natural parent presumption, upon the occurrence of that event.

You would do well to explain to all the parties at the table, including the natural parents, what they are giving up and what they are getting in such an arrangement. If I were doing it, I would get the natural parents to sign a paper for my file indicating that they understand they are giving up all rights, including the natural parent presumption and the right to regain custody in the future.

BEST INTEREST IN A PARENT – NON-PARENT CUSTODY DISPUTE

July 23, 2012 § Leave a comment

Is it necessary for the chancellor to analyze the proof in light of the Albright factors in a case where the grandparents are seeking to take custody from the natural father, the sole surviving parent, based on a finding of unfitness?

That Albright analysis question was an issue before the COA in the case of Lucas v. Hendrix, decided by the COA July 17, 2012. At trial, the chancellor had found that the father, Adam Lucas, was unfit, and awarded custody of the two minors, Tyler and Cody, to the maternal grandarents, Jeannie and John Hendrix, without any Albright analysis. Here is how Judge Roberts’ opinion addressed it, beginning at ¶16:

In his first issue, Lucas asserts that the chancellor used an incorrect legal standard by failing to apply an Albright analysis before granting the Hendrixes custody of Tyler and Cody …

¶17. In Albright v. Albright, 437 So. 2d 1003, 1005 (Miss. 1983), the Mississippi Supreme Court outlined multiple factors to be considered when determining which natural parent should receive custody of the child, with the polestar consideration being the best interest of the child. The supreme court and this Court have repeatedly stated that a different analysis must be applied when adjudicating custody between a natural parent and a third party, such as in this case. In custody cases involving a natural parent and a third party, a presumption exists that the natural parent is the best custodian for his child. McKee v. Flynt, 630 So. 2d 44, 47 (Miss. 1993). However, this natural-parent presumption may be overcome by clear and convincing evidence “that the parent has (1) abandoned the child[;] or (2) the conduct of the parent is so immoral as to be detrimental to the child[;] or (3) the parent is unfit mentally or otherwise to have the custody of his or her child.” Id. (quoting White v. Thompson, 569 So. 2d 1181, 1183-84 (Miss. 1990)); see also McCraw v. Buchanan, 10 So.3d 979, 984 (¶15) (Miss. Ct. App. 2009). Additionally, pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated section 93-5-24(1)(e) (Rev. 2004):

Upon a finding by the [chancery] court that both parents of the child have abandoned or deserted such child or that both such parents are mentally, morally or otherwise unfit to rear and train the child[,] the [chancery] court may award physical and legal custody to:

(i) The person in whose home the child has been living in a wholesome and stable environment; or

(ii) . . . any other person deemed by the [chancery] court to be suitable and able to provide adequate and proper care and guidance for the child.

In the current case, the chancellor relied on this statute because Moore, the boys’ natural mother, was deceased; therefore, Lucas was the sole remaining natural parent. If a chancellor finds the remaining natural parent to be unfit, as she did in this case, then the statute gives the chancellor the authority to grant custody to a third party.

¶18. We do not read Mississippi Code Annotated section 93-5-24 or the majority of prior case law to require an Albright analysis if the chancellor finds the sole, natural parent has abandoned or deserted the child or is unfit to raise the child …

The decision went on to distinguish this case from In re Dissolution of the Marriage of Leverock and Hamby, 23 So.3d 424 (Miss. 2009). The primary point of departure between the two cases was that the chancellor made a finding of unfitness in the Lucas case, but there was no such finding in Leverock.

The important feature of the Lucas case is that no Albright analysis is necessary in a contest netween a natural parent and third parties once the chancellor has found unfitness. That finding alone is sufficient to trigger the change and opens the door to either class of custodians set out in the statute, without a best-interest Albright analysis.

Adam argued also that the chancellor erred by not expressly finding by clear and convincing evidence that he was unfit. Without saying it in so many words, however, the COA held the chancellor’s findings to be so detailed and supported by proof that they were tantamount to a finding by clear and convincing evidence, and so brushed aside this contention.

So does this mean you should not bother with proof of the Albright factors when you try a case of this type? I guess, strictly speaking, the answer would be in the affirmative. But why take the chance? Even if the chancellor does not use that evidence, you have it in the record if you need it.

4 WAYS TO LOSE THE NATURAL PARENT PRESUMPTION

November 2, 2011 § 3 Comments

It’s an axiom of Mississippi law that the natural parents, if fit, are presumed to have the first right against everyone else in the world to have custody of their children. K.D.F. v. J.L.H., 933 So.2d 971, 980 (Miss. 2006). This means that, if the natural parent is challenged for custody by a non-parent, there must be a showing of unfitness that will trigger an Albright analysis to determine the best interest of the children.

That presumption, however, can be lost. Here are the 4 ways:

Voluntary Court Order. If the parent voluntarily relinquishes custody and there is a court order to that effect, the presumption is lost, and the party to whom custody is relinquished gets custody until there can be shown to be a material change in that person’s household that is having an adverse effect on the children, and it is in the best interest of the children to change custody. Grant v. Martin, 757 So.2d 264 (Miss. 2000). In Grant, the MSSC held that the natural mother who had agreed by court order giving her parents custody had given up the natural parent presumption, with the effect that she had to prove material change-adverse effect-best interest to regain custody. Under Grant, it is immaterial whether the natural parent is unfit or has abandoned or deserted the children; the operative fact is the agreement memorialized by a court order. Note that the court has declined to extend Grant to include temporary orders. Vaughn v. Davis, 36 So.3d 1261, 1266 (Miss. 2010).
Abandonment. A parent who is shown by “clear proof” to have abandoned the children has lost the presumption. McKee v. Flynt, 630 So.2d 44, 47 (Miss. 1993). Abandonment is ” … any conduct on the part of the parent which evinces a settled purpose to forego all duties and relinquish all parental claims to the child …” In re Leverock and Hamby, 23 So.3d 424, 429 (Miss. 2009), citing Ainsworth v. Natural Father, 414 So.2d 417, 419-20 (Miss. 1982), which defined abandonment as including both active relinquishment and avoidance of duty.
Desertion. Inaction or avoidance of duty toward the children. Requires clear and convincing evidence. In Leverock, at 33, the Court found that a father had deserted his son by completely avoiding both his moral and legal duties and obligations as a father for more than two years, during which time he had showed a complete disregard for the welfare of his son. The court said that the father had chosen “ ‘to take an extended holiday from the responsibilities of parenthood’ and we find that he should not now be able to claim the benefit of his status as a natural parent….” Once the finding of desertion is made based on clear and convincing evidence, the court must embark on an Albright analysis.
Adjudication of Unfitness. When the court awards custody to a third party based on the natural parent’s unfitness, the presumption no longer applies, and the material change-adverse effect-best interest standard applies. Adams v. Johnson, 33 So.3d 551, 555 (Miss. App. 2010).

ANOTHER UNSUCCESSFUL ASSAULT ON THE NATURAL PARENT PRESUMPTION

June 29, 2011 § 1 Comment

It is axiomatic that as between a natural parent and a third party, it is presumed that the best interest of the child will be preserved by being in the custody of the natural parent. Sellers v. Sellers, 638 So.2d 481, 486 (Miss. 1994). This natural parent presumption over third-party custody has been the subject of prior posts here and here.

In Vaughn v. Davis, 36 So.3d 1261 (Miss. 2010), the supreme court reversed a chancellor’s ruling that a temporary agreement to change custody was enough to overcome the presumption. In Wells v. Smith, decided May 31, 2011, by the COA, the appellate court rejected in loco parentis as a basis to overcome the presumption.

In Brown v. Hargrave, decided June 28, 2011, the COA rejected yet another assault on the presumption, this time based on the judge’s finding that the totality of the circumstances and the plaintiff’s long-term care of the child. Relying again on Vaughn v. Davis, the found that the trial judge applied an incorrect legal standard, and sent the case back to the chancellor for a rehearing to determine whether some other basis exists to overcome the presumption.

I’m going to take up for the chancellor in this one so as to make an important point. Chancellors are sometimes (too often I might add) confronted with a situation in which it is obvious that one party has no business with custody of the child, and that the child would be far better off with the other party. The problem is that the case is sloppily tried, points are not made in the record, evidence is not introduced, and the chancellor is left with having to do what he or she fervently believes to be in the best interest of the child without an adequate supporting record. The usual result is a remand, or, in some cases a rendered reversal.

If you don’t want to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, put on as strong a case of unfitness as you can muster. Put on proof of circumstances that are strong enough to rise to the level of abandonment. Make as strong a case as you can. If you leave the judge without much to hang his decision on, it may end up that your client is the unhappy one.