In the Matter of the Adoption of P.B.H. L.T. and D.T. v. J.H.

Summary

The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed a chancery court’s judgment granting a joint adoption of a child to the child’s maternal grandmother and the mother’s former boyfriend, while awarding primary physical custody to the grandmother. The court held that the biological father’s consent was valid and irrevocable absent clear and convincing evidence of fraud, duress, or undue influence, and found no reversible error in admitting the independent therapist’s testimony, evaluating the child’s best interests, or limiting a proposed expert hypothetical.

Holdings

1. A birth parent's consent to adoption is valid and irrevocable unless the parent proves fraud, duress, or undue influence by clear and convincing evidence. The biological father failed to make that showing, so the chancellor properly denied his motion to withdraw consent.
2. The chancellor did not commit manifest error by considering the testimony and reports of a licensed, experienced, independent therapist appointed through a guardian ad litem.
3. The chancellor did not commit manifest error, abuse his discretion, or apply an erroneous legal standard by granting a joint adoption to the maternal grandmother and J.H., an unrelated former boyfriend of the deceased mother, while awarding primary physical custody to the grandmother and visitation to J.H.
4. The chancellor did not commit reversible error by excluding the grandparents' ill-phrased hypothetical, which improperly combined the expert's actual knowledge of some parties with assumptions about a person the expert had not evaluated.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the biological father established fraud, duress, or undue influence sufficient to withdraw his consent and relinquishment of parental rights.
2. Whether the chancellor erred by admitting and relying on the testimony of the independent therapist allegedly biased in favor of J.H.
3. Whether the chancellor abused his discretion, committed manifest error, or applied an erroneous legal standard in granting a joint adoption to unrelated opposing parties.
4. Whether the chancellor improperly excluded a hypothetical question directed to the grandparents' expert.
5. Whether any error in excluding the hypothetical was harmless.

Disposition

affirmed