Opinion ID: 1736480
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: did the chancery court of hinds county commit manifest error in granting the adoption petition of the beggianis'?

Text: Mrs. Prante argues that the Chancery Court of Hinds County committed manifest error in granting the adoption petition of the Beggianis, in that the Beggianis are unrelated to B.L.P. and C.M.P., and in that the lower court should have recognized a preferential right to custody in Mrs. Prante as the maternal grandmother of the children. Mrs. Prante's argument is unsound. As early as 1842, this Court held that: The law has given to our courts the most unbounded jurisdiction over minors. Fathers may be preferred to mothers  mothers to fathers  relatives to parents  or strangers to either, for the custody and care of minors, where the interests of the child require its exercise. (emphasis added) Foster v. Alston, 6 How. (7 Miss.) 406, 457 (1842). The rule that the paramount concern in cases where custody of a child is involved is the child's best interest has remained in full force and effect in this jurisdiction, and has continually been reaffirmed by this Court. J.C. v. Natural Parents, 417 So.2d 529, 531 (Miss. 1982); Bloodworth v. Bloodworth, 409 So.2d 1336, 1337 (Miss. 1982); Morris v. Morris, 245 So.2d 22 (Miss. 1971). Kinship is only a factor to be considered and is not determinative of the issue. As such, Mrs. Prante's argument for preferential status as the maternal grandmother of the children must fail. Mrs. Prante further argues that an adoption of the children by the Beggianis would not be in the best interest of the children due to the fact that Mr. Beggiani was fifty-two (52) years old and Mrs. Beggiani was forty-nine (49) years old at the time of the hearing, and as such they were past the age at which an adoption should occur. Brunt v. Watkins, 233 Miss. 307, 101 So.2d 852 (1958). In the Brunt case the trial court made a factual determination that the best interest of the minor would not be served by an adoption to prospective parents of fifty-three (53) and forty-one (41) years of age where there were other prospective adoptive parents who were younger and would otherwise be suitable parents and who desired to adopt the child. On appeal, this Court, simply put, refused to reverse the chancellor's finding of fact on this issue. Brunt at 315, 101 So.2d at 856. The present case presents a different situation, in that the lower court made a factual determination that the best interest of the children would be served by granting the Beggianis' adoption petition, and there were no prospective adoptive parents who were younger than the Beggianis that desired to adopt B.L.P. and C.M.P. Indeed, the only other person seeking custody of the children was Mrs. Prante, who was fifty-two (52) years of age. The proof at trial showed that the Beggianis were solid citizens in the community with a sound home and a close family relationship. Mr. Beggiani has an income of over $100,000 per year. Additionally, the Beggianis have successfully raised a previous child they adopted, and they have espoused their love for B.L.P. and C.M.P. Further, adoption workers with the Department of Public Welfare testified that the children had made substantial physical and mental progress since coming to live with the Beggianis, and to tear them from the only home they have ever known would only have a detrimental effect. On the contrary, the proof at trial showed Mrs. Prante to have had difficulty raising the two (2) children she had adopted. Her family is not close, with there being little communication. Further, at times she made little effort to keep in touch with B.L.P. and C.M.P. After considering the above facts, the chancellor factually determined that the best interests of the children would be served by granting the adoption petition of the Beggianis. The chancellor's findings of fact will not be found erroneous unless manifestly wrong. Dillon v. Dillon, 498 So.2d 328 (Miss. 1986); Country Club of Jackson v. Saucier, 498 So.2d 337 (Miss. 1986). As we find no manifest error in the above determination, the assignment of error is meritless.