Hattie T. v. Matthew R.

387 So.3d 90

HATTIE T., Appellant

v.MATTHEW R. and Melissa R., Appellees

NO. 2022-CP-00926-COA

Court of Appeals of Mississippi.

06/04/2024

JONES COUNTY CHANCERY COURT, SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT, HON. BILLIE J. GRAHAM, JUDGE

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: HATTIE T. (PRO SE)

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES: BARRON CRUZ GRAY

BEFORE CARLTON, P.J., GREENLEE AND WESTBROOKS, JJ.

GREENLEE, J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. Hattie T. (Hattie) appeals from the J ones County Chancery Court’s final judgment terminating her parental rights. On appeal, she claims that the chancery court lacked jurisdiction and that the chancellor’s decision to terminate her parental rights was not supported by the evidence. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

I. Jasper County Youth Court Proceedings

¶2. In February 2019, the Jasper County Youth Court removed JT and RJ¹ from the custody of their biological mother (Hattie) upon allegations of abuse and neglect. In March 2019, as part of its adjudication, the youth court adopted a permanency plan of reunification. The Mississippi Department of Child Protection Services (CPS) established a "Family Service Plan," which set forth the requirements for Hattie to achieve reunification with the children. The requirements included random alcohol/drug screening, alcohol/drug education, a parenting class, visitation with the children, in-home visits, an employment search, and a mental-health assessment.

¶3. Approximately one year later, in February 2020, the youth court entered an amended permanency order for each child. The youth court indicated that reunification was no longer appropriate or in the best interests of the children and amended the permanency plan to address durable legal custody or legal guardianship. It does not appear that a petition for termination of parental rights (TPR) was filed. However, the amended permanency order noted that "the Mississippi Department of Child Protection Services … documented compelling and extraordinary reasons why termination of parental rights would not be in the best interest of [the children]." Ultimately, the youth court awarded legal and physical custody to the children’s foster parents—Matthew R. and Melissa R.—and required CPS to monitor the placement for thirty days.

II. Jones County Chancery Court Proceedings

¶4. After the children had relocated to Jones County in August 2020, Matthew and Melissa filed a TPR petition in the Jones County Chancery Court against Hattie, Robert P., and any unknown or putative father. The TPR petition also named CPS as a party. Matthew and Melissa claimed that Hattie had abandoned and/or deserted JT and RJ and that her habitual substance abuse "demonstrate[d] a substantial risk of harm that [was] detrimental to the children’s safety and welfare[.]"

¶5. In January 2021, the Jasper County Youth Court relinquished its jurisdiction in light of the TPR petition that had been filed in the chancery court. Additionally, the Mississippi Department of Human Services and the CPS representative were dismissed from the chancery court proceedings, and a guardian ad litem (GAL) was appointed.

III. Motion for Lack of Jurisdiction

¶6. In response to the TPR petition, the remaining defendants filed an answer and a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction in December 2021, arguing that the youth court had continuing jurisdiction over the matter. The defendants also argued that the TPR issue had been adjudicated by the youth court and, therefore, could not be relitigated.

¶7. After a hearing, the chancellor denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The chancellor noted that the youth court had "clearly expressed its intent to relinquish jurisdiction" and that the defendants had not objected.² The chancellor further noted that the "[d]efendants failed to show that a claim for termination of … parental rights was ever pursued in [youth court] and/or that such claim was adjudicated on the merits," and therefore the doctrine of res judicata was inapplicable. Thereafter, the case proceeded to trial in April 2022.

IV. Trial

¶8. At trial, evidence was presented that JT and RJ lived with three different foster families after they were removed from Hattie’s custody in February 2019. Hattie alleged that the first foster parent had neglected JT and RJ, suggesting that some of their issues stemmed from the foster parent; however, the first foster parent did not testify at trial.

¶9. The second set of foster parents— Kody J. and Tayler J.—testified that they fostered JT and RJ from April 2019 until December 2019. Kody and Tayler noticed that JT and RJ had issues with verbalization, socialization, affection, and eye contact, so they provided speech therapy for both children and behavioral therapy for one of the children. The parents also noticed that JT and RJ lacked structure and discipline. For example, they would eat as much food as possible, and it took them a month to understand that they would be fed regularly. Additionally, one of the children roamed the house at night and was found once climbing inside the refrigerator. Kody and Tayler asked Hattie during a visitation about the children’s usual sleep schedule, and Hattie said, "Wherever [RJ] landed [was] where he went to sleep."

¶10. During visitations, Hattie was an "open boo[k]" with Kody and Tayler and admitted that JT and RJ had been placed into foster care after she was pulled over for drinking and driving with them in the vehicle. She further disclosed that alcohol was her "main problem" and that she used drugs. However, Hattie also told Kody and Tayler that her children had been stolen from her and that she had considered running away with them. Finally, Kody and Tayler testified that Hattie favored JT and did not seem to have a connection with RJ.

¶11. The third set of foster parents who had custody of JT and RJ at the time of trial—Matthew and Melissa—were notified by CPS in December 2019 that Kody and Tayler could no longer foster the children.³ Matthew and Melissa—who had previously babysat for Kody and Tayler—agreed to foster JT and RJ. Matthew and Melissa resided in Jones County, Mississippi.

¶12. Like Kody and Tayler, Matthew and Melissa were present during at least one of Hattie’s visitations with JT and RJ. During the visitation, Hattie asked for Matthew’s and Melissa’s personal information, said that her children had been stolen from her, and joked about kidnapping them. Hattie somehow found out where Matthew worked and sent a letter to his place of employment. She also posted his name and place of employment on social media "for all the world to see … that [Matthew and Melissa had] stolen her [children] from her." Additionally, Hattie found out where Matthew and Melissa lived, went to their house after dark, and demanded to see JT and RJ. At some point, Matthew and Melissa obtained a nocontact order; however, despite the order, Hattie mailed a letter to Matthew and Melissa that was disguised as a birthday card to RJ. In the letter, she stated that she wanted her children back.

¶13. Hattie, who was forty-four years old at the time of trial, had been JT’s and RJ’s sole caregiver until they were placed in foster care. After hearing the testimony that was presented by Kody and Tayler as well as Matthew and Melissa, Hattie testified that she had previously cooked healthy meals for the children and that the children were previously on a schedule and in bed by 8:00 p.m. Although Hattie acknowledged that her bond with JT was stronger, she testified that she had a bond with RJ as well.

¶14. According to Hattie, she had been diagnosed with depression, and she believed that she also suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. Hattie testified that she had become dependent on alcohol after JT’s biological father was murdered during a drug dispute in 2016. She also described an incident in 2018 when she was raped at gunpoint while one of the children was asleep next to her. According to Hattie, she has had five DUIs total. She indicated that she had been arrested for DUI while RJ and/or JT were in the vehicle on three occasions, and two of the three arrests occurred within one month of each other. Hattie admitted that she continued to drink even after JT and RJ were placed in foster care, and she admitted to being intoxicated during at least one visitation. Hattie testified that at one point, she drank a liter of alcohol per day and indicated that she also used methamphetamine.⁴

¶15. Although Hattie began attending Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings after JT and RJ were placed in foster care, she did not complete inpatient alcohol/drug treatment until after the youth court proceedings concluded. Hattie believed that she was stable at the time of trial, but she admitted to having at least one "slip-up," or relapse, since treatment.

¶16. Robert, RJ’s biological father, disputed the claim that he had abandoned RJ. However, he acknowledged that he had only seen RJ once since 2018 and that he had not attempted to obtain custody of him. Robert explained that he believed that Hattie should have custody of the children, and he testified that he did not want to split up the children by requesting custody of RJ.

¶17. In addition to JT and RJ, Hattie had two older children. Hattie’s nineteen-year-old son, Zane, testified that he had previously stopped living with Hattie because she was physically and verbally abusive. But he believed that Hattie had changed, and they were living together at the time of trial. Likewise, Hattie’s sister testified that Hattie had made changes, and Robert’s mother testified that she had observed Hattie caring for JT previously.

¶18. Edgar Riley, who had attended AA meetings with Hattie, believed that Hattie had been sober for more than a year, but he acknowledged that Hattie had a few "short slip[-ups]." Culista Brooks, Hattie’s AA sponsor, testified that she was not aware of Hattie having any slip-ups in the previous nine months.

¶19. Finally, the GAL testified...