Harrison County panel hears testimony that children in state custody were placed in hotel rooms; committee seeks code clarification
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
SubscribeSummary
At a Harrison County Blue Ribbon Committee meeting, residents and committee members described cases of children in state custody left for weeks or months in hotel rooms with unvetted sitters, criticized repeated 90-day FIP extensions and urged clarification of Mississippi Code 43-21-301.
Harrison County’s Blue Ribbon Committee on Friday heard multiple accounts from residents and committee members alleging that children in state custody were sometimes placed in hotel rooms for extended periods with minimal supervision, and members said they will press for clarification of state law and additional oversight.
A video shown to the committee included testimony from an agency owner contracted by Child Protective Services (CPS) who said children were “left in these hotel rooms almost months on end” with little food, no regular schooling and only phone-based sitting. "Children receive nothing but fast food and microwave dishes," the presenter said, describing a pattern she called unsafe and costly; she estimated a private placement could cost about $225,000 per child over 12 months.
Committee members said the child featured in the video was in CPS custody when the incident occurred and urged the department to explain current placement practices. “Where is she today? Is she safe?” the chair asked, saying the committee intends to press CPS for answers and to include the matter in its public reporting to the Board of Supervisors.
Brandy Moore, who identified herself during public comment, recounted the case of a family she became involved with after CPS removed children. Moore described severe home conditions and said four children later tested positive for methamphetamine; she said repeated complaints to CPS and the courts produced little response. “Not once did they bother me,” she said of the agency’s response, and described court delays and multiple 90-day continuations that left children’s custody unresolved.
Members and witnesses criticized the Family Intervention Program (FIP), which provides parents successive 90-day periods to complete requirements, and faulted judges’ interpretations that allow repeated extensions. One committee speaker summarized the local practice: FIP “gives them 90 days” and, when repeated, can delay permanent action even in cases with positive drug tests.
Committee members also focused on statutory interpretation. The group cited Mississippi Code 43-21-301 and said some judges interpret the statute to require an additional factor beyond a positive drug test before removing a child. A committee member summarized that interpretation in the meeting: “Just being positive for drugs alone is not enough of a reason to take a child away,” a position the committee said varies by county and judge.
Health professionals on the committee raised related concerns about hospital discharges. The committee noted reports that newborns testing positive for fentanyl or methamphetamine have been discharged to parents, and said it will press hospitals and youth court for clearer safety plans and better vetting of discharge decisions.
The committee agreed to pursue several next steps: ask CPS for case status updates, press for clarification of how judges are applying Mississippi Code 43-21-301, and prepare a presentation and slideshow for the Board of Supervisors on April 17 to report the Blue Ribbon Committee’s findings and recommendations.
Formal housekeeping actions during the meeting included acceptance of the Jan. 16 minutes and motions to approve an amended committee bylaws term-limit provision and to send a reply letter to Judge Stacy Devil as drafted; members moved and seconded those items during the session and arrangements were made for signatures.
The Blue Ribbon Committee said it will continue its fact-finding, request CPS participation in future meetings where possible, and pursue legislative or administrative clarification of the contested code provision.
