IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2023-CP-00543-SCT
R.W. AND J.R.
v.
MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/12/2022 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. ROBERT KEITH MILLER TRIAL COURT ATTORNEYS: LANIE ROSA ROUSSEL V. DENISE LEE MICHAEL WILSON BRELAND VICTORIA ANN LOWERY COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: JACKSON COUNTY YOUTH COURT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS: R.W. (PRO SE) J.R. (PRO SE) ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: MICHAEL WILSON BRELAND NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - CUSTODY DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 10/10/2024 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
BEFORE KITCHENS, P.J., BEAM AND ISHEE, JJ.
ISHEE, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:
¶1. R.W. and J.R. are the biological parents to twins Rachel and Joshua.1 R.W. gave birth
to the twins prematurely on May 9, 2022. That same day, R.W. and the twins tested positive
for amphetamines. The Jackson County Youth Court immediately placed the children in the
custody of the Mississippi Department of Child Protection Services (CPS). After an
1 Initials are used for all parents, and fictitious names are used for the children. This is to protect the privacy and anonymity of the minor children involved. adjudication hearing, the youth court adjudicated Rachel and Joshua as neglected children
pursuant to Mississippi Code Section 43-21-105(l) (Rev. 2023). The youth court then held
a disposition hearing and ruled that CPS was allowed to bypass reasonable efforts to reunify
the twins with their parents. See Miss. Code Ann. § 43-21-603(7)(c) (Rev. 2021). R.W. and
J.R. appealed.2
¶2. R.W. and J.R. raise four issues on appeal: (1) that the youth court lacked subject-
matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction; (2) that venue was improper in Jackson County;
(3) that there was insufficient evidence to support an adjudication of neglect for both
children; and (4) that there was insufficient evidence to support the youth court’s ruling to
bypass reasonable efforts to reunite the children with their parents. Finding no error, we
affirm the youth court’s judgment.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶3. R.W. gave birth to twins Rachel and Joshua on May 9, 2022. J.R. was named the
putative father, and B.W. was named the legal father.3 R.W. and both twins tested positive
2 Mississippi Code Section 43-21-651 was amended in July 2024 and now requires an interlocutory appeal from a disposition order. S.B. 2792, Reg. Sess., 2024 Miss. Laws ch. 531, § 11 (“Any matters adjudicated by the youth court through interim orders such as adjudication/disposition orders, or permanency review orders, may be only appealed through the interlocutory appeal process provided by the Rules of Appellate Procedure.”). Prior to the amendment, a disposition order was considered a final, appealable order for purposes of direct appeal. See, e.g., In re Int. of M.M., 319 So. 3d 1188, 1204 n.5 (Miss. Ct. App. 2021) (“An adjudication order becomes an appealable judgment only after a disposition order is entered by the youth court.” (citing In re Int. of J.P.C. v. State, 783 So. 2d 778, 781 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000). Thus, because the disposition order in this case was entered in 2022, it was a final, appealable order. 3 J.R. was initially named as the putative father. Subsequent DNA testing confirmed he is the twins’ biological father.
2 for amphetamines in the hospital. On May 10, 2022, the Jackson County Youth Court
entered emergency custody orders placing Rachel and Joshua in CPS custody. That same
day, the youth court also appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL) for the children. J.R. was
incarcerated at the Jackson County Adult Detention Center during this time. The youth court
therefore issued a transport order requiring the Jackson County Sheriff’s Department to
transport J.R. to the May 12, 2022, shelter hearing.
¶4. J.R. attended the shelter hearing, but R.W. and B.W. did not. CPS employee Michelle
Burns testified that she personally notified R.W. of the hearing at the hospital on May 10,
2022. Intake Officer Katie Frazier testified that she and the GAL also spoke to R.W. “at
length” while she was in the hospital and that R.W. “was told at least two or three times in
person by me on that date to be here at 10 a.m. on today’s date.” R.W. reportedly stated she
would be in attendance, but Frazier found out later that day that R.W. had left the hospital
and had not been back to see her children. R.W.’s sister testified at the hearing that she had
not seen or talked to R.W. since May 10, 2022. J.R. did not know R.W.’s whereabouts either
but claimed he had a “video visit” with her later that day to talk with her “about missing court
dates and how she needs to be here.”
¶5. Burns testified that the twins were born prematurely and tested positive for
amphetamines at birth. Rachel weighed four pounds and seven ounces at birth, and Joshua
weighed three pounds and one ounce at birth. Neither child had a scheduled discharge date.
Burns informed the court that CPS’s permanent plan was to terminate parental rights and
proceed with adoption. In support of this plan, Burns testified regarding R.W.’s and B.W.’s
3 history with CPS. Burns stated that R.W. did not have custody of any of her eight children
because of her substance abuse, including during pregnancy. In 2021, she gave birth to a girl
who tested positive for amphetamines. In 2019, she gave birth to a boy who tested positive
for amphetamines. Burns testified that four of the eight children had been adopted. Frazier
added that R.W.’s and B.W.’s parental rights were involuntarily terminated for those four
children in the previous three years. Frazier also agreed with CPS’s plan to terminate
parental rights and pursue adoption. She recommended that the children be placed in a
“neutral” setting such as a foster home.
¶6. As for J.R., he was incarcerated for failing to register as a sex offender. J.R. has two
convictions from 2012: (1) attempted sexual assault of a child and (2) contributing to the
delinquency of a minor. J.R. testified at the hearing that he was on probation for felony
menacing when he was convicted. At the close of the hearing, the court found there was
probable cause to believe the children would be endangered if returned to their custodial
parents. The court additionally found that the matter should be referred to a youth court
prosecutor to look into aggravated circumstances against all three parents. Finally, the court
ordered the children to remain in CPS’s legal and physical custody in a nonrelative placement
and scheduled an adjudication hearing for June 6, 2022.
¶7. On May 13, 2022, the youth court prosecutor filed a petition alleging that Rachel and
Joshua were neglected children. The petition contained three counts for each child. Count
l alleged that “[R.W.] engages in the use and/or abuse of illegal substances, to include the use
and/or abuse of amphetamine, causing said substance to be in the minor’s system at time of
4 birth” and that “[R.W.] obtained no prenatal care.” Count 2 alleged that “[R.W.] and [B.W.]
(legal father) have an extensive history with [CPS] and Jackson County Youth Court,
specifically as their rights to four children have been involuntarily terminated and they have
failed to resolve concerns for their ability to provide a safe and stable home environment,
which is contrary to the best interest of said minor.” Count 3 alleged that “[J.R.], putative
father, is currently incarcerated due to his failing to register as a sex offender and is unable
to provide a safe and stable home environment for said minor.”
¶8. On May 16, 2022, a summons with the petition was served on the GAL. On May 17,
2022, a summons with the petition was served on Burns with CPS. On June 3, 2022, J.R.
was personally served with a summons and a copy of the petition. On June 6, 2022, the court
continued the adjudication hearing to to June 14, 2022, because two of the parents had not
been served. Service of process was attempted on B.W. on June 6, 2022, but he could not
be located. Service of process was attempted on R.W. on June 8, 2022, but she could be
located either.
¶9. On June 14, 2022, at the beginning of the adjudication hearing, the youth court noted
that R.W. had faxed an unsigned document to the youth court titled “Respondents Answer
and Defense to Plaintiff’s Petition and Motion to Dismiss for Altercation [sic] of Evidence
by Singing River Health System, Failure to Serve Proper Service of Process, and Failure to
State a Claim to Which It Can Be Compensated.”4 As a result, the court entered a denial on
behalf of the parents to all counts in the petition and set the adjudication hearing for August
4 At this time the children were living with foster parents. The foster parents attended the June 14, 2022, hearing.
5 8, 2022.
¶10. On August 8, 2022, all parents filed a Motion to Recuse requesting that Judge Sharon
Sigalas recuse. Because Judge Sigalas had recently retired and was no longer presiding, the
motion was considered moot by Judge Keith Miller.
¶11. The adjudication hearing proceeded as scheduled. J.R. was present, but R.W. and
B.W. were not. CPS employee Burns again testified regarding the twins’ drug tests at birth,
and their medical records were admitted into evidence. Burns also testified as to two of
R.W.’s other children who tested positive for amphetamines at birth—a daughter in 2021 and
a son in 2019. In support of her testimony, the prosecutor introduced into evidence a
judgment terminating R.W.’s and B.W.’s parental rights for their daughter born in 2021.
¶12. Intake Officer Frazier testified regarding the status of R.W.’s and B.W.’s other
children, none of which were in their custody. When the court asked Frazier where R.W. and
B.W. may be located, Frazier stated that the home she previously located them in was
condemned and torn down. She additionally testified to her difficulties locating R.W. and
B.W. in previous cases.
¶13. J.R. testified that R.W. had instructed him not to cooperate in this case. J.R. also
claimed that Singing River Hospital had falsified the twins’ positive drug tests. The GAL
testified that she had personally witnessed Rachel and Joshua suffering from withdrawals at
the hospital. At the conclusion of the testimony, the court adjudicated Rachel and Joshua to
be neglected children and entered an order that same day. The court scheduled a disposition
hearing for August 23, 2022.
6 ¶14. On August 15, 2022, R.W. and J.R. filed a “Motion for Blood Tests in Order to Help
Determine Paternity.” R.W. also filed a notice of hearing for August 23, 2022, at 9:30 a.m.
The motion was set for hearing on August 23, 2022, at 9:30 a.m. R.W. and J.R. failed to
appear on August 23, 2022, but the court granted the motion and ordered CPS to arrange and
pay for J.R. to submit to a DNA test. The court also continued the disposition hearing to
September 12, 2022.
¶15. On or about August 31, 2022, R.W. faxed the court a “Motion to Stay Pending
Petition for Writ of Certiorari on an Appeal.”5 The motion was signed by R.W., B.W., and
J.R.
¶16. On September 12, 2022, R.W., B.W., and J.R. failed to appear at the disposition
hearing. Earlier that day, R.W. had faxed the court a “Motion for Continuance and to Set
Aside or Dismiss It’s [sic] Prior Order and Motion to Strike Dismissing Prosecutor’s Motion
to Bypass Reasonable Efforts,” signed by J.R.6 The court orally denied the motion and
proceeded with the hearing.
¶17. For disposition, the youth court prosecutor recommended the court bypass reasonable
efforts to reunify Rachel and Joshua with their parents pursuant to Mississippi Code Section
43-21-603(7)(c). The prosecutor relied on the admitted evidence from the adjudication
hearing, which established that R.W.’s and B.W.’s parents rights were involuntarily
terminated for at least one of the children’s siblings. See Miss. Code Ann. § 43-21-
5 The record does not contain a ruling on this motion. 6 The prosecutor had not filed a “Motion to Bypass Reasonable Efforts.”
7 603(7)(c)(iii) (Rev. 2021). As for J.R., the prosecutor argued that reasonable efforts should
be bypassed based on J.R.’s conviction of attempted sexual assault of a child as well as his
failure to register as a sex offender. The GAL concurred with the prosecutor’s
recommendation and testified that it is was in the children’s best interest to bypass reasonable
efforts to reunify them with the parents. The youth court agreed and ruled that reasonable
efforts should be bypassed and issued a written order on September 12, 2022. R.W. and J.R.
appealed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶18. Our standard of review in youth court cases is limited. In re Int. of D.K.L. v. Hall,
652 So. 2d 184, 189 (Miss. 1995). The youth court judge is the trier of fact. Id. When
challenging a youth court’s adjudicatory or dispositional order for sufficiency of the
evidence, the standard of review is preponderance of the evidence. In re Int. of C.R., 604
So. 2d 1079, 1083 (Miss. 1992). This Court considers all the evidence in the light most
favorable to the State. Id. Further, “[i]f the evidence is such that, beyond a reasonable
doubt, reasonable [minds] could not have reached the youth court’s conclusion, we must
reverse. However, if the evidence in the record supports the youth court’s adjudication,
considering the reasonable-doubt standard, then we must affirm.” In re Int. of S.M.K.S. v.
Youth Ct. of Union Cnty., 155 So. 3d 747, 749 (Miss. 2015) (second alteration in original)
(quoting In re Int. of S.M.K.S. v. Youth Ct. of Union Cnty., 155 So. 3d 876, 878-89 (Miss.
Ct. App. 2014)).
ANALYSIS
8 1. Whether the youth court had subject-matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction.
¶19. R.W. and J.R. argue that the youth court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction in this case.
Because Rachel and Joshua were adjudicated neglected children, this argument fails.
Mississippi Code Section 43-21-151 provides exclusive jurisdiction in this case, stating that
“[t]he youth court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction in all 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). None of the exceptions
listed in Section 43-21-151 apply here.
¶20. R.W. and J.R. also argue that the Jackson County Youth Court lacked personal
jurisdiction because they were not served with process for the adjudication hearing. This
claim is baseless. The record shows that the Jackson County Sheriff’s Department personally
served J.R. with process and a copy of the petition on June 3, 2022, and again on June 8,
2022. The sheriff’s department also attempted to personally serve R.W. with process and a
copy of the petition. After a diligent search and inquiry, the sheriff’s department was unable
to locate R.W. at either of her purported Mississippi addresses.
¶21. Rule 22(a)(3)(iv) of the Uniform Rules of Youth Court Practice provides an
alternative means of service when a parent cannot be located:
If parent, guardian, or custodian exercising parental responsibilities does not reside or cannot be located within the state. If the parent, guardian, or custodian exercising parental responsibilities does not reside within the state or cannot be located therein, the clerk shall issue summons to the guardian ad litem. If the name and post office address of the parent or guardian who does not reside within the state or cannot be located therein can be ascertained, the clerk shall mail by “certified mail” ten (10) days
9 before the date set for the hearing a copy of the summons with a copy of the petition attached to the summons to such parent or guardian. The clerk shall note the fact of such mailing upon the court docket. Ten (10) days after the summons has been mailed, the court may take jurisdiction as if summons had been personally served as herein provided.
U.R.Y.C.P. 22(a)(3)(iv) (emphasis added). Following the shelter hearing, the court set an
adjudication hearing for June 6, 2022. The record shows that the GAL was personally served
with summons and a copy of the petition on May 16, 2022. The youth court also directed the
sheriff’s department to personally serve J.R. and R.W.7 The June 6, 2022, adjudication
hearing was continued to June 14, 2022, because R.W. had not been located. The youth court
ordered the clerk of the court to reissue process to J.R. and R.W. at a different
address—“Near Franks Road and Nassturtium Drive in Moss Point, [Mississippi] 39562.”
The sheriff’s department was still unable to locate R.W. On the summons return, the process
server indicated that R.W. had moved to Mobile, Alabama, to an unknown address.
¶22. In sum, J.R. was personally served with process. The record shows that the sheriff’s
department repeatedly attempted to personally serve R.W. but could not locate her. Further,
R.W.’s out-of-state post-office address could not be ascertained. We find that the youth court
complied with Rule 22(a)(3)(iv) by issuing summons to the GAL. Therefore, we find that
service of process was proper, vesting the youth court with personal jurisdiction over R.W.
and J.R. in these proceedings.
2. Whether Jackson County was a proper venue.
¶23. R.W. and J.R. claim that venue was not proper in Jackson County. Mississippi Code
7 As stated above, J.R. was personally served on June 3, 2022, and again on June 8, 2022.
10 Section 43-21-155(2) establishes the proper venue for a neglected child:
If a child is alleged to be an abused or neglected child, the proceedings shall be commenced in the county where the child’s custodian resides or in the county where the child is present when the report is made to the intake unit. After adjudication the youth court may transfer the case at any stage of the proceeding for disposition to the county where the child resides or to a county where a youth court has previously acquired jurisdiction if that is in the best interest of the child.
Miss. Code Ann. § 43-21-155(2) (Rev. 2023). Rachel and Joshua were born at Singing River
Hospital in Pascagoula, Mississippi (Jackson County), on May 9, 2022, and tested positive
for amphetamines. At the shelter hearing on May 12, 2022, CPS employee Burns testified
that CPS subsequently received a report “concerning the safety and well-being of the twins.”
Thus, because the children were present in Jackson County when the report was made, we
find that Jackson County was the proper venue.
3. Whether sufficient evidence supported the youth court’s adjudication of neglect.
¶24. R.W. and J.R. argue that there was insufficient evidence to support the youth court’s
adjudication of neglect as to Rachel and Joshua. Mississippi Code Section 43-21-105(l)
defines a neglected child as one:
(i) Whose 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
(ii) Who is otherwise without proper care, custody, supervision or support; or
(iii) Who, for any reason, lacks the special care made necessary for him by reason of his mental condition, whether the mental condition is having mental illness or having an intellectual disability; or
11 (iv) Who, for any reason, lacks the care necessary for his health, morals, or well-being.
Miss. Code Ann. § 43-21-105(l) (Rev. 2023).
¶25. At the adjudication hearing, the youth court prosecutor presented ample evidence to
support his petition alleging that Rachel and Joshua were neglected children. CPS employee
Burns testified both children tested positive for amphetamines shortly after birth. Their
medical records were admitted into evidence. Burns also testified that R.W. had given birth
to at least two other children who tested positive for amphetamines. Additional testimony
revealed that R.W. did not have custody of any of their eight children and that her parental
rights had been involuntarily terminated for four of those children. The youth court
prosecutor introduced into a evidence a judgment terminating R.W.’s and B.W.’s parental
rights for their daughter born in 2021. The evidence also showed that J.R. had been
incarcerated for failure to register as a sex offender and that he had been previously
convicted of attempted sexual assault of a child. Applying this Court’s limited standard of
review, we find that the evidence presented at the adjudication hearing was sufficient to
support the youth court’s adjudication of neglect for both Rachel and Joshua.
4. Whether sufficient evidence supported the youth court’s disposition bypassing reasonable efforts to reunify.
¶26. R.W. and J.R. also argue that the evidence was insufficient to support the youth
court’s decision to bypass reasonable efforts to reunify the children with them. We disagree.
¶27. Mississippi Code Section 43-21-603(7)(c) allows the court to bypass reasonable
efforts when:
12 (i) The parent has subjected the child to aggravated circumstances, including, but not limited to, abandonment, torture, chronic abuse and sexual abuse; or
(ii) The parent has been convicted of murder of another child of that parent, voluntary manslaughter of another child of that parent, aided or abetted, attempted, conspired or solicited to commit that murder or voluntary manslaughter, or a felony assault that results in the serious bodily injury to the surviving child or another child of that parent; or
(iii) The parental rights of the parent to a sibling have been terminated involuntarily; and
(iv) That the effect of the continuation of the child’s residence within his own home would be contrary to the welfare of the child and that placement of the child in foster care is in the best interests of the child.
Miss. Code Ann. § 43-21-603(7)(c) (Rev. 2021). “The paramount concern in determining
the proper disposition is the best interest of the child, not reunification of the family.” In re
Int. of S.A.M, 826 So. 2d 1266, 1275 (Miss. 1988) (citing Petition of Beggiani v. Beggiani,
519 So. 2d 1208, 1213 (Miss. 1988)).
¶28. Here, the youth court prosecutor argued that R.W.’s and B.W.’s parental rights had
been involuntarily terminated for at least one of Rachel and Joshua’s siblings. See Miss.
Code Ann. § 43-21-603(7)(c)(iii). This evidence had previously been introduced at the
adjudication hearing. The prosecutor also argued that the court should bypass reasonable
efforts to reunify the children with J.R. because he had been convicted of attempted sexual
assault of a child and had failed to register as a sex offender. For these reasons, the youth
court agreed that reasonable efforts should be bypassed. In considering all the evidence in
the light most favorable to the State, we find that the evidence was sufficient to support the
youth court’s disposition.
13 CONCLUSION
¶29. After review, we hold that the youth court had subject-matter jurisdiction over this
matter as well as personal jurisdiction over R.W. and J.R. Further, we hold that Jackson
County was the proper venue. Finally, we hold that sufficient evidence supported both the
youth court’s adjudication of neglect as well as its decision to bypass reasonable efforts to
reunify. Therefore, we affirm the youth court’s judgment.
¶30. AFFIRMED.
RANDOLPH, C.J., KITCHENS AND KING, P.JJ., COLEMAN, MAXWELL, BEAM, CHAMBERLIN AND GRIFFIS, JJ., CONCUR.