In the Interest of A.B., a Minor: Alisha T. v. Mississippi Department of Child Protection Services and Forrest County Youth Court

CourtCourt of Appeals of Mississippi
DecidedJune 25, 2024
Docket2023-CP-00639-COA
StatusPublished

This text of In the Interest of A.B., a Minor: Alisha T. v. Mississippi Department of Child Protection Services and Forrest County Youth Court (In the Interest of A.B., a Minor: Alisha T. v. Mississippi Department of Child Protection Services and Forrest County Youth Court) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Mississippi primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In the Interest of A.B., a Minor: Alisha T. v. Mississippi Department of Child Protection Services and Forrest County Youth Court, (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

NO. 2023-CP-00639-COA

IN THE INTEREST OF A.B., A MINOR: ALISHA APPELLANT T.

v.

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CHILD APPELLEES PROTECTION SERVICES AND FORREST COUNTY YOUTH COURT

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/19/2023 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. CAROL JONES RUSSELL COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: FORREST COUNTY YOUTH COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ALISHA T. (PRO SE) ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: JACK LUCIAN DENTON VICTORIA ANN LOWERY CHELYE P. AMIS NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - CUSTODY DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 06/25/2024 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:

BEFORE BARNES, C.J., GREENLEE, AND EMFINGER, JJ.

GREENLEE, J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. This case is a child custody case resulting from a finding of child neglect. The Forrest

County Youth Court awarded durable legal custody of a minor child A.B.1 to her foster

parents. A.B.’s biological mother, Alisha T., appealed and requests this Court to modify the

custody order based on new circumstances. Finding that Alisha raises no issue or legal

argument on appeal, we affirm the youth court’s order. However, we reiterate that the youth

court did not terminate Alisha’s parental rights, and Alisha is able to request custody

1 We use initials in the place of the minor child’s name. modification with the Forrest County Youth Court.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2. The appellant, Alisha T., is the biological mother of A.B. A.B. was a three-year-old

girl who was living in Hattiesburg with her grandmother Penny H. in July 2022. On July 27,

2022, Penny dropped off A.B. with the Mississippi Child Protection Services (CPS) and

stated that she could no longer care for A.B. CPS contacted both of A.B.’s parents—Alisha

and Eligah B.—but neither were able to pick up A.B. With no legal guardian able to pick

up A.B., she was considered abandoned. On July 28, 2022, the Forrest County Youth Court

conducted a shelter hearing and ordered that physical and legal custody of A.B. remain with

CPS. A.B. was placed in a foster home under the care of Eunice C. and Ricky C.2

¶3. An adjudication hearing was held on December 27, 2022, and January 3, 2023. The

court found that A.B. was a neglected child. Afterward, the court conducted a disposition

hearing. The court found that the permanent plan for A.B. was reunification with her

parents, while the concurrent plan was durable legal custody with A.B.’s foster parents,

Eunice and Ricky. The court also ordered that legal custody of A.B. remain with CPS and

that physical custody would remain with the foster parents.

¶4. A permanency hearing was held on April 18, 2023. The judge explained to Alisha

that the purpose of the hearing was to achieve permanency in A.B.’s case and that they would

hear testimony regarding A.B.’s well-being, the progress of Alisha’s and Eligah’s individual

service agreements, CPS’s reasonable efforts to achieve permanency, and CPS’s

2 A.B. was initially placed in a different foster family’s home but was moved to Eunice’s and Ricky’s home after A.B. was seen with an unreported bruise.

2 recommendation of the case moving forward. CPS admitted as evidence its report on A.B.’s

case, as well as drug screening results from Alisha on December 27, 2022. The report

highlighted Alisha’s progress with her service agreement and A.B.’s well-being on two

separate dates: January 1, 2023, and April 18, 2023.

¶5. The January 1 report noted that Alisha had successfully maintained contact with CPS,

completed a mental health assessment, and participated in a parenting class. However, the

report noted that Alisha had not obtained appropriate housing due to living with four other

people in a three-bedroom house. In addition, the report noted that Alisha was not able to

consistently make visits to see A.B. and that Alisha had tested positive for THC and

Tramadol on August 11, 2022. The January 1 report stated that A.B. had been placed in the

care of Eunice and Ricky and was adjusting well. The report also detailed CPS’s reasonable

efforts to achieve the permanency plans. The report’s recommendation was that the court

approve the proposed permanent plan of reunification and proposed concurrent plan of

durable legal custody, that legal custody remain with CPS, and that a review hearing be held

in ninety days.

¶6. The April 18 report/review hearing noted that A.B. had done “extremely well” with

Eunice and Ricky. The report stated that all of A.B.’s needs were being met. The report

highlighted that Alisha was employed and that she had maintained consistent visits with A.B.

through Zoom and in person. On the other hand, the report noted that Alisha still had not

found appropriate housing, that her mental health assessment was not thorough enough for

recommendations, and that she had tested positive for Diphenhydramine in a urine analysis

3 on March 23, 2023. The CPS’s assessment stated that the permanency plan of reunification

was not a viable option. A.B. had spent nine months in CPS’s custody and was doing very

well and had a strong bond with Eunice. Alisha was working two jobs and still had not

found a stable living arrangement. The report’s recommendation was that the court approve

the concurrent plan that durable legal custody be granted to Eunice and Ricky and that the

CPS case be closed. CPS investigator Avery Holder testified at the permanency hearing and

corroborated the information in the report.3

¶7. Alisha also testified at the permanency hearing. She stated that she was living in a

four-bedroom home and that A.B. would have her own room if she lived there. Alisha stated

that she currently had two jobs (different from the ones on the report) and that she made

about $500 a month between them. She testified that she had no vehicle and that she was

unable to make most in-person visits with A.B. because she had to rent a car to make the trip.

Alisha testified that she wanted to be a parent for A.B. and that she hoped the court would

keep the CPS case open.

¶8. After all testimony was completed, the court considered the totality of the

circumstances and granted durable legal custody to Eunice and Ricky and closed the case.4

The court noted that the same issues that brought A.B. into CPS’s custody had still not been

resolved nine months later. However, the court explicitly did not terminate Alisha’s or

3 The report also noted that A.B.’s father, Eligah, was also not a viable option for the permanency plan of reunification. 4 The court also ordered that CPS “is hereby relieved of any further responsibility in this cause.”

4 Eligah’s parental rights and told the parents, “[I]f there is ever a time where you are more

stable and able to care for your child, you both now understand that you do have the right to

come and ask this Court to modify the custody arrangement.”

¶9. Alisha filed her notice of appeal pro se on May 22, 2023. On January 9, 2024, she

filed her pro se “Brief Of Appellant,” which included a letter explaining to our appellate

courts that her situation had improved since the last youth court hearing. Alisha went back

to school and obtained her high school diploma as well as a trade certificate in child

development. She stated she held a full-time job with benefits and was making $12 an hour,

and she had been living at her residence for one year and five months. She also included

supporting documentation for her job and trade certificate.

DISCUSSION

¶10.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
In the Interest of A.B., a Minor: Alisha T. v. Mississippi Department of Child Protection Services and Forrest County Youth Court, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-ab-a-minor-alisha-t-v-mississippi-department-of-missctapp-2024.