Opinion ID: 1833563
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: whether the trial court should have dismissed the petition to terminate parental rights because of dhs's failure to grant her an adjudicatory and dispositional hearing or to appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the children when they were removed from her care in 1995.

Text: ¶ 12. The statute governing adjustment of status hearings in Youth Court states that if the court finds from a preponderance of the evidence that the child is a neglected child or an abused child, the youth court shall enter an order adjudicating the child to be a neglected child or an abused child. Miss.Code Ann. § 43-21-561(3) (2000). Further, [i]f the child has been adjudicated ... a neglected child or an abused child, the youth court shall immediately set a time and place for a disposition hearing which shall be separate, distinct and subsequent to the adjudicatory hearing. Id. § 43-21-601(1) (2000). Unless the hearing is continued upon a showing of good cause or the person who is a subject to the cause has admitted the allegations of the petition, an adjudicatory hearing shall be held within ninety (90) days after the filing of the petition to determine whether there is legally sufficient evidence to find that the child is a... neglected child or abused child.... Id. § 43-21-551(1) (2000). The procedure for a disposition hearing, includes: (1) At the beginning of each disposition hearing, the judge shall inform the parties of the purpose of the hearing. (2) All testimony shall be under oath unless waived by all parties and may be in narrative form. The court may consider any evidence which is material and relevant to the disposition of the cause, including hearsay and opinion evidence. . . . . (5) If the child has been adjudicated a neglected child or an abused child, prior to entering a disposition order, the youth court shall consider, among others, the following relevant factors: (a) The child's physical and mental conditions; (b) The child's need of assistance; (c) The manner in which the parent, guardian or custodian participated in, tolerated or condoned the abuse, neglect or abandonment of the child; (d) The ability of the a child's parent, guardian or custodian to provide proper supervision and care of a child; and (e) Relevant testimony and recommendations, where available, from the foster parent of the child, the grandparents of the child, the guardian ad litem of the child, representatives of any private care agency which has cared for the child, the social worker assigned to the case, and any other relevant testimony pertaining to the case. Miss.Code Ann. § 43-21-601 (2000). That sub-chapter of the code continues to state that: The court to which appeals may be taken from final orders or decrees of the youth court shall be the supreme court of Mississippi. In any case wherein appeal is desired, written notice of intention to appeal shall be filed with the youth court clerk within ten (10) days after the rendition of the final order or decree to be appealed from, and costs in youth court and the filing fee in the supreme court shall be paid as is otherwise required by law for appeals to the supreme court. Miss.Code Ann. § 43-21-651(1) (2000). ¶ 13. In a recent case where a juvenile defendant was brought up on charges of delinquency, this Court ruled that while a hearing held before the youth court was not styled an adjudicatory hearing, it, nonetheless, met the requirements of Miss. Code Ann. § 43-21-551(1). D.D.B. v. Jackson County Youth Court, 816 So.2d 380 (Miss.2002). In that case this Court noted, even though there was no direct statement on the record that this was an adjudicatory hearing and there was no document styled `continuation of hearing' or the like, we find the October 18, 1999, hearing was an adjudicatory hearing and the youth court judge was essentially continuing the adjudicatory hearing. Id. at 384. ¶ 14. In this case there was clearly a hearing held on June 20, 1995, within the ninety-day time period required by statute. The fact that it was called a review hearing does not change its adjudicatory nature. In fact, the mother was there, along with a representative of DHS and a CASA worker. The court order entered in that case refers to an inquiry more in depth than the one referred to in D.D.B. Therefore, while the language of § 43-21-551 makes the adjudicatory hearing mandatory, there is no definition in the statute of an adjudicatory hearing. Therefore, the traditional requirements of an adjudicatory hearing were met in this case by the June 20, 1995 hearing. ¶ 15. Further, this issue is stale. If the mother wished to review the court order relieving her of custody of her children in 1995, she had ten days in which to file notice of appeal. She failed to do so, and, therefore, any attack on the 1995 order relieving her of custody of her children is not timely. This issue, therefore, is not be grounds for reversal.