In other cases where we have considered admissibility of the testimony of a physician or psychologist when the welfare of a child was concerned, we have not addressed Rule 503. See In the Interest of T.T., 427 So.2d 1382 (Miss. 1983) (clinical psychologist's testimony regarding father's character disorder and psychopathic tendencies and mother's low I.Q. and vulnerability admissible in Youth Court termination hearing in interest of sexually abused child); Bryant v. State, 567 So.2d 234 (Miss. 1990) (physician's testimony and presentation of "grievously afflicted" child not prejudicial in case against father for child support). Human Services asserts that absent the admission of expert testimony and medical records, the burden of "clear and convincing evidence" required in a termination of parental rights proceeding pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 93-15-109 (Supp.
The burden of proof in such a proceeding rests upon the agency seeking to terminate parental rights, and the evidence must be clear and convincing. In the Interest of T.T., 427 So.2d 1382, 1384 (Miss. 1983) (citation omitted). ¶ 37.
¶ 18. In In re T.T., 427 So.2d 1382 (Miss. 1983), we determined that the trial court had the authority to direct that proceedings for TPR be initiated where the court had decided, from all of the evidence, that it was in the best interest of the child regardless of the parents' compliance with the court's requirements. Id. at 1384.
A combined reading of these two sections clearly indicates that the applicable standard for the chancellor's consideration was "that there has been a material change in circumstances as to custody that would benefit and be for the best interest of the children." This Court has stated the applicable standard of care in In Interest of T.T., 427 So.2d 1382 (Miss. 1983). T.T.'s custody was assumed by the Harrison County Department of Public Welfare after reports of sexual abuse by the child's father.
(d) order youth court personnel, the department of public welfare or child care agencies to assist the child and the child's parent, guardian or custodian to secure social or medical services to provide proper supervision and care of the child; . . . Miss. Code Ann. § 43-21-609 (1972); See also In Interest of T.T., 427 So.2d 1382 (Miss. 1983) (experts testified in Youth Court proceedings on whether child should be returned to natural parents). The trial judge in the case sub judice after hearing and considering all of the therapist's and case worker's testimony was of the opinion that it was in the best interest of D.K.L. to be reunited with her family and thus permitted John Hall to return to the home.
To begin with, the Supreme Court has made clear that the youth court judge, "having concern for the best interest and future of a minor child, has the authority to direct [DHS] to institute proceedings for the termination of parental rights." In re T.T., 427 So.2d 1382, 1384 (Miss.1983) ; accord Oktibbeha Cty. Dep't of Human Servs. v. N.G., 782 So.2d 1226, 1234 (¶ 41) (Miss.2001) ; In re V.R., 725 So.2d 241, 245–46 (¶¶ 18–20) (Miss.1998).
Lauderdale County Dep't. of Human Services v. T.H.G. and L.D.G., 614 So.2d 377, 385 (Miss. 1992) (citing In Interest of T.T., 427 So.2d 1382, 1384 (Miss. 1983)). The burden of proving that a parent's parental rights should be terminated must be met under the "clear and convincing evidence" standard.
Lauderdale County Dep't. of Human Services v. T.H.G. and L.D.G., 614 So.2d 377, 385 (Miss. 1992) (citing In Interest of T.T., 427 So.2d 1382, 1384 (Miss. 1983)). The burden of proving that a parent's parental rights should be terminated must be met under the "clear and convincing evidence" standard.