Category Archives: Opinion

Foster Parents Bill of Rights

In 2023, the Mississippi Legislature enacted changes in child welfare, enacting a Foster Parents’ Bill of Rights. But, what does this mean…? Stay tuned for a multi-part blog diving into the FPBOR and what it means AND what it doesn’t mean…

Foster Parents’ Bill of Rights and Responsibilities

The Department of Child Protection Services shall extend the following rights to persons who provide foster care and relative care:

(a) A clear understanding of their role while providing care and the roles of the birth parent(s) and the placement agency in respect to the child in care;

(b) Respect, consideration, trust and value as a family who is making an important contribution to the agency’s objectives;

(c) Notification of benchmarks that will be required of the foster parent such as appointments, home visits with department personnel, visitations of the child at school and meetings between department personnel and the child’s family;

(d) Advance notice of information regarding scheduled meetings other than meetings where the Department of Child Protection Services personnel or social workers are going to the foster parent’s home for site visits, appointments and court hearings concerning the foster child;

(e) The opportunity to communicate with professionals who work with the foster child including therapists, physicians and teachers who work directly with the child;

(f) The opportunity to communicate and collaborate, without threat of reprisal, with a department representative when further educational services are needed to ensure the child’s educational needs are met, including services such as an Individualized Educational Plan (IEP), tutoring, occupational therapy, speech therapy and after-school programs;

(g) The opportunity to attend all IEP meetings, along with the department worker, at the child’s school as long as the child is in custody and receiving special educational services;

(h) The opportunity to communicate with the foster child’s guardian ad litem;

(i) The opportunity to attend all youth court hearings involving a foster child occurring while that child is placed in their care without being a party to the youth court action, unless the youth court determines that any foster parent should not be present. Foster parents may attend all youth court hearings and have legal counsel attend and observe with them if the child’s permanent plan is adoption by the foster parents, unless the youth court determines that any foster parent should not be present. Foster parents may communicate with the guardian ad litem in writing at any time. Foster parents may ask to be heard concerning the best interest of the child at any disposition or permanency hearing;

(j) When the dates of the permanency hearing and  permanency review hearing have been set by the youth court, and if necessary to fulfill the notice requirements, the judge or the judge’s designee shall order the clerk of the youth court to issue a summons to the foster parents to appear personally at the hearings as provided by Section 43-21-501;

(k) The opportunity to request from the youth court permission to communicate with the child’s birth family, previous  foster parents of the child, and prospective and finalized adoptive parents of the child, without the threat of reprisal. However, this right creates no obligation of the birth family, previous foster parents, or prospective and finalized adoptive parents to communicate in return;

(l) Involvement in all the agency’s crucial decisions regarding the child as team members who have pertinent information based on their day-to-day knowledge of the child in care and involvement in planning, including, but not limited to, individual service planning meetings, foster care review, individual educational planning meetings, and medical appointments;

(m) The opportunity to participate in the planning of visitations between the child and the child’s siblings, parents or former guardians or other biological family members which have been previously authorized by the youth court. Visitations shall be scheduled at a time and place meeting the needs of the child, the biological family, and the foster family.

Recognizing that visitation with family members is an important right of children in foster care, foster parents shall be flexible and cooperative with regard to family visits but shall retain the right to reasonable advance notice of all scheduled visitations;

(n) The ability to communicate with department personnel or representatives twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven  (7) days a week, for the purpose of aiding the foster parent;

(o) A comprehensive list of all resources available to the foster parent and child, including dental providers, medical providers, respite workers in the area, day cares, and methods for submitting reimbursements;

(p) Support from the family protection worker or the family protection specialist in efforts to do a better day-to-day job in caring for the child and in working to achieve the agency’s objectives for the child and the birth family through provision of:

(i) A copy of the “Foster Child Information Form”  and all other pertinent information about the child and the birth family, including medical, dental, behavioral health history, psychological information, educational status, cultural and family background, and other issues relevant to the child which are known to the department at the time the child is placed in foster care prior to the child’s placement with a foster parent or parents. The department shall make reasonable efforts to gather and provide all additional current medical, dental, behavioral, educational and psychological information reasonably available from the child’s service providers within fifteen (15) days of placement. When the department learns of such information after fifteen (15) days of placement, the department shall communicate such information to the foster parent as soon as practicable;

(ii) An explanation of the plan for placement of the child in the foster parent’s home and the ongoing and timely communication of any necessary information which is relevant to the care of the child, including any changes in the case plan;

(iii) Help in using appropriate resources to meet the child’s needs, including counseling or other services for victims of commercial sexual exploitation or human trafficking;

(iv) Direct interviews between the family protection worker or specialist and the child, previously  discussed and understood by the foster parents;

(v) Information regarding whether the child experienced commercial sexual exploitation or human trafficking;

(vi) Information related to the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. Foster parents shall protect the confidentiality of the child by working directly with a designated school official to complete the application for free lunches.

(q) The opportunity to develop confidence in making day-to-day decisions in regard to the child;

(r) The opportunity to learn and grow in their vocation through planned education in caring for the child;

(s) The opportunity to be heard regarding agency practices that they may question;

(t) Information related to all costs eligible for reimbursement, including:

(i) Reimbursement for costs of the child’s care in the form of a board payment based on the age of the child as  prescribed in Section 43-15-17 unless the relative is exempt from foster care training and chooses to exercise the exemption; and

(ii) Reimbursement for property damages caused by children in the custody of the Department of Child Protection Services in an amount not to exceed Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00), as evidenced by written documentation.

The Department of Child Protection Services shall not incur liability for any damages as a result of providing this reimbursement.  

(12) The Department of Child Protection Services shall require the following responsibilities from participating persons who provide foster care and relative care:

(a) Understanding the department’s function in regard to the foster care and relative care program and related social service programs;

(b) Sharing with the department any information which may contribute to the care of children;

(c) Functioning within the established goals and objectives to improve the general welfare of the child;

(d) Recognizing the problems in home placement that will require professional advice and assistance and that such help should be utilized to its full potential;

(e) Recognizing that the family who cares for the child will be one of the primary resources for preparing a child for any future plans that are made, including return to birth parent(s), termination of parental rights or reinstitutionalization;

(f) Expressing their views of agency practices which relate to the child with the appropriate staff member;

(g) Understanding that all information shared with the persons who provide foster care or relative care about the child and his/her birth parent(s) must be held in the strictest of confidence;

(h) Cooperating with any plan to reunite the child with his birth family and work with the birth family to achieve this goal; and

(i) Attending dispositional review hearings and termination of parental rights hearings conducted by a court of competent jurisdiction, or providing their recommendations to the guardian ad litem in writing.

(13) The department shall develop a grievance procedure for foster parents to raise any complaints or concerns regarding the provisions of Section 43-15-13(11) or (12).

(14) Nothing in this section shall be construed to create a private right of action or claim on the part of any individual, the department, or any child-placing agency.

Matthew Thompson is a child custody attorney in Mississippi and routinely presents at Guardian Ad Litem training and has presented at Foster Parent Training.

An Open Invitation to Colab…

Believe it or not, there are not many Mississippi Legislators that are lawyers!

Saturday Night Live compared the Mississippi Legislature to a hissing possum. It was funny…

“Whew!” you say? Not so fast. Our legislators make the laws. This may be the one instance more lawyers could help!!

There is proposed legislation with terminology, words, that do not mean what you (and our legislators) think they mean. Words matter. Legal words matter.

There’s a marked difference between May and Shall in the eyes of the law.

So, legislators, Please contact me at any time about any questions regarding proposed legislation. If i have an opinion I will share it. If I am unqualified to comment I will admit it, and if you ask that our discussion remain confidential I will honor that.

Let’s get this right the first time. Its too important to not to.

Matthew Thompson is a 20-year practicing lawyer, law school professor, author of the family law text book in Mississippi and not afraid to speak out and speak up. Contact him via email or phone. Matthew@ThompsonLaw.ms or (601)850-8000

Weird Custody Bill Proposed…

House Bill 1304 seeks to amend section 93-5-24 to allow JOINT CUSTODY to be awarded in any type of divorce, requires the court to make written findings on the record regarding its custody decision, and order parenting time that favors both parents equally.

I say weird because, #1 the court already makes written findings in contested custody matters, #2 if its agreed/settled there’s no need for written findings, #3 if the court finds one parent is the better parent and therefore better for the children this law still requires equal time… what’s the point in the custody determination? #4 The statute states if a parent is awarded “paramount” physical custody. There is no “paramount” physical custody under our law.

Perhaps, this is a misunderstanding or intentional, I am unsure…

Below is the specific language.

(2) Joint custody may be awarded where irreconcilable differences or any other ground is the ground for divorce * * *.

(3) * * * After a trial on the merits where custody is in dispute, the court shall make a finding on the record, if the court awards either parent paramount physical custody over the other parent, the court shall order a parenting time schedule that favors both parents equally subject to the best interests of the child.

My prediction? This BILL is DOA. Dead on Arrival.

Matthew Thompson is a child custody lawyer and handles matters regarding physical custody and perhaps even “paramount” physical custody…

To Divorce or Not to Divorce; That is the Legislative Question

At least 2 bills are pending to sort of make Mississippi Divorce Law make common sense…

Senate Bill 2018, Brice Wiggins seeks to make 2 tweaks to family law.

  1. Eliminate the willful and obstinate requirements of Desertion/Abandonment. Current law requires; a spouse’s “wilful, continued and obstinate desertion” for a period of a year is grounds for a divorce. Miss Code Ann. § 93-5-1 (2004).
  2. The New proposed law states, Fourth. * * * Continued * * * desertion for the space of one year.
  3. and adds a 13th ground
  4. Thirteenth. Upon application of either party, the court may grant a divorce when the court finds there has been an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage and that further attempts at reconciliation are impractical or futile and not in the best interests of the parties or family.

an Identical House Bill also includes the above revisions. HB0496 sponsored by Representative Denton.

Why is this common sense, sort of? 48 other states have true, no fault divorce statutes. Mississippi does not. You can read why that matters here, here and here

Why is it common sense? The law and legislature cannot make someone be a spouse or partner regardless of the status of the marriage.

Mississippi has proposed these common sense changes every year since I have been paying attention. It ain’t happened yet….

Matthew is a family law and divorce attorney in Mississippi and is in favor of some common sense changes in the law.

Mississippi Senate Bill 2319: It’s a Crime to Discharge Genetic Material Without Intent to Fertilize!

Mississippi Legislators are in the news again!

Senator Bradford Blackmon introduced a bill, known as the “Contraception Begins at Erection Act.”

This proposal makes it a crime “for a person to discharge genetic materials without the intent to fertilize an embryo”

Penalties escalate from a first offense warranting a $1,000.00 fine to the third and subsequent offenses warranting a $10,000.00 fine, per (dis)charge.

The law excepts donations/sales to facilities for future fertilization and for discharges with the use of contraceptive measures…

Blackmon provided WLBT News a statement, “All across the country, especially here in Mississippi, the vast majority of bills relating to contraception and/or abortion focus on the woman’s role when men are fifty percent of the equation. This bill highlights that fact and brings the man’s role into the conversation. People can get up in arms and call it absurd but I can’t say that bothers me.”

Senate Bill 2319

AN ACT TO ENACT THE CONTRACEPTION BEGINS AT ERECTION ACT; TO DEFINE TERMS; TO PROVIDE THAT IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON TO DISCHARGE GENETIC MATERIAL WITHOUT THE INTENT TO FERTILIZE AN EMBRYO; TO PROVIDE FOR CRIMINAL PENALTIES; TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.

     BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI:

     SECTION 1.  (1)  This section shall be known and may be cited as the “Contraception Begins at Erection Act.”

     (2)  It shall be unlawful for a person to discharge genetic material without the intent to fertilize an embryo.

     (3)  Upon conviction of a violation of this section, a person shall be fined:

          (a)  One Thousand Dollars ($1000.00) for a first offense;
          (b)  Five Thousand Dollars ($5000.00) for a second offense; and

          (c)  Ten Thousand Dollars (10,000.00) for a third or subsequent offense.

     (4)  This section shall not apply to the discharge of genetic material:

          (a)  Donated or sold to a facility for the purpose of future procedures to fertilize an embryo; and

          (b)  Discharged with the use of a contraceptive or contraceptive method intended to prevent fertilization of an embryo.

     SECTION 2.  This act shall take effect and be in force from and after July 1, 2025.

Clearly, this is not a serious bill and was done to generate discussion.

Matthew Thompson is a family law and civil litigation attorney in Mississippi and keeping an eye on the 2025 Legislative session.

NOT SO FAST! How Mississippi House Bill 1089 Affects Radar Laws for Sheriffs

Mississippi House Bill 1089

There is proposed legislation to allow the Sheriff’s department to have the use of radar. It may come as a surprise that most Sheriff’s departments do not and are not allowed to use radar speed sensing devices.

The current law is based, in part, on the concern and stigma of speed traps as revenue generators for unincorporated areas.

The propsoed legislation seeks to AMEND SECTION 63-3-519, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO AUTHORIZE ANY COUNTY SHERIFF OR DEPUTY SHERIFF TO UTILIZE RADAR SPEED DETECTION EQUIPMENT UPON THE APPROVAL OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.

  The Current law states;

     63-3-519.  It shall be unlawful for any person or peace officer or law enforcement agency, except the Mississippi Highway Safety Patrol, to purchase or use or allow to be used any type of radar speed detection equipment upon any public street, road or highway of this state.  However, such equipment may be used:

          (a)  By municipal law enforcement officers within a municipality having a population of two thousand (2,000) or more according to the latest or a previous federal census upon the public streets of the municipality, but in no case where the latest federal census population for the municipality is less than one thousand five hundred (1,500) * * *.

          (b)  By any college or university campus police force within the confines of any campus wherein more than two thousand (2,000) students are enrolled * * *.

          (c)  By municipal law enforcement officers in any municipality having a population in excess of fifteen thousand (15,000) according to the latest federal census on federally designated highways lying within the corporate limits

Proposed, new legislation includes:

          (e)  By any county sheriff or deputy sheriff upon the county roads of their respective county with board of supervisors approval.  Such approval shall be voted on and approved by a majority vote, and the approval shall be spread upon the board minutes of the county.

    …

     SECTION 2.  This act shall take effect and be in force from and after July 1, 2025.

Will this pass? Is this about public safety and protecting and serving? Is this necessary? Or, is this about generating revenue? Will it be abused if passed?

Matthew Thompson is a family law and civil litigation attorney in Mississippi and is keeping an eye on proposed legislation this session.

Child Testimony, the Court and YOU

A child testifying is an often discussed issue between parents and attorneys in child custody cases.

When parents are getting a divorce the child usually knows more than their parents think. The child most likely witnessed fights, bad conduct and sometimes even dangerous conduct.

In Mississippi law, the leading authority is Jethrow vs. Jethrow, 571 So.2d 270 (Miss. 1990). This case lays the groundwork that the Court should use when assessing child testimony. The basic premise is, as follows;

  • A child witnesses of tender years*, 12 and under for testimony purposes, testifying is subject to the discretion of the Judge. (*this tender years is different than the “tender years” doctrine favoring a mother when a child is very young, under 2-3).
  • Before allowing such testimony the Judge “should satisfy himself that the child has the ability to perceive and remember events, to understand and answer questions intelligently, and to comprehend and accept the importance of truthfulness.”

Before excluding the testimony of a child witness of tender years in a divorce proceeding, the chancellor at a minimum should follow the procedure required by Crownover v. Crownover, 33 Ill.App.3rd 327, 337 N.E.2d 56 (1975):

  • The first hurdle is whether the child is competent to testify.
  • The Judge should confer in camera (meaning in the Judge’s chambers/office) with the child and determine whether or not the child’s testimony should be heard
  • The Judge has considerable discretion in conducting proceedings of this type, meaning it’s a judgment call.
  • The court should not, however, reject outright proposed testimony of a child in custody proceedings, where the omission of such crucial testimony might be harmful to the child’s best interests.
  • The trial court should take great pains to have an in camera conference with the child to determine the competency of the child,
  • and determine the competency of any evidence which the child might present.
  • The court should determine whether the best interests of the child would be served by permitting her to testify, or
  • Whether the child should be sheltered from testifying and being subjected to a vigorous cross-examination.
  • The Judge should report the essential material matters developed at the in camera conference on the record.
  • The Court should state the reasons for allowing or disallowing the testimony of the child, and
  • The Court should note the factual information which the court developed from the conference with the child which would be considered by the court in its ultimate determinations in the case.

Generally, the testimony of a child called as a witness in a divorce case should not be excluded for reasons other than competency, or evidentiary defects, or for the protection of the child. (24 Am.Jur.2d, Divorce and Separation, A 415). There should not be a summary refusal to inquire as to the competency of the child to testify and also of the competency of the proposed testimony of such child in a change of custody proceeding.

imgres.jpg

“We reiterate that parents in a divorce proceeding should if at all possible refrain from calling any of the children of their marriage, of tender years at least, as witnesses, and counsel should advise their clients against doing so except in the most exigent cases. The reason and wisdom behind this precaution need no amplification. We also hold, however, as we must that no parent can be precluded from having a child of the marriage in a divorce proceeding testify simply because of that fact.” Jethrow v. Jethrow, 571 So.2d 270, 274 (Miss. 1990)(emphasis added).

A child testifying should be avoided, however if it cannot be avoided the above process will likely be used by the Court to determine if and how the child will testify.

Matthew Thompson is a Child Custody Litigation Attorney in Mississippi.

Don’t Make Your Problems BIGGER!

We all run into problems from time to time and sometimes we are even responsible for those problems…

But, one great practice tip is to not make those problems bigger.

If you are doing the WRONG thing, stop! If you are making bad decisions, make better decisions. If your judgment is compromised, acknowledge it and choose better.

Doubling down on the bad and wrong decisions is not a good path forward.

Also, your decisions may be hurting other people. Think about that. A problem you created or you contributed to may hurt someone else. It may hurt an innocent, unintended person.

Its never too late to do the right thing.