Jones v. Miss. Dep't of Child Prot. Serv.

391 So.3d 172

Felissa JONES and J.J., a Minor by and Through His Mother and Next Friend Felissa Jones

v.MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES

NO. 2022-SA-01234-SCT

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

06/13/2024

HINDS COUNTY CHANCERY COURT, HON. J. DEWAYNE THOMAS, JUDGE

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS: JEREMY DAVID EISLER, Biloxi

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, BY: DOUGLAS T. MIRACLE, Jackson

EN BANC.

MAXWELL, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:

¶1. Though Felissa Jones raises a multitude of appellate issues, all her claims can be summed up in one question—does Mississippi law require the Mississippi Department of Child Protection Services (MDCPS) to investigate a report that a child has suffered abuse at school by school staff? Based on the plain language of the relevant youth court statutes— namely, Mississippi Code Section 43-21-353 (Rev. 2023)—the clear answer is no. Reports of abuse in out-of-home settings do not fall under the youth court’s limited jurisdiction. So MDCPS’s policy not to treat reports of abuse at school as youth court matters but instead screen out the report to local law enforcement complies with and furthers legislative policy.

¶2. For this reason, the chancellor did not err by granting MDCPS a judgment on the pleadings in Felissa Jones’s injunctive and declaratory action aimed at MDCPS’s policy not to investigate allegations of abuse at schools. Thus we affirm.

Background Facts & Procedural History

¶3. Jones’s son is an elementary school student in the Lincoln County School District. In 2019, Jones reported to MDCPS that her son had suffered abuse and neglect by staff at his school. MDCPS responded that it does not investigate reports of abuse at school. In July 2020, Jones sued MDCPS. She sought declaratory and injunctive relief related to MDCPS’s intake policy that the agency does not investigate allegations of abuse in out-of-home settings such as schools.

¶4. After Jones filed suit, MDCPS amended its intake policy on screening reports of maltreatment in out-of-home settings.¹ So Jones amended her complaint to also challenge the updated policy. The crux of Jones’s argument was that Mississippi law—namely, Mississippi Code Section 43-21-353(8) (Rev. 2023)²—mandated that MDCPS investigate the report that her son had been abused and neglected at school. Jones alleged MDCPS, by refusing to investigate her report, deprived her son of the youth court’s jurisdiction. Her amended complaint sought declaratory relief that both the former policy and current policy violate the law. It also sought injunctive relief ordering MDCPS to change its intake policy and to investigate any child abuse complaints that were screened out due to MDCPS’s allegedly unlawful policies.

¶5. Jones moved for a judgment in her favor on the pleadings, which the chancellor denied. After this Court denied her petition for permission to file an interlocutory appeal, Jones requested that the chancellor reconsider the denial of her motion for a judgment on the pleadings. While that motion was pending, MDCPS moved for a judgment on the pleadings. The chancellor denied Jones’s motion for reconsideration, granted MDCPS’s motion, and dismissed Jones’s complaint.

¶6. The chancellor ruled that Jones’s request for declaratory relief related to MDCPS’s former intake policy was moot because the policy was no longer in effect. And the chancellor ruled that the current intake policy does not violate the relevant statutes. Instead, it conforms to Section 43-21-353(8)’s statutory mandate to refer allegations of child abuse in out-of-home settings to local law enforcement.

¶7. Jones appealed, challenging the denial of her motion for a judgment on the pleadings, the denial of her motion to reconsider, and the grant of MDCPS’s motion for a judgment on the pleadings.

Discussion

[1] ¶8. In her brief, Jones splits her argument into multiple issues. But her appeal really only raises one question—does MDCPS have a statutory duty to investigate abuse allegations in out-of-home settings such as schools and daycare? The answer hinges on statutory interpretation. And statutory interpretation is a question of law this Court reviews de novo, without giving deference to the agency’s interpretation. HWCC-Tunica, Inc. v. Miss. Dep’t of Revenue, 296 So. 3d 668, 673 (Miss. 2020) (citing King v. Miss. Mil. Dep’t, 245 So. 3d 404, 407-08 (Miss. 2018)). After de novo review, we agree with the chancellor’s interpretation of the relevant youth court statutes.

¶9. Youth court is a creation of statute. Its jurisdiction is limited to what the Legislature determines it to be. And based on the relevant youth court statutes, when it comes to concerns of protecting children from abuse and neglect, it is clear that the Legislature has reserved the youth court’s limited jurisdiction—and resources—for matters that arise out of children’s familial and home environments, not schools. Stated differently, while a school’s environment is extremely important to our children, who spend a significant amount of their time in the temporary care of teachers, school staff, and administrators, the youth court statutes do not equate a child’s school with a child’s home. And the statutes do no treat teachers as surrogate parents or custodians. Instead, the Legislature has made a clear delineation between reports of abuse and neglect by a parent, custodian, or other similarly situated adult—which fall under fhe youth court’s limited jurisdiction—and reports of abuse and neglect in out-of-home settings, such as schools—which do not.

[2] ¶10. Thus, MDCPS does not have a duty to investigate reports of abuse in out-of-home settings, such as schools, because children who are mistreated by school staff do not fall under the youth court’s limited jurisdiction.

I. Relevant Youth Court Statutes

¶11. Youth court jurisdiction is limited to "proceedings concerning a delinquent child, a child in need of supervision, a neglected child, an abused child[,] or a dependent child[.]" Miss. Code Ann. § 43-21-151(1) (Rev. 2023). And the youth court statutes carefully define each of these five categories of children. Miss. Code Ann. § 43-21-105(i), (k), (l), (m), (p) (Rev. 2023).

¶12. Section 43-21-353(1) mandates reporting to MDCPS when someone has reasonable cause to suspect a child is "a neglected child[ or] an abused child."³ But under the youth court statutes, neglected child and abused child have specific statutory meanings. A neglected child is a child "[w]hose parent, guardian or custodian or any person responsible for his care or support, neglects or refuses, when able so to do, to provide for him proper and necessary care or support, or education as required by law, or medical, surgical, or other care necessary for his well-being[.]" Miss. Code Ann. § 43-21-105(l) (Rev. 2023) (emphasis added). And an abused child is "a child whose parent, guardian or custodian or any person responsible for his care or support, whether legally obligated to do so or not, has caused or allowed to be caused, upon the child, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, commercial sexual exploitation, emotional abuse, mental injury, nonaccidental physical injury or other maltreatment."⁴ Miss. Code Ann. § 43-21-105(m) (emphasis added).

¶13. This means not every report MDCPS receives about neglect and abuse of a child is a report of a neglected child or abused child for purposes of youth court jurisdiction. Who the reported perpetrator is in relation to the child matters. And it is critical to determining if the report falls under the youth court’s limited jurisdiction. When MDCPS does receive a report of a neglected or abused child, MDCPS must make an immediate referral to the youth court intake unit. Miss. Code Ann. § 43-21-353(1). But "[i]f a report is made directly to [MDCPS] that a child has been abused or neglected … in an out-of-home setting, a referral shall be made immediately to the law enforcement agency in whose jurisdiction the abuse occurred …." Miss. Code Ann. § 43-21-353(8) (emphasis added).

¶14. Section 43-21-353(8) also requires MDCPS to "investigate the out-of-home setting report of abuse or neglect to determine whether the child who is the subject of the report, or other children in the same environment, comes within the jurisdiction of the youth court[.]"

II. Jones’s Claim for Injunctive Relief

[3] ¶15. Jones latches onto the provision that MDCPS "shall investigate the out-of-home setting report of abuse or neglect." Miss. Code Ann. § 43-21-353(8). Jones insists MDCPS had a statutory duty to refer her report of abuse of her son by school staff to the youth court. And by screening her report out, Jones claims MDCPS deprived her son and other similarly situated children of youth court jurisdiction.

¶16. But the plain language of Section 43-21-353(8) belies her argument. When placed in its context, the provision Jones relies on makes clear that MDCPS’s specific duty to investigate the out-of-home- setting report of abuse begins and ends with determining if the child falls under the jurisdiction of the youth court. Miss. Code Ann. § 43-21-353(8). "‘Out-of-home’ setting means the temporary supervision or care of children by the staff of licensed day care centers, the staff of public, private and state schools, the staff of juvenile detention facilities, the staff of unlicensed residential care facilities and group homes and the staff of, or individuals representing, churches, civic or social organizations." Miss. Code Ann. § 43-21-105(x) (Rev. 2023) (emphasis added). Again, the statute directs MDCPS to "investigate the out-of-home setting report of abuse or neglect to determine whether the child who is the subject of the report, or other children in the same environment, comes within the jurisdiction of the youth court[.]" Miss. Code Ann. § 43-21-353(8) (emphasis added). So Jones’s attempt to broaden this duty to investigate reports of abuse that do not fall under the youth court’s jurisdiction is not...