W e use a fictit ious name for the minor chil d to protecthis identi ty. 1 I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 1 1 - CT - 0 1 4 7 2 - S CT J I M M Y RAY CHI

S M , J R.
v. A B B Y GA L E MOR R I

SC HI S M BR IGH T ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 09/ 08/ 2011 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. C. M I CH AE L M AL S KI TR I A L C O U RT A TTO RN EY S: J . M AR K S HE L DON J AK M. S M I T H CO UR T F RO M W HI CH AP P E AL E D: ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN T: UNI ON COU NTY CHANCERY COURT GR EGO RY M . HU NSU CK ER J AK M . SM I TH AT T ORNE YS F OR AP P E L L E E : J . M AR K S HE L DON J ANA L
. DAW S ON NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CI VI L - DOMES T I C R E L AT I ONS D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E M A N D E D - 12/ 11/ 2014 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:
EN BA NC. LA M AR, J US TI CE , F OR THE COURT ¶1. J i m m y R ay C hi s m J r . chal l enges the t erm i nati on o f hi s parental ri ght s t o hi s s on, John ny . B ecause w e fi nd that Ji m ’s parent al r i gh t s w ere w rongful l y term i nated, w e revers e

1 the j udgm ent s of

C ourtof A ppeal s a nd the chanc ery c ourta nd r emand thi s cas e t o the U ni on C o u n ty C h a n c e ry C o u rt .We r efe r to the part ie s andto so me of th e o th ermembe rs of the Chi sm famil y b y fi rs t n ame 2 to avoid confusion. 2

F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶2. J i m m y R ay C hi s m J r . and A bby G al e M orr i s C hi s m B r i ght m arr i ed on O ct ob er 17, 2003. T hey had one chi l d, J ohnny, on M arch 1 7, 2 00 4, and they di vor ced on M ar ch 10,

2 2008. U nderthe di vor ce de cr ee, the part i es had j oi ntl egal cus t od y of J ohnny; A bby had p rim a ry p h y sic a l cu sto d y , an d Jim h a d re g u lar , u n re stric ted v isitatio n . F ro m M a rc h 2 0 0 8 to Ju ly 4 , 2 0 0 8 , Jim e x e c u ted h is v isitatio n rig h ts w ith o u t in c id e n t. ¶3. O n J ul y 4, 2008, J i m and A bby s epar at el y att ended a party at D ar den L ake. J ohnny
s t ayed w i th J i m ’ s par ent s , D r . Ji m m y R ay C hi s m Sr
. and Terr i C hi s m , atthei rcabi n near D ar den Lake. O n the morni ng of J ul y 5, J i m pi cked J ohnny up f r om hi s par ent s ’ cabi n and dr ove hi m t o a nearby M cD onal d’ s . W hi l e i n the dr i ve- thr ough l i ne, J i m f el l as l eep w i th the
cari n park. T he pol i ce w er e ca l l ed, and J i m w as arr es t ed f orpubl i c i nt ox i cat i on. J ohnny
w as noti nj ur ed dur i ng the i nci dent , and Terr i pi cked hi m up f r om the s cene . ¶4. O n Ju ly 2 5 , 2 00 8, A bb y fi l ed an em ergency pe ti ti o n for m o d if icati o n o f Jim ’s vi s i t at i on r i ght s , bas ed on the J ul y 5 i nci dent
. O n A ugus t18, 2008, the cha ncel l orent er ed
an or derf

ormodi f i cat i on of

vi s i t at i on w hi ch: ( 1) r equi r ed thata l l J i m ’ s vi s i t at i on per i ods be
s upervi s ed by Terr i ; (2) prohi bi t ed al cohol or drugs fr om bei ng i n J ohnny’ s pr es ence dur i ng h is v isitatio n p e rio d s w ith Jim ; an d (3 ) p ro h ib ited J im fr o m o p e ra tin g a n y m o to r v e h icle w ith Jo h n n y a s a p a ss e n g e r. T h e o rd e r a lso sta ted th a t: I f J i m m y R ay C hi s m , J r . f ai l s t o r eportt o U ni t ed St at es A rm y tr ai ni ng f aci l i t i es i n For tBenni ng, G eor gi a on Sept ember3, 2008, a l l vi s i t at i on w i l l cea s e[ , ] and a s a co n d it ion for r eins tat em en t Jim m y R ay C h ism , Jr. sha ll co m p ly w ith a ll of the U ni on C ounty D epartm entof H um an Servi ces r ecomm endat i on s,3

i ncl udi ng s uppl yi ng a hai rs ampl e f or D N A drug t es t i ng ata D H S appr oved m e d ica l fa c ili ty , an d h e sh a ll b e c o m m itt e d to a n in -p a tien t tre a tm e n t fa c ili ty fora peri od of not l ess [ than ] thirty (30) day s. Jim d id n o t r ep o rtto the U n it ed S tat es A rm y , a n d h e d id n o t beg in sa ti sfyin g the c o u rt ’s
re q u ire m e n ts to r e in sta te h is v isitatio n u n til Ju ly 1 5 , 2 0 0 9 , w h e n h e a d m itt e d h im se lf in to H a v e n H o u se fo r a lco h o l trea tm e n t. H e sp e n t fi fty -o n e d a y s a t H a v e n H o u se a n d , u p o n h is di s char ge i n S eptem ber2009, he att empt ed t o r es um e hi s vi s i t at i on w i th J ohnny. W hen A b b y d id n o t r esp o n d to h is r eq u ests, Jim fi led a co m p lai n t f o r cit ati o n o f co n tem p t. In
re s p o n s e , A b b y fi le d a c o u n te rc o m p la in t f o r t e rm in a tio n o f J im ’s p a re n ta l r ig h ts . ¶5. J onathan M art i n w as appoi nt ed as Johnny’ s guar di an ad l i t em on N ovember20, 2009. I n a c c or da nc e w i th M art i n’ s r ecomm endat i on, the cha ncel l oraw ar ded J i m and hi s f ami l y one h o u r o f v isitatio n o n D e c e m b e r 2 5 , 2 0 0 9 ; Jim an d h is fa m ily e x e rc ise d th e ir v isitatio n rig h ts
w ith o u t in c id e n t. O n Ja n u a ry 2 1 , 2 0 1 0 , Jim a g a in m o v e d fo r a d d iti o n a l v isitatio n w ith John ny , repr esent i ng t o the cou rtthat he had com pli ed w i th the r equ i rem ents of the A ug ust 1 8 , 2 0 0 8 , m o d if

ic a tio n o rd e r, a n d th a t th e C h ri s tm a s D a y v is ita tio n h a d b e e n a s u c c e s s . ¶6. U l t i m at el y, the chanc el l or al l ow ed J i m t o have s upervi s ed vi s i t at i on w i th J ohnny on tw o oc cas i ons a thi s par ent s ’ hom e i n ear l y 2010, and both vi s i t s w entw el l
. A f t erJ i m f ai l ed tw o drug t es t s i n the s pr i ng of 2010, M art i n e ncour aged hi m t o go t o the N at i onal C ouns el
o n D ru g s a n d A lco h o l D e p e n d a n c y (N C A D D ) in T u p e lo , M iss iss ip p i. Jim p re se n ted h im se lf to N C A D D in M a y 2 0 1 0 , a n d the d ire c to r re c o m m e n d e d h im fo r in h o u se tre a tm e n t. S h o rtly ther eaf t er , J i m bur gl ar i zed one of hi s ne i ghbor ’ s homes w hi l e i nt oxi cat ed. O n J une 27, 2010, J i m admi tt ed hi m s el f

i nt o the Fai r l and tr eatm ent f aci l i ty i n D ubl i n, M i s s i s s i ppi , w her e he
s t ayed f orni nety- f

i ve days unt i l he w as di s char ged on O ct ober1, 2010.The chancellor ’s order doe s not indicate why the tri al was continue d. 3 Dr . C his m ’s and

Terri ’s s ep arate c om

plaint for grand parents’ vis itatio n w as c on so lidate d 4 with Abby’s counter complaint to terminate Jim’s parent al right s while the trialwas rec essed from October 18, 2010, to Jul y 11, 2011. 4 ¶7. T r i al on J i m ’s com pla i nt f or ci t at i on of cont empt and A bby’ s count er compl ai ntf or t erm i nat i on of

J i m ’ s par ent al ri ght s began on O ct ober18, 2010. J i m t es t i f i ed thathe bel i eved h e w a s o n th e ro a d to re c o v e ry b e c a u se o f th e c a re h e re c e iv e d a t F a irlan d , h is n e w a n tidepr es s antpr es cr i pt i on, a r enew ed spi r i tual com m i tm ent , and hi s supports ys t em, cons i s t i ng
o f h is fa m ily , g irlfrien d , an d sp o n s o r. T ri a l a d jo u rn e d , a n d o n N o v e m b e r 1 9 , 2 0 1 0 , Jim

3
cons um ed l ar ge amount s of a l cohol a nd X anax and br oke i nt o a nei ghbor ’ s hous e, w her e he pas s ed out
. A nei ghborf ou nd hi m unr es pons i ve and c al l ed 911. M edi cal per s onnel
re s u s c ita te d J im , a n d h e w a s la te r a rr e s te d
. ¶8. T r i al r ecomm ence d on J ul y 11, 2011, and concl uded on Jul y 14. W hen tr i al r es um ed, 4 J i m admi tt ed t o comm i tt i ng the cr i m i nal act s f orw hi ch he w as arr es t ed on N ovember19, 2010, and he a l s o admi tt ed t o adul t er at i ng drug- t es ts am ples h e had pr ovi ded bac k i n M ay of 2010. J i m t es t i f

i ed that bei ng inca r cer at ed had c aus ed hi m t o hi tr ock bott om and had tru ly c h a n g e d h is life fo r th e b e tter. H e a lso sta ted th a t, de sp ite h is a b se n c e , h is re latio n sh ip
w i th J ohnny had notdet er i or at ed and thathe and J oh nn y st i l l l oved ea ch othervery m uch. H e a d m itt e d th a t, b e fo re h is in c a rc e ra tio n , h e th o u g h t h e w a s d o in g e v e ry th in g h e n e e d e d to do t o s t ay s ober , butt hathe s t i l l r el aps ed. H e admi tt ed thathe w as an al cohol i c and s ai d he b e liev e d h e h a d b e e n a n a d d ict h is w h o le life. H e a lso a d m itt e d th a t Jo h n n y n e e d e d sta b ili ty in h is life a n d tha t C .J. B rig h t, A b b y ’s h u sb a n d , w a s a g o o d m a n w h o p ro v id e d Jo h n n y w ith thats t abi l i ty. B utJ i m al s o emphasi zed that , bes i des the J ul y 5 i nci dent , he had ne ver5

comm i tt ed a c r i m e orbeen i nt oxi cat ed ar ound J ohnny, and he agr eed t o abi de by any vi s i t at i on r es tr i ct i ons the courtdeemed nece s s ary. ¶9
. In ad d it ion to h is o w n test im o n y , Jim p rov ided test im o n y from h is p are n ts, h is si ster,
a n d h is g irlfrie n d . A ll fo u r a c k n o w led g e d th a t Jim h a d a su b sta n c e -a b u se p ro b lem , b u t all f oural s o bel i eved he w as on the r oad t o r ecove ry and thatt erm i nat i ng hi s par ent al r i ght s w as noti n J ohnny’s besti nt er es t . J i m al s o cal l ed D r . Sam Fl emi ng, w ho w as t ender ed and
acc ept ed as a n e xperti n ne ur ops ychol ogy. D r . Fl emi ng di agnos ed J i m w i t h subs t ance in d u c e d b ip o lard iso rd e r a n d tes tified th a t, w ith th e p ro p e r tre a tm e n t re g im e n , Jim c o u ld
over come h i s di s or de ra nd be c ome as uc c e s s f ul membe rof

s oc i e ty. N ot a bl y, D r . Fl e m i ng d id no t b eli ev e Jim ha d an alco h o l ad d ict ion
. B u t h e d id ac k n o w ledg e tha t, b ase d o n Jim ’s h is to ry , h e “ h a [d ] a v e ry p o o r p ro g n o s is fo r n o t u s in g a lc o h o l o r d ru g s a g a in .” ¶10. A bby, Bri ght , a nd M art i n t es t i f i ed i n f avorof t erm i nat i ng J i m ’ s par ent al r i ght s . A bby test if ied th at Joh n n y ne ed ed a “stead y fath er” i n his l if e, n o t a fa ther w h o ree m erg ed ev ery
s i x m onths betw een bout s of drunkennes s , r ehabi l i t at i on, and i ncar cer at i on. B r i ghtt es t i f i ed thathe w ant ed t o adoptJ ohnny and w oul d be abl e t o car e f orhi m f i nanci al l y w i thoutthe benef i tof chi l d support . Fi nal l y, M art i n t es t i f i ed thathe bel i eved the gr ounds f ort erm i nat i on
w er e show n by cl earand convi nci ng evi dence and thatt erm i nat i on w as appr opr i at e bec aus e: T h e m ino r ch il d w o u ld clea rl y suffer em o ti o n al distress fo r th e c o m ing y ea rs i f hi s f ather , [ J i m ] , c ont i nued t o tr avel i n a nd outof hi s l i f e atthe conve ni ence a n d sc h e d u lin g o f h is lim ited p e rio d s o f so b rie ty . T h e m in o r c h ildw o u ld su ffe r e m o tio n a l dis tre ss as the su b jec t of co n tin u e d
. . . li tig a tio n rela ted to h is fa th e r’s v isitatio n . . . I b e liev e it’s in th e b e st in ter e st o f th e m in o r c h ildto h a v e a fa th e r w h o is s tab le, h a s s o u n d m o ra l ju d g m e n t, w h o c a n c o n trib u te to hi s upbr i ngi ng, t o hi s w el l bei ng; f orexam ple, the s i m pl e abi l i ty t o be at lib e rty to talk to h is te a c h e rs o r ta k e h im to e x tra c u rr ic u la r a c tiv iti e s a n d to im p a rt so u n d w isd o m . T h e las t re a so n I w o u ld c ite a t th is tim e th a t itw o u ldThe chanc ell or f ou nd that Jim ’s p arentalrightsshould be terminated underMississ ippi Code 5 Section 93-15- 103(3)(e) (i), which st ates: “( 3) Gr ounds for termination of parental ri ghts shallbe ba sed on on e o r moreof

thefo llo wingfacto rs: (e) Th e p arent e xhibits ongoing behavio r whic h would make it impossible to return the child to the parent’ s care and cus tody: . . . (i) Because the parent has adiagnosable c ondition unli kely to change within a reasonable time such as alcohol or drug addicti on, severe mental deficienc ies or mental il lness, or extreme physical incapac itati on, which co nditi on make s theparent un ab le toassume minim ally, accepta blecareof th e chi ld[ .] ” Mi ss. Co deAnn. § 9 3-1 5-1 03 (3) (e) (i) (Rev . 2 01 3). 6 be i n hi s bes ti nt er es tf

ora t erm i nat i on of par ent al ri ght s and adopt i on i s that in th e e v e n t th a t th e m in o r c h ild ’s m o th e r s h o u ld m e e t a n u n tim e ly p a s s in g , a term ination at th is t im e o f [ Jim ] ’s p are n tal righ ts an d all o w ed ad o p ti o n b y M r. B rig h t w o u ld p ro v id e th e m in o r c h ilds tab ili ty , a s h is fa th e r w o u ld b e p re se n t. ¶1 1
. O n S ep tem b er 8 , 2 0 1 1 , th e c h a n c e llo r e n ter ed an o rde r th at: (1) term inated Jim ’s par ent al r i ght s ; ( 2) aw ar ded D r . Chi s m and Terr i gr andpar entvi s i t at i on; and ( 3) pr ovi ded 5 thatJ i m coul d have c ont actw i th J ohnny af t erJ i m had bee n s oberf ora s i x- m on t h per i od f ol l ow i ng his re l eas e f

r om j ai l
. J i m appea l ed, and the C ourtof A ppeal s af

f i rm ed the te rm in a tio n . Se e Chism v. Bright, 2 0 1 3 WL 2 1 6 6 1 0 4 ( M i s s . C t . App . M ay 2 1 , 2 0 1 3 )
. T h is C o u rt th e n g ra n ted Jim ’s p e tit io n fo r c e rtio ra ri. S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶12. A chanc el l or ’ s f

i ndi ngs of f

act i n a t erm i nat i on- of

- par ent al
- r i ght s cas e ar e r evi ew ed undert he “m ani f

es terr or/ s ubs t ant i al cr edi bl e evi dence ” t es tand w i l l notbe re ver s ed so l ong
as “cr edi bl e pr oof

exi s t s t o s upportthe cha ncel l or ’ s f i ndi ng of f actby c l earand convi nci ng evi dence
. ” W.A.S. v. A.L.G. , 9 4 9 S o . 2 d 3 1 , 3 4 ( M i s s . 2 0 0 7 )
. B utques t i ons of l aw s uch as
s t atut ory cons truct i on ar e s ubj ectt o de novo r evi ew , and i f a chanc el l orm i s appr ehends the contr ol l i ng rul es of

l aw ora ct s pur s uantt o a s ubs t ant i al l y e rr oneous vi ew of the l aw , r ever s al is p ro p e r. Et

h r e d g e v. Ya wn , 6 0 5 S o . 2 d 7 6 1 , 7 6 4 (M is s . 1 9 9 2 ).

L A W A N D A N A L Y S IS7

¶13. Par ent s have a“f undament al l i berty i nt er es t. . . i n t he car e, cust ody, and m anage m ent of thei rch i l d” t hat c annotbe t aken a w ay w i thoutcl earand convi nci ng evi dence of the
re q u ir e d s ta tu to ry g ro u n d s fo r t e rm in a tio n o f p a re n ta l r ig h ts . Santos ky v. K r am er , 45 5 U. S. 7 4 5 , 7 5 4 , 1 0 2 S . C t. 13 8 8 , 7 1 L . E d . 2 d 5 9 9 (1 9 8 2 ); see al so J. Jac k so n a n d M . M il ler, E ncyc l opedi a of

Mis s is s i ppiLaw § 7 8 :39 (2 0 0 2 ) (cit ing M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 3 -15 -10 3 (3)). St at e s t atut es pr ovi di ng f orthe t erm i nat i on of

par ent al r i ght s ar e s ubj ectt o s tr i cts crut i ny and

“ [c]o u rts m a y n o t ad d to th e e n u m e ra ted g ro u n d s.” D e b o ra h H . B e ll, B el lon Mis s is s i ppi Fam i l y Law 409 ( 2005) ( ci t i ng G unterv. G r ay , 8 7 6 S o . 2 d 3 1 5 (M iss . 2 0 0 4 )); see al so R ias
v. Henders on , 342 So. 2d 737, 739 ( M i s s . 1977) ( hol di ng t hatst atut es af f ect i ng f undament al
c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts a re s u b je c t to s tr ic t s c ru tin y ). ¶1 4. T hi s C our thas s t at ed that“[ b] eca use par ent al r i ght s ar e s o i m por t ant , ” t he

“ c irc u m sta n c e s u n d e r w h ich [th o se rig h ts] ca n b e term inated b y the g o v ern m en t” are “ sh a rp ly l i m i t [ ed. ] ” G unterv. G r ay , 876 So. 2d at317. T i t l e 93, C hapt er15 of the M i s s i s s i ppi C ode
s e ts o u t th e re q u ir e m e n ts a n d p ro c e d u re fo r t h e te rm in a ti o n o f p a re n ta l r ig h ts . See M i ss. C o d e A n n . § § 9 3 -1 5 -1 0 1 th ro u g h 9 3 -1 5 -1 1 1 (R e v . 2 0 1 3 ). ¶1 5. A s m ent i oned above , t he cha ncel l orf ou nd tha tJ i m’ s p a r e nt a l r i ght s s houl d be term inated b ec au se h e e x h ibit ed “on go i ng beh aviorw hich w ou l d m ake itim p o ssible to retu rn th e m in o r c h ildto h is c a re a n d c u sto d y b e c a u se h e h a s a d iag n o sa b le c o n d iti o n , sp e c ifica lly alco h o l an d dru g ad d ict ion , un li k ely to ch an g e w ith in a reaso n ab le t im e w h ich m ak es h im unabl e t o as s um e mi ni m al l y, acc ept abl e ca r e of the chi l d .
. . . ” B ut nei t her the cha ncel l or
northe C ourtof

A ppeal s a ddr es s ed s ubs ect i on ( 1) of Sec t i on 93- 15- 103, w hi ch s et s outthr eeTo be clear, the c hanc el lor was analyz ing this underSection 93-15- 103(3), inst ead of 6 Section 93-15- 103(1). 8 p re re q u isites th a t m u st b e m e t before the courtm ay i nvoke any spe ci fi c gr ound f or t erm i nati on . S ect i on 93 -15-103 (1) st at es: (1) W hen a chi l d has been r emoved f r om the home of

i t s natur al par ent s and c a n n o t b e re tu rn e d to th e h o m e o f h is n a tu ra l p a re n ts w ith in a re a so n a b le len g th o f tim e b e c a u se retu rn in g to th e h o m e w o u ld b e d a m a g in g to th e c h ild orthe par enti s unabl e orunw i l l i ng to ca r e f orthe chi l d, r el at i ves ar e not appr opr i at e orar e unavai l abl e, and w hen adopt i on i s i n t he bes ti nt er es tof the c h ild , tak in g into ac c o u n t w h e th e r th e ad o p tio n is ne e d e d to se c u re a s tab le pl ace m entf

or the chi l d and the s tr ength of the chi l d’ s bonds t o hi s natur al p a re n ts a n d th e e ff

e c t o f f u tu re c o n ta c ts b e tw e e n th e m , th e g ro u n d s liste d in s ubs ect i ons (

2) and ( 3) of this s ect i on s hal lbe cons i der ed as gr ounds f orthe te r m in a tio n o

f p a r e n ta l r ig h ts . T h e g rou n d s m ay ap p ly si n g ly o r in combi nat i on i n any gi ven ca s e. M is s . C o d e A n n . § 9 3 -1 5 -1 0 3 (1 ) ( R e v . 2 0 1 3 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). See al s o I n R e D is s olution of Mar r iage of

L eve r ock and H

am by , 2 3 S o . 3 d 4 2 4 , 4 2 8 (M iss. 2 0 0 9 ). T h is C o u rt previ ou sl y h as cat ego ri zed the three prer equ i si t es i n sub sect i on (1) as f oll ow s: ( 1) the chi l d has been r emoved f r om the home of

i t s natur al par ent s and ca nnot be r eturned t o the ho m e o f hi s natur al par ent s w i thi n a r eas onabl e l ength of t i m e orthe p are n t i s u n ab le o r u n w il li n g to ca re fo r th e c h il d ; ( 2 ) relat ives are notappr opr i at e orar e unava i l abl e; and ( 3) a dopt i on i s i n the bes ti nt er es tof the chi l d. L eve r ock , 2 3 S o . 3 d at 42 8 (em p h asis ad d ed ). ¶16. H er e, i t i s undi s put ed that J ohnny w as not “r emoved f r om the ho m e of his natur al p are n ts. ” A n d w e also d o n o t f ind from this reco rd th at Ji m is “u n ab le or u n w il li n g ” to c are fo r Jo h n n y . F irst, th e c h a n c e llo r’s fin d in g th a t Jim w a s “ u n a b le to a ss u m e m in im a lly
a c c e p tab le c a re ” o f Jo h n n y is be lied b y the fac t th a t he als o allo w e d Jim to h a v e c o n tac t w ith 6 John ny aft er he i s sober f or si x m on ths. N ei ther A bb y n o r anyon e el se object s t o thi s.9

Si m pl y becaus e J i m m i gh tnotbe the bes tchoi ce t o be J ohnny’ s f ul l
- t i m e c u sto d ia l par ent
cert ai nl y do es notm ean thathe i s “unabl e t o car e” f orJ ohnny. T hi s C ourt“has never al l ow ed t erm i nat i on of

par ent al r i ght s onl y be caus e other s may be bett erpa r ent s . ” W.A.S. , 9 4 9 S o . 2 d at 3 5 . Second, i ti s undi s put ed thatJi m w ant s t o be a pa rtof J ohnny’ s l i f

e and that they have a very l ovi ng r el at i ons hi p, w hi ch evi dence s thatJ i m i s notunw i l l i ng t o car e f or h im
. ¶17
. M oreove r, w e aff i rm the o verar ching prem i se that t erm i nati on of parent al ri gh t s i s a l astresort . T his int ent i s evidenced b y the L egis l ature i n S ect i on 9 3-15-10 3(4), w hich st at es: L egal cus t ody and guar di ans hi p by per s ons otherthan the par entas w el l as otherperm anental t ernat i ves w hi ch end the s upervi s i on by t he D epartm entof H um an S ervi ces s hould be cons i der ed as al t ernat i ves to the t erm i nat i on of p a re n ta l rig h ts , and thes e al t ernat i ves s hould be s elected w hen , i n t he b est i nt er es tof the chi l d, par ent al cont act s ar e des i r abl e and i tis possi ble to secure s u c h p la c e m e n t w ith o u t te r m in a tio n o f p a r e n ta l r ig h ts . M i s s . C ode A nn. § 93- 15- 103( 4) ( R ev. 2013) ( emphasi s added)
. I n s hort , A bby has not pr oven the s t atut ory pre r equi s i t es found i n Sect i on 93-15- 103( 1) t hatm us tbe met
. A s s uch,
w e dec l i ne t o addr es s the s peci f i c gr ound f

ort erm i nati on anal yzed by the cha ncel l or , or
w hethert erm i nat i on i s i n J ohnny’ s bes ti nt er es t . F or thes e r eas ons , w e r ever s e the t erm i nat i on o rderand r emand thi s cas e t o the U ni on C ounty C hance ry C ourtf orf urther pr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th thi s opi ni on. ¶ 1 8
. RE VE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D. W A LL ER , C . J. , D I C K I N SO N A N D R A N D O LP H , P. JJ . , K I TC H EN S, CHANDL ER , P I ER CE , KI NG AND COL EM AN, J J . , CONCUR.