Opinion ID: 1791166
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether the chancellor erred by failing to adopt a guardian ad litem during the adoption proceeding.

Text: ¶ 13. The natural mother also argues that since adoption is essentially a termination of parental rights, the appointment of a guardian ad litem is mandatory per Miss.Code Ann. § 93-15-103 (Supp. 2001). The chancellor stated in his judgment, the Court finds this case to be one of parental termination and not one of custody.... The failure to appoint a guardian ad litem, C.L.B. contends, is grounds to set aside the adoption because the best interests of the child were not being guarded. As with the UCCJA, C.L.B. misinterprets the law. ¶ 14. Nowhere within the statutory adoption scheme can a mandate requiring the appointment of a guardian ad litem in situations like the present case be found. As we have previously held, the more specific statute controlling this case is § 93-17-8(5). That statute limits the occasions where the appointment of a guardian ad litem is required in an adoption proceeding to contested allegations and where an adoption agency is involved. Neither of those scenarios is present here. J.C. v. R.Y., 797 So.2d 209, 215 (Miss.2001). Furthermore, the Court of Appeals has expressly stated, and we agree, that Mississippi law does not require the chancellor to appoint a guardian ad litem. In re Adoption of D.T.H., 748 So.2d 853, 856 (Miss.Ct.App.1999). This is especially true for cases similar to the present matter where valid consent and surrender forms were executed by both natural parents. Also, a full reading of the parental termination statute clearly indicates that it is to be applied in cases in which one party or the court is trying to terminate the parental rights of another, not cases of consensual adoption where both natural parents agree to and are party to the adoption petition. Miss.Code Ann. § 93-15-103. This issue is without merit.