Valid Will

• In the event that the deceased person left a valid will, the issue of adopted verses biological children normally does not arise. The person making the will is at liberty to include or exclude people in the will, regardless of the nature of the relationship.
  
  One possible area of dispute would be if the person did not specifically name individuals but used a generic term such as "my children." The intestacy laws of Mississippi suggest that if such a term was disputed, a court would rule that it covered adopted children, but it is safer for the person writing the will to avoid such potential ambiguity, particularly as he will not have the opportunity to clarify his intentions when the will is executed.
  
  

Intestacy

• Intestacy arises when the deceased person, known as the decedent, does not leave a valid will, or leaves a will that is drafted in a way that does not account for some assets.
  
  Under the intestacy rules of Mississippi, there are four categories of priority. The assets are divided by all members of the highest priority category that has at least one member. The categories are, in descending order of priority: spouse and children; parents, siblings and descendants of siblings; grandparents, uncles and aunts; other blood relatives.
  
  Where a member of a category did exist but has died, his share is divided among any of his descendants. For example, if the decedent had two sons, one of whom was one dead with two living daughters, the estate is split, with 50 percent going to the surviving son and 25 percent each to the deceased son's daughters.
  
  

Adoption

• Under Mississippi's intestacy laws, a legally adopted child is treated in the same way as a biological child and comes under the category of a blood relative. This applies to descendants so, for example, if the deceased person's daughter had two children, one biological and one adopted, both children would be treated equally.
  
  

Disputes

• A 2004 case that went to the Mississippi Supreme Court involved an adopted child among the heirs. Another heir attempted to retroactively dispute the adoption in the hope of having it invalidated. This attempt ultimately failed, with the Supreme Court ruling that only the natural parents of a child could legally object to that child being adopted. The court noted that the only exception to this would be in an inheritance case in which it could be proved that the adoption had been carried out fraudulently with the specific intention of allowing the adopted child to unjustly claim an inheritance.