The Mississippi Supreme Court this month upheld a ruling from the Lincoln County Chancery Court on paternity and inheritance rights.
Dauwanna Mitchell, represented by Wayne Dowdy, challenged Judge Edward E. Patten Jr.’s rulings in 2016 that Kevin Moore, a minor, was the child of her deceased son Travis Weems, and in 2014 that an order terminating parental rights and responsibilities was mistakenly accepted by the court in 2011.
Mitchell alleged that Weems was never determined to be Moore’s father because no genetic testing was ever performed. A paternity action was filed by the Department of Human Services, but was dismissed in 2007 because Weems was never served the papers.
DHS refiled the complaint in November 2008, and Weems appeared in court and signed an agreement for paternity testing to be performed. That testing was never done, and a chancery judge in May 2009 entered a judgment for child support and other relief.
“(Weems) is the parent of (Moore) and is therefore under a legal duty to provide for (his) support,” the order said. “(Weems) refused to submit to genetic testing in this action. Paternity was previously established pursuant to voluntary acknowledgement of (Moore).”
Moore’s mother, Tabitha Moore, sought termination of Weems’ parental rights in September 2010. The matter was heard in February 2011, and the court approved the termination, “including the rights of inheritance of and from the child.”
In May 2015, Lincoln County Chancery Clerk Tillmon Bishop, acting as Kevin Moore’s guardian, filed a motion to revise the 2011 judgment. Bishop said none of the parties had sought action on inheritance rights, and those rights had not been mentioned at any time during the proceedings.
Mitchell opposed the revision, but Patten ruled that the inclusion of the inheritance clause in the original ruling was a clerical error and removed the clause from the ruling.
That proceeding was prompted by Weems’s death in a car accident in July 2014. Summons to any unknown heirs were published by Bishop as required by law, and Tabitha Moore was the only person who responded, on Kevin’s behalf.
Based on the 2009 paternity judgment, the chancery court ruled that Kevin was the rightful heir of Weems. Mitchell appealed to invalidate the ruling, on the grounds the original paternity action was dismissed and never completed, and also claimed that the revision of the inheritance rights was improper.
The Supreme Court held that the paternity action was properly continued and completed. On the inheritance clause, the high court said the revision should have been considered under a different section of the Rules of Civil Procedure, but that the revision was still the proper result for Kevin Moore and did not disadvantage Mitchell.
Six of the justices concurred in the ruling. They cited case law holding that no one can have heirs while they are alive.
Chief Justice Bill Waller and Justice Josiah Coleman dissented, saying the revision to remove the inheritance clause came too long after the ruling was issued. They noted that Moore’s attorney prepared the order, and Bishop reviewed the order before Patten finalized the judgment.
Waller and Coleman also noted that the ruling removing the inheritance clause damaged Mitchell’s standing to inherit.
