Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Arrington v. Thrash

Court of Appeals of Mississippi

Decided September 24, 2013No. 2012-CA-00051-COAPublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJames, J.

¶ 34. I agree with the majority’s finding that the chancellor was without authority to amend the child’s birth certificate and change her surname. However, the chancellor erred in granting grandparents’ visitation. Allison’s motion for a continuance should have been granted in order to allow Allison to appear in court. Also, DNA testing alone does not establish paternity, as there must be an adjudication of paternity with the proper parties before the court, prior to an award of grandparents’ visitation. Therefore, I would reverse and remand the award of visitation to allow the adjudication…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Martin v. CoopMississippi Supreme Court · 1997
  2. Perkins v. ThompsonMississippi Supreme Court · 1989
  3. Garrett v. BohannonMississippi Supreme Court · 1993

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API