Justia Military Law Opinion Summaries

A divorced couple shares joint legal and physical custody of their three minor children, alternating weekly custody as part of their agreement. After their separation, the father resided at his parents’ home, where he exercised his custodial time with the children. When he received orders for a seven-month overseas military deployment, he filed an emergency petition to allow his parents to assume all of his court-ordered custodial time during his absence. The mother objected to this arrangement, expressing concerns about the children’s wellbeing and her strained relationship with the paternal grandparents.The Madison County Chancery Court held a hearing and denied the father’s request to delegate his full custodial time to his parents. Instead, the court granted the grandparents extended temporary visitation during the deployment and ordered the mother to facilitate the children’s communication with their father and make them available during his leave, as required by statute. The father moved for clarification and reconsideration, arguing that the trial court misapplied Mississippi Code Section 93-5-34 by not maintaining the “status quo,” but the trial court denied his motion.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed whether the chancery court correctly interpreted Section 93-5-34 and whether it abused its discretion by granting only visitation rather than full custodial delegation. The Supreme Court held that the statute does not permit a deployed parent to unilaterally delegate custodial time; the authority to determine or delegate custody rests with the court, and the best interest of the child remains paramount. The court further found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to deny full custodial delegation and instead grant substantial visitation to the grandparents. The judgment of the Madison County Chancery Court was affirmed. View "Solop v. Solop" on Justia Law

In 2016, the Adjutant General of the Mississippi Military Department (Department) terminated Cindy King’s employment with the Department after conducting an investigation into some of King’s activities. King began working for the Department approximately twenty years ago, and her role was that of a supervisor in the Environmental Office at Camp Shelby. However, in late 2015, an officer was tasked with investigating whether King “utilized information garnered through her position as the Camp Shelby Environmental Officer to front run the Army Compatible Use Buffer Program for personal gain” by purchasing a specific piece of property located near Camp Shelby. King denied the claim against her, but after concluding the investigation, the Adjutant General terminated King’s employment with the Department. Aggrieved, King appealed her termination to the Mississippi Employee Appeals Board (Board); however, the Department challenged the Board’s jurisdiction to hear King’s appeal. The chief hearing officer assigned to King’s appeal agreed with the Department and dismissed King’s appeal. King then appealed for full Board review, and the Board affirmed the chief hearing officer’s determination. Next, King appealed to the Forrest County Circuit Court. The circuit court heard arguments and issued an opinion and judgment affirming the Board. Finally, King filed this appeal. The Mississippi Supreme Court held that, while King may be considered a state service employee as defined by the Legislature, the Adjutant General, by virtue of three statutory provisions, was not subject to review by the Board. View "King v. Mississippi Military Department" on Justia Law

In 2016, the Adjutant General of the Mississippi Military Department (Department) terminated Cindy King’s employment with the Department after conducting an investigation into some of King’s activities. King began working for the Department approximately twenty years ago, and her role was that of a supervisor in the Environmental Office at Camp Shelby. However, in late 2015, an officer was tasked with investigating whether King “utilized information garnered through her position as the Camp Shelby Environmental Officer to front run the Army Compatible Use Buffer Program for personal gain” by purchasing a specific piece of property located near Camp Shelby. King denied the claim against her, but after concluding the investigation, the Adjutant General terminated King’s employment with the Department. Aggrieved, King appealed her termination to the Mississippi Employee Appeals Board (Board); however, the Department challenged the Board’s jurisdiction to hear King’s appeal. The chief hearing officer assigned to King’s appeal agreed with the Department and dismissed King’s appeal. King then appealed for full Board review, and the Board affirmed the chief hearing officer’s determination. Next, King appealed to the Forrest County Circuit Court. The circuit court heard arguments and issued an opinion and judgment affirming the Board. Finally, King filed this appeal. The Mississippi Supreme Court held that, while King may be considered a state service employee as defined by the Legislature, the Adjutant General, by virtue of three statutory provisions, was not subject to review by the Board. View "King v. Mississippi Military Department" on Justia Law