Jones County Mississippi Youth Court Case Raises Kinship Placement and Conflict Concerns
JONES COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI — A child welfare case in Jones County is raising serious questions about kinship placement law, judicial discretion, court delays, alleged conflict of interest, Guardian ad Litem failures, and whether a child was permanently separated from biological family because the court allowed time to create the very foster attachment later used against relatives.
According to records and statements reviewed by Father’s Advocacy Network, the case involves a child identified here as Child G, who was removed shortly after birth and placed into Mississippi Department of Child Protection Services custody. A biological relative, identified here as Relative K.M.-218, sought custody, completed requirements, passed screenings, and was repeatedly recommended by MDCPS for placement.
Despite those recommendations, Hon. Wayne Thompson, Youth Court Judge in Jones County, allegedly denied kinship placement and later granted Durable Legal Custody to the foster family. The result, according to the complaint, was that Child G was cut off from his grandmother, aunt, and four biological siblings.
The case now raises one central question: if Mississippi and federal law prioritize qualified relatives, why did a child remain with non-relative foster caregivers after the state itself repeatedly recommended kinship placement?
A Child Removed at Birth, a Relative Ready to Step In
According to the case summary provided to FAN, Child G was born in February 2023 and placed in MDCPS custody the following day after the mother reportedly tested positive for amphetamines and methamphetamines. The child reportedly tested negative.
Soon after, Relative K.M.-218 contacted MDCPS to request placement. She began the licensing process, participated in visits, and worked through the requirements needed to become an approved relative caregiver.
By the case account, MDCPS began licensure in March 2023. Relative K.M.-218 began visitation in April 2023. By August 2023, she had reportedly passed all state requirements, including drug testing and home inspection.
That should have placed her in the strongest possible position under kinship placement law.
Instead, the case dragged on.
MDCPS Recommended Kinship Placement — The Court Said No
The most important fact in this case is not merely that a relative wanted custody. It is that MDCPS reportedly recommended placement with the relative multiple times.
According to the report, MDCPS recommended weekend visitation for Relative K.M.-218 in May 2023 with the intent to move toward custody. The court rejected that recommendation.
Later, after Relative K.M.-218 had reportedly passed all requirements, the court again denied MDCPS’ recommendation for placement.
The reason allegedly cited: Child G had formed an attachment to the foster parents.
But that attachment existed because the case had already been delayed while the child remained in foster placement.
That is the core injustice alleged in the complaint: the court delayed the case, allowed foster attachment to deepen, and then used that attachment as the reason to deny the very relative placement that should have been prioritized from the beginning.
Federal Law Favors Relatives
Federal law under 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(19) requires state child welfare systems to consider giving preference to adult relatives over non-relative caregivers when the relative meets relevant child protection standards.
Kinship placement is not a sentimental preference. It is a core child welfare principle rooted in evidence and common sense.
Children placed with relatives are more likely to maintain family identity, sibling relationships, cultural connection, and continuity. Kinship care can reduce trauma because the child remains connected to biological family rather than being fully absorbed into a stranger-care system.
In this case, the complaint alleges Child G had available biological family, a qualified relative caregiver, and internal MDCPS recommendations supporting kinship placement.
Yet the court ultimately chose the foster family.
Mississippi Law Also Prioritizes Kinship
The report cites Miss. Code § 43-15-13(4) as part of the legal framework requiring priority for qualified relatives.
Mississippi’s child welfare system, like federal law, recognizes that family placement should be prioritized when safe and appropriate.
If a relative passes requirements, maintains visitation, demonstrates willingness, and receives state recommendation, denying that placement should require more than generalized preference for foster continuity created by delay.
The public deserves to know what specific legal findings justified rejecting kinship placement after MDCPS allegedly recommended it.
Judge Wayne Thompson Named in Report
Hon. Wayne Thompson, Youth Court Judge in Jones County, is named as a central official in the case.
According to the complaint, Judge Thompson repeatedly denied kinship placement despite MDCPS recommendations. He allegedly cited the child’s attachment to foster parents, even though that attachment developed during delays that the family says exceeded Mississippi’s legal limits.
In May 2025, Judge Thompson reportedly granted Durable Legal Custody to the foster family.
According to the complaint, that decision severed contact between Child G and his biological family, including his grandmother, aunt, and four biological siblings.
The allegation is not simply that Judge Thompson made a difficult placement decision. The allegation is that he allowed delay to create the very condition later used to defeat kinship placement.
Delayed Adjudication Became a Weapon Against the Family
Mississippi law requires adjudication within strict deadlines. The report cites Miss. Code § 43-21-551, which requires timely adjudication in abuse or neglect proceedings.
According to the report, the adjudication hearing was delayed five times and exceeded Mississippi’s 90-day legal limit.
Those delays mattered enormously.
Every month Child G remained with foster parents made it easier for the court to later say he had bonded with them. Every continuance made it harder for the relative to overcome the argument that moving the child would be disruptive.
This is how delay can become outcome-determinative.
The court system can create a foster bond through inaction, then treat that bond as more important than the biological family connection federal and state law were designed to protect.
Durable Legal Custody to Foster Parents Cut Off Biological Family
In May 2025, the court reportedly granted Durable Legal Custody to the foster family.
According to the complaint, the decision cut off contact between Child G and his biological family.
The child was allegedly isolated from:
- His grandmother
- His aunt
- Four biological siblings
- Extended family connections
This is one of the most serious consequences in the case.
Kinship placement is not only about the adult relative. It is about the child’s right to remain connected to family, siblings, heritage, history, and identity.
When a child is placed permanently outside the family despite available relatives, the state has not merely selected a caregiver. It has reshaped the child’s entire identity and relational future.
Risher Caves and Conflict-of-Interest Allegations
The report names Risher Caves, Youth Court Prosecutor in Jones County.
According to the complaint, Caves privately advocated for the foster parents, who reportedly attended his church, while continuing to appear in the case after conflict concerns were raised.
The complaint also alleges that Caves told the foster parents, “Don’t worry, we’ve got this.”
If accurate, that statement would raise serious questions about neutrality, prosecutorial ethics, and whether the foster parents received preferential treatment from a public official involved in the case.
Prosecutors in youth court proceedings are not supposed to function as private advocates for foster parents. They are supposed to represent the state’s legal interests within the boundaries of law, ethics, and child welfare mandates.
If the prosecutor had a personal or church relationship with the foster family, that relationship should have been fully disclosed and handled in a way that protected the integrity of the proceedings.
Continuing After Recusal Concerns
The complaint alleges Risher Caves continued appearing even after recusal concerns.
That is a serious allegation because recusal exists to protect public confidence in legal proceedings. Even the appearance of favoritism can undermine trust, especially in a case where the court ultimately chose foster parents over a qualified relative.
When the foster parents are alleged to have a personal connection with the prosecutor, and the prosecutor is alleged to have privately advocated for them, the entire proceeding deserves review.
Guardian ad Litem David Sullivan Named
The report also names David Sullivan, Guardian ad Litem.
According to the complaint, Sullivan communicated with the foster mother before appointment, failed to conduct required home visits or interviews, and based his recommendation against Relative K.M.-218 partly on her age.
The relative was reportedly 68 years old.
Age alone should not disqualify a relative caregiver who otherwise meets child protection standards. Many grandparents and great-grandparents safely and successfully raise children.
If Sullivan relied on age instead of documented safety concerns, home-study findings, interviews, or actual caregiving capacity, his recommendation raises serious fairness and discrimination concerns.
GAL Duties Matter
A Guardian ad Litem is supposed to independently investigate and advocate for the child’s best interests.
That role should include home visits, interviews, review of placement options, evaluation of family connections, and careful consideration of sibling relationships.
The complaint alleges Sullivan failed to conduct required home visits or interviews.
If accurate, that means the court may have relied on recommendations that were not supported by the kind of independent investigation the child deserved.
In a case where a child’s relationship with biological family was at stake, a deficient GAL investigation could have lifelong consequences.
Sandra Clayton Accused of Forgetting the Relative
The report names Sandra Clayton, an MDCPS supervisor.
According to the complaint, Clayton knew about Relative K.M.-218 well before Child G was born but disregarded her as a placement option.
The complaint alleges Clayton told the grandmother that the reason she did not call was because the grandmother was “so far on the back burner” that Clayton had forgotten about her.
That allegation is stunning.
Kinship placement cannot function if relatives are forgotten by the agency responsible for protecting family connections.
If a qualified relative is known to MDCPS and is later overlooked, the failure is not administrative. It directly affects whether a child grows up connected to family or permanently separated from them.
Lauryn Hills Accused of Obstructing Relative Placement
The report also names Lauryn Hills, a former MDCPS caseworker.
According to the complaint, Hills had a personal issue with Relative K.M.-218 and allegedly told her to get an attorney. The complaint further alleges Hills ripped up paperwork the relative had started with another CPS worker.
Those allegations, if true, raise serious concerns about obstruction, bias, and agency misconduct.
Kinship placement should never depend on whether a caseworker personally likes a relative. It should depend on safety, qualifications, family connection, and statutory priority.
Witnesses Willing to Testify
The report identifies two witnesses willing to testify.
Witness M.W.-714, a former foster parent, reportedly observed favoritism and bias experienced by Relative K.M.-218 and another family member. She reportedly attended multiple visitations and court dates and observed comments and actions by the foster parents.
Witness C.O.-339, a neighbor and former foster parent with experience as a NICU nurse and veteran, reportedly reviewed the family’s documents and helped the family navigate the case.
These witness accounts matter because they may corroborate concerns about bias, procedural irregularities, foster-parent conduct, and the family’s efforts to obtain custody.
Foster Parents Allegedly Intended to Adopt From the Beginning
The report states that the foster parents openly expressed intent to adopt Child G from the outset, including in an April 2023 letter.
If accurate, that raises another serious question.
Foster care is supposed to be temporary when reunification or kinship placement remains legally viable. Foster parents may become adoptive resources in some cases, but they should not be positioned to override qualified relatives simply because they wanted adoption early in the case.
When foster parents enter a case wanting adoption, and court delays allow attachment to build while relatives wait, the system can become functionally rigged against the family.
The Dangerous Logic of “Attachment”
The court reportedly cited Child G’s attachment to the foster parents as a reason not to move him.
Attachment matters. Children should not be moved carelessly.
But attachment cannot be used as a reward for delay.
If the State keeps a child with foster parents while relatives are completing requirements, delays adjudication beyond legal limits, rejects agency recommendations for kinship placement, and then says the child is too bonded to move, the court has created the very condition it uses to deny family.
That logic punishes relatives for delays they did not cause.
Kinship Placement Is Not Optional
Federal and state kinship laws exist because children should not be separated from biological family when safe relatives are available.
Those laws are not mere suggestions.
In this case, the complaint alleges:
- A relative requested custody early
- The relative began licensure
- The relative passed requirements
- MDCPS recommended placement
- The court rejected those recommendations
- Adjudication was delayed beyond statutory limits
- The foster attachment created by delay was used against the relative
- Durable Legal Custody was granted to foster parents
- Biological family contact was severed
If those allegations are accurate, the case represents a direct challenge to the integrity of kinship placement law in Mississippi.
The Sibling Separation Concern
The complaint states Child G has been isolated from four biological siblings.
Sibling relationships are often among the most important relationships in a child’s life. They carry identity, continuity, shared history, and emotional security.
When courts separate a child from siblings, especially where a qualified relative is available, the decision should be backed by clear evidence and rigorous findings.
The report alleges that did not happen here.
Impact on the Family
The impact on Relative K.M.-218 and the biological family has reportedly been devastating.
According to the complaint, the relative did what the system required. She came forward. She participated in visits. She completed licensure steps. She passed requirements. She received favorable MDCPS recommendations.
Still, the court granted custody to the foster family.
The family says Child G has now been cut off from the people who fought to keep him connected to his biological roots.
That is not simply a placement dispute. It is a permanent family rupture.
Accountability Questions for Jones County Officials
This case raises urgent questions:
- Why were MDCPS recommendations for kinship placement rejected?
- Why was attachment to foster parents used against relatives when court delay helped create that attachment?
- Why was durable legal custody granted to foster parents despite available qualified relatives?
- Why was Child G allegedly severed from his biological family and siblings?
- What role did Prosecutor Risher Caves’ alleged church relationship with the foster parents play?
- Why did Caves allegedly continue appearing after recusal concerns?
- Did Guardian ad Litem David Sullivan conduct required home visits and interviews?
- Was Relative K.M.-218’s age improperly used against her?
- Why did Sandra Clayton allegedly forget about a known relative placement option?
- Did Lauryn Hills destroy paperwork submitted by the relative?
- Were Mississippi’s 90-day adjudication limits violated?
- Did the court comply with federal kinship placement law?
Named Officials
Hon. Wayne Thompson — Youth Court Judge
Judge Wayne Thompson allegedly denied kinship placement despite MDCPS recommendations and granted Durable Legal Custody to the foster family in May 2025. The complaint alleges he relied on foster attachment created by court delays and allowed proceedings to continue despite conflict concerns involving other officials.
Risher Caves — Youth Court Prosecutor
Risher Caves allegedly advocated for foster parents who attended his church and continued appearing after recusal concerns. The complaint alleges he told the foster parents, “Don’t worry, we’ve got this.”
David Sullivan — Guardian ad Litem
David Sullivan allegedly communicated with the foster mother before appointment, failed to conduct required home visits or interviews, and based his recommendation in part on Relative K.M.-218’s age.
Sandra Clayton — MDCPS Supervisor
Sandra Clayton allegedly knew about Relative K.M.-218 but disregarded her as a placement option and later stated the relative was “so far on the back burner” that she forgot about her.
Lauryn Hills — Former MDCPS Caseworker
Lauryn Hills allegedly showed personal bias toward Relative K.M.-218, advised her to get an attorney, and destroyed paperwork related to placement efforts.
What Should Have Happened
Based on the report, a legally sound process should have included:
- Immediate and documented assessment of Relative K.M.-218
- Strict compliance with Mississippi adjudication deadlines
- Meaningful weight given to MDCPS kinship recommendations
- Transparent disclosure of any prosecutor conflict
- Recusal where personal connections undermined neutrality
- Independent GAL home visits and interviews
- No reliance on age alone as a placement disqualifier
- Protection of sibling and biological family contact
- No use of court-created foster attachment to defeat kinship placement
- Written findings explaining why federal and state kinship mandates were overridden
Why This Case Matters
This case matters because it exposes one of the most troubling patterns in child welfare: relatives step forward, complete the process, receive agency support, and still lose because the court delays long enough for foster attachment to become the excuse.
If the system can ignore relatives until foster parents become “bonded,” then kinship preference is meaningless.
If a prosecutor can allegedly advocate for foster parents connected through church, then neutrality is meaningless.
If a Guardian ad Litem can allegedly skip home visits and rely on age, then best-interest advocacy is meaningless.
If a supervisor can forget a known relative placement, then family preservation is meaningless.
Child welfare cannot claim to protect children while severing them from safe, qualified, willing family members without compelling legal justification.
Sources and Documentation
This article is based on an exposure campaign report, case summary, parent and relative accounts, witness information, statutory analysis, and records reviewed by Father’s Advocacy Network. Additional documents recommended for review include court transcripts, MDCPS filings recommending kinship placement, recusal records, GAL reports, and all placement-related communications.
Disclaimer
Exposure consent has not been obtained. Before using this article in any public campaign, written consent should be obtained from the family. This article uses protective aliases for non-public family members while naming public officials identified in the report.
Officials and agencies named or referenced in this report are invited to respond by contacting press@fathersadvocacynetwork.com. This article will be updated with any statements provided.
This reporting is based on documents, case summaries, allegations, and materials reviewed by Father’s Advocacy Network. Details may evolve as additional records become available.
Father’s Advocacy Network is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice. This article is for educational, informational, and public accountability purposes only.
Image Credit: Courthouses.co
