McCoy v. Adams Cnty. Youth Court (In re Interest of M.M.)

Decision Date16 March 2021
Docket Number NO. 2018-CA-01589-COA,NO. 2018-CA-01464-COA, NO. 2018-CA-01596-COA,2018-CA-01464-COA
Citation319 So.3d 1188
CourtMississippi Court of Appeals
Parties In the INTEREST OF M.M., a Minor: Thomas McCoy, Appellant v. Adams County Youth Court, Appellee In the Interest of C.M., a Minor: Thomas McCoy, Appellant v. Adams County Youth Court, Appellee In the Interest of T.G.M., a Minor: Thomas McCoy, Appellant v. Adams County Youth Court, Appellee

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: LYDIA ROBERTA BLACKMON

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: ELGIN KENNETH WALLEY JR., Jackson

BEFORE CARLTON, P.J., LAWRENCE AND McCARTY, JJ.

LAWRENCE, J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. On December 28, 2017, the Youth Court of Adams County adjudicated Thomas McCoy's children, M.M., C.M., and T.G.M.,1 neglected children as defined by Mississippi Code Annotated section 43-21-105(1) (Supp. 2017). The adjudication of neglect resulted from an anonymous report and a subsequent investigation by the Mississippi Department of Child Protection Services (MDCPS) which substantiated the allegations of neglect. Additionally, the youth court entered a disposition order on December 28, 2017, wherein physical custody of the minor children was placed with their maternal grandfather, Tommy McElroy Sr. The disposition order adopted a permanency plan for the reunification of McCoy and his minor children and a concurrent plan of durable legal custody or legal guardianship with a third party. Pursuant to the disposition order, McCoy was ordered to enroll in the youth court's family drug court program in furtherance of the reunification plan and his MDCPS service agreement to re-gain custody of M.M., C.M., and T.G.M. On July 23, 2018, the youth court entered two permanency orders and one amended permanency order in which the youth court ordered that physical and durable legal custody of each of the three minor children be vested with their maternal grandfather consistent with the previously ordered concurrent plan.2 The permanency orders and amended permanency order were entered as a result of McCoy's non-compliance with his MDCPS service agreement and his disregard for the recommendations of the family drug court program's staff.

¶2. Aggrieved by the youth court's adjudication order, permanency orders, and amended permanency order, McCoy appealed. Finding no error in the youth court's decision to deny McCoy's request to "accept notice of out of time appeal" regarding the adjudication order dated December 28, 2017, we affirm. Therefore, this court does not have jurisdiction over any issues stemming from the adjudication order, and those issues are not properly before this Court on appeal. Further, finding no error in the youth court's decision to amend the permanency plan for M.M, C.M., and T.G.M. from reunification with their father to durable legal custody with McElroy Sr., their maternal grandfather, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Initial Allegations and Adjudication Hearing

¶3. On June 16, 2017, an anonymous report was made to the MDCPS regarding the unlivable condition of McCoy's home and the neglect of his three minor children, M.M., C.M., and T.G.M. McCoy was a single father living on disability due to a prior back injury. McCoy was also the primary custodian of M.M., C.M., and T.G.M. following the untimely death of the children's biological mother. Kimberly Green, the initial MDCPS case worker assigned to the case, testified at the adjudication hearing that MDCPS had received multiple reports regarding McCoy's family, but she only testified specifically to the contents of the most recent report at the hearing. The most recent report stated in part:

[T]he kids are malnourished. They do not eat their three meals a day. The grass is waist high. Inside the home, there are clothes everywhere on the floor. The kitchen table is nasty and the smell is unpleasant. In addition, the home is roach infested and the home may have rats. The reporter stated a report was made in May and no one has come. He emphasized the home is not livable for the children.

According to Green, she drove to McCoy's home on multiple occasions in furtherance of investigating the allegations in the report; however, she did not make contact with McCoy until June 23, 2017. On that day, Green spoke with McCoy and two of his minor children3 regarding the most recent report and conducted a cursory on-site investigation of the condition of the home. Although Green did not see any roaches or rats, she substantiated the allegation that the conditions of the home were not livable for the minor children. She testified:

[T]he grass was in need of cutting. The yard had a lot of different objects and things in there. The home had clothes everywhere all on the floor. You couldn't even walk further passed the kitchen area. The kitchen table was full of food that was opened and left on the counters.

McCoy voluntarily took the children to their maternal grandmother, Tammy Melton's home on the day of Green's visit. On October 9, 2017, the Adams County prosecuting attorney filed a petition alleging that McCoy's three children were neglected children as defined by Mississippi Code Annotated section 43-21-105(1). More specifically, the petition alleged that the "[f]ather is unable to provide proper care for the children. [The] house is in disarray and children are not eating properly. [The] children do not want to stay there." Shortly thereafter on October 20, 2017, a custody-change order was entered placing custody of M.M., C.M., and T.G.M. with their maternal grandmother. Green was given a special assignment in mid-August 2017 and was removed from McCoy's family's case prior to the adjudication hearing on November 9, 2017.

¶4. Kadisha Hunt took over as the MDCPS case worker in Green's stead. Hunt testified at the adjudication hearing that in the process of her investigation, the twelve-year-old daughter, M.M., made several alarming disclosures regarding alleged sexual abuse by McCoy. The child also made disclosures about McCoy's prescription drug use. M.M.'s new disclosures raised additional concerns with MDCPS. As a result of M.M.'s disclosure regarding sexual abuse, Hunt set up an interview for M.M. with the Child Advocacy Center (CAC). Cherish McCallum, a forensic interviewer from the CAC, briefly testified at the adjudication hearing regarding her forensic interview with M.M. The investigation regarding the allegations of sexual abuse was still ongoing at the time of the hearing, and for that reason, the youth court did not make a ruling on those abuse allegations. Hunt also testified that M.M. was briefly admitted to Brentwood because of suicidal threats brought on by the possibility of returning to her father's home.

¶5. M.M. testified at the adjudication hearing and further substantiated the claims made in the initial report regarding the condition of McCoy's home. She alleged that McCoy told her and her siblings that "eating is a privilege" and "taking a bath is a privilege." According to M.M., there were times when there was no food in the house for them to eat, and she would be required to cook or find food for her and her siblings. She further testified about McCoy's use of prescribed medications and that she would sometimes accompany McCoy to buy and sell prescription medications. M.M. was able to identify and recite the names and locations of the people that she and McCoy would see and places they would go to buy and sell the medications. Further, M.M. described the colors, shapes, and sizes of the pills and patches, as well as the method in which McCoy administered his medication. According to M.M., McCoy would cut the Fentanyl

patches into strips and chew on them for a faster release of the medication. Finally, M.M. testified that there were several occasions when she and her siblings were physically abused by McCoy. M.M. testified specifically that McCoy had pushed T.G.M off the bed and disciplined them with a vacuum hose, but she was reluctant to go into any specific details regarding the allegations of sexual abuse during the hearing.

¶6. McCoy testified at the adjudication hearing on his own behalf. He admitted that he had been taking prescribed narcotic medications for approximately twenty years but adamantly denied abusing his prescriptions. At the time of the adjudication hearing, McCoy testified that he was prescribed and using Fentanyl

transdermal patches, Hydrocodone and Xanax. He admitted that the outside of his home was somewhat unkempt, but he blamed the disarray on a broken lawnmower, a recent tornado, and lack of finances to remedy the situation. McCoy denied all allegations of sexual abuse, physical abuse, lack of food in the home, and any other allegations of neglect of M.M., C.M., and T.G.M. During his cross-examination by the minor children's attorney, McCoy was asked to respond to questions regarding his arrest for possession of a controlled substance on April 30, 2017, six months prior to the adjudication hearing. McCoy was presented with the allegations in the police report that he was "unconscious behind the steering wheel ... with [three] juvenile occupants." However, he denied having ever been unconscious behind the wheel of a vehicle on this occasion or any other occasion. McCoy admitted that he may have swerved, but that was because T.G.M. was trying to get out of his carseat. McCoy testified that the possession charges were ultimately dropped because he was able to provide proof of his prescription to the lower court. According to McCoy, M.M. had lied about serious matters in the past, and he claimed that she was not truthful in her disclosures to MDCPS or in her testimony to the court regarding the abuse and neglect allegations.

¶7. McCoy's sister Elizabeth Box testified in her brother's behalf at the adjudication hearing. Box testified that the outside and inside of McCoy's home was "fine" the last time that she visited and that she was not aware of a time that McCoy did not have food in the house for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Bullock v. Miss. Dep't of Child Prot. Servs.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Court of Appeals
    • July 19, 2022
    ...any of the disposition orders. Thus, this Court has no jurisdiction over any issues stemming from the adjudication order. In re M.M. , 319 So. 3d 1188, 1191 (¶2) (Miss. Ct. App. 2021). In any event, "[a] court may find that if one 343 So.3d 1088 child is abused, the child's siblings are neg......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT