Thank God for Mississippi
I came across this court case that just came out from the Supreme Court of Mississippi that is almost the embodiment of "Thank God for Mississippi".
The excerpts are not that long and it's kind of fun to read, but I'll summarize. April gave birth to Andrew in 2009, then 15 months later voluntary gave custody of her kid to her gay brother Jason. He was living with his boyfriend David at the time, and they got married two years later. A year after the wedding, April came back and got custody of Andrew again, but also allowed David visitation rights with the kid to the same level as a biological parent would. Meanwhile, April marries Pablo (an illegal immigrant, this will be relevant later) and they have a daughter. April tells David that he can't see Andrew (the kid) anymore but a court tells April to knock it off and let David visit. About a year after that lawfight, Jason (the brother) dies from HIV. A year later, David files an emergency petition to gain full custody of Andrew, alleging all sorts of neglect and bad behavior. It was apparently so bad, that April's own mom and step-dad joined David's petition and basically said "yes please take away custody".
A court agreed the allegations were serious enough that they kept watch and ordered April to submit to drug tests, which she failed repeatedly. April then supposedly retaliated against David by claiming child sexual abuse. Everything kind of freezes at this point and the kid goes to foster care so that CPS can properly investigate this and they fail to substantiate the accusations. The court is kind of tired of April's shit and rules she is completely unfit as a parent and gives full custody to David.
Then she appeals to the Supreme Court of Mississippi and their ruling is seriously bananas. They are visibly struggling between granting custody to an openly gay man versus a drug addict. April accuses David of being an "open homosexual" who doesn't even go to church. The Supreme Court shrugs and basically says sure he's gay BUT at least he's keeping his gay lifestyle out of sight from the kid. Besides, even though he doesn't go to church, at least he testified that he's a Christian. I am not making this up:
Though he is involved in a relationship with another man that is intimate in nature, his partner does not reside with him and there is no evidence that [David] has allowed this element of their relationship to be observed by the child.
[...]
Also, although David does not attend church, he testified that he is a Christian.
Then the court turns its attention towards April, and holy shit do they have some choice words for her. First, they excrociate her because she stays at home to take care of her kids:
As stated earlier, though she confesses to be able to work, she has chosen to not do so preferring again to live with little income at the expense of the taxpayers of the State of Mississippi by drawing food stamps and insuring the health of the child through Mississippi's CHIPS program. These elements are not supportive of the stability of the home environment in her favor.
Then they turn their attention towards her husband Pablo, because they know he's an illegal immigrant, and just what kind of person lets an illegal immigrant in their house? Again, I am not making this up:
the issue is April's continued relationship with an individual who she knows is committing an illegal act. April acknowledges that Pablo has lived and worked in this country illegally since 2013.... April's continued relationship with Pablo is a relevant factor in her parental fitness. Indeed, it speaks to her overall poor judgment.... We emphasize that the illegal act itself, i.e., illegal immigration, is not the issue. The fact that April continues to reside with an individual who she knows is committing an illegal act is problematic, regardless of the nature of that illegal act.
Because of all of that, the court weighs the factors in David's favor, but they write as if it was a close call.
There is one judge (coincidently the only black person there) that agrees with the end result but still says, wait a second what the fuck?
the majority continues to discuss the status of Pablo's citizenship. According to the majority's logic, April could be found to have poor parental fitness if she was engaged in a relationship with a person who had unpaid parking tickets or who illegally downloads movies and television shows. Thus, I continue to disagree with the majority's finding that Pablo's citizenship status negatively affects on April's parental fitness.
Then he further questions why David's gay lifestyle was ever brought into question on his morality:
the chancellor found that David's "homosexual lifestyle" called his moral fitness into question. The chancellor relied on a case decided more than twenty years ago, stating that ... "[t]he fact that the Plaintiff and his 'life partner' engage in sexual activity which include both oral or anal intercourse is repugnant to this Court as constituting a felony act under the laws of this state."
Does it count as "boo outgroup" if I'm calling out the most powerful court in a state? I should remind everyone that judges on this court are elected, so they are subject to the whims of voters. Still, I read and write legal arguments for a living and I was completely floored by this opinion. I admit I had a relatively low opinion of the state, but I didn't think it was so bad that even their highest court in 2019 would resort to arguments like this. It reads like an angry blog post.