KMK v. SLM ex rel. JH, 1999-IA-01332-SCT.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi |
| Citation | 775 So.2d 115 |
| Docket Number | No. 1999-IA-01332-SCT.,1999-IA-01332-SCT. |
| Parties | K.M.K. v. S.L.M., by and through her Next Friends, J.H. and D.H. |
| Decision Date | 29 December 2000 |
775 So.2d 115
K.M.K.v.
S.L.M., by and through her Next Friends, J.H. and D.H
No. 1999-IA-01332-SCT.
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
December 29, 2000.
Lee B. Agnew, Jr., Kate S. Eidt, Jackson, Attorneys for Appellees.
EN BANC.
WALLER, Justice, for the Court:
¶ 1. This termination of parental rights case is before us on interlocutory appeal. S.L.M., by and through her foster parents, J.H. and D.H., filed this action in the Chancery Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County for termination of the parental rights of her natural mother, K.M.K. K.M.K. subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the action, alleging that jurisdiction was improper in the Chancery Court as the County Court of Hinds County, sitting as the Youth Court, had already taken jurisdiction over the child. This appeal arises from the denial of that motion.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
¶ 2. S.L.M., who was born on January 4, 1995, is the natural minor child of K.M.K. On October 31, 1997, S.L.M., along with her three siblings, was removed from the home of K.M.K. following findings of abuse and neglect of the four minor children. None of the children have been returned to the care of K.M.K. The County Court of Hinds County, sitting as the Youth Court, ordered that S.L.M. be placed into the home of her current foster parents, J.H. and D.H., in December of 1997, and further provided for visitation of S.L.M. by K.M.K.
¶ 3. In July of 1998, J.H. and D.H., acting as next friends of S.L.M., filed in the Chancery Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County a petition for termination of parental rights of K.M.K. and the putative father of S.L.M. The petition alleged that K.M.K. had been indicted for child abuse of S.L.M. and S.L.M.'s natural brother under Miss.Code Ann. § 97-5-39(2) (1994). The petition further averred that there had been a substantial erosion of the relationship between K.M.K. and S.L.M., and that K.M.K. was unable to give care and custody to S.L.M. due to drug addiction and mental illness and/or deficiencies. J.H. and D.H., acting on behalf of S.L.M., then filed an emergency motion in the chancery court seeking immediate
¶ 4. On September 29, 1998, K.M.K. filed a motion to dismiss the petition and the emergency motion, alleging that the chancery court lacked jurisdiction over her and the subject matter of the suit. Specifically, K.M.K. alleged that the youth court had taken jurisdiction of the matter and had already entered an order granting specific visitation rights to K.M.K. Further, the motion alleged that it was only after the youth court refused to terminate visitation that K.M.K. was indicted on charges of child abuse. After yet another denial to terminate visitation by the youth court, J.H. and D.H., on behalf of S.L.M., filed the instant chancery court action. K.M.K. argued that the chancery court would violate principles of collateral estoppel and res judicata should it choose to exercise jurisdiction over the suit.
¶ 5. By order dated July 28, 1999, the chancellor denied the motion to dismiss, but granted certification for interlocutory appeal, finding that the question of jurisdiction in this case, including the issues of res judicata and collateral estoppel, should be addressed by this Court under M.R.A.P. 5(a), which allows for interlocutory appeal to resolve matters that would materially advance termination of litigation and avoid exceptional expense to the parties, to protect a party from substantial and irreparable injury, and to resolve an issue of general importance to the administration of justice. This Court granted permission to file the interlocutory appeal.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶ 6. Jurisdiction is a question of law. Entergy Miss., Inc. v. Burdette Gin Co., 726 So.2d 1202, 1204-05 (Miss.1998). This Court reviews questions of law de novo. See Saliba v. Saliba, 753 So.2d 1095, 1098 (Miss.2000); Peters v. Peters, 744 So.2d 803, 804 (Miss.Ct.App.1999).
DISCUSSION
¶ 7. K.M.K. alleges that the chancery court does not have jurisdiction over this matter because the youth court has exclusive original jurisdiction. Miss.Code Ann. § 43-21-151(1) (Supp.1999) provides that:
The youth court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction in all proceedings concerning a delinquent child, a child in need of supervision, a neglected child, and abused child or a dependent child except in the following circumstances... (c) When a charge of abuse of a child first arises in the course of a custody action between the parents of the child already pending in the chancery court....
(emphasis added). K.M.K. argues that a petition for termination of parental rights is essentially the same relief that was denied when the youth court refused to terminate visitation rights. Therefore, K.M.K. argues that if the chancery court is allowed to exercise jurisdiction over the termination of parental rights, one court would be able to order relief in conflict with another court's order on the same issue, violating principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel.
¶ 8. S.L.M. argues that custody and visitation as decided by the youth court is a separate and distinct issue from termination of parental rights, and the chancery court is authorized to exercise jurisdiction over termination of parental rights cases. See Miss.Code Ann. § 93-15-105 (Supp. 1999). S.L.M. relies on this Court's decisions in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Uniform Rules of Youth Court Practice, No. 89-R-99033-SCT (Miss. 12/11/2008), 89-R-99033-SCT.
...on jurisdictional matters are unaffected by these rules. See, e.g., Helmert v. Biffany, 842 So. 2d 1287 (Miss. 2003); K.M.K. v. S.L.M., 775 So. 2d 115 (Miss. 2000); Thomas v. Byars, 947 So. 2d 375 (Miss. Ct. App. Rule 3(c). For procedures pertaining to section 43-21-103 of the Mississippi C......
-
In re Unif. Rules of Youth Court Practice
...on jurisdictional matters are unaffected by these rules. See, e.g., Helmert v. Biffany, 842 So. 2d 1287 (Miss. 2003); K.M.K. v. S.L.M., 775 So. 2d 115 (Miss. 2000); Thomas v. Byars, 947 So. 2d 375 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007). RULE 4 DEFINITIONSPage 5 All words and phrases shall have the meaning a......
-
Mcdonald v. Mcdonald
...by Bubac v. Boston, 600 So.2d 951 (Miss.1992)). See also Helmert v. Biffany, 842 So.2d 1287 (Miss.2003). ¶ 58. In K.M.K. v. S.L.M. ex rel. J.H., 775 So.2d 115 (Miss.2000) (five-four decision), this Court limited the jurisdiction of chancery courts, but only if there has been a prior proceed......
-
J.T. v. Hinds Cnty. Youth Court, 2015–CA–00160–SCT.
...(citing Miss.Code Ann. § 43–21–603(2) (2004) ; In re R.D., 658 So.2d at 1391 ).31 As noted in K.M.K. v. S.L.M. ex rel. J.H., 775 So.2d 115, 118 n. 2 (Miss.2000), "[t]he youth court has different divisions." (citing Miss.Code Ann. § 43–21–107 (1993) ). One division is the county court, "pres......