De Rubio v. Herrera
541 S.W.3d 564
Mo. Ct. App.2017Background
- Mother (undocumented) filed for dissolution in Missouri in Feb 2016 and sought sole legal and physical custody of her then-17-year-old son (also undocumented) who had recently entered the U.S. and been released to Mother.
- Mother asked the dissolution court to include three "Special Findings" (dependency/custody, reunification not viable due to abandonment, and it not being in the child's best interest to return to El Salvador) to enable the son to apply for Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) status.
- Father, served by publication, did not appear at the hearing; the trial court found he abandoned the family and granted Mother sole custody and adopted her parenting plan.
- The trial court denied Mother's requested SIJ special findings, stating the absence of personal service on Father, no guardian ad litem, the child not being a party, and that neither parent was a U.S. citizen made such findings inappropriate.
- Mother secured a later affidavit from Father waiving personal service and moved for reconsideration; the trial court denied the motion and refused to enter SIJ-specific findings. Mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the dissolution court erred by refusing to enter SIJ "special findings" needed for federal SIJ application | Mother: She established the facts supporting the three SIJ findings (dependency/custody, reunification not viable due to abandonment, and returning to El Salvador is not in child's best interest) and the court should have issued them | Court (and State): No Missouri statute or binding precedent requires a dissolution court to make SIJ-specific findings; the court need not make findings unrelated to controverted material issues in the dissolution | Court: No error. Missouri courts are not required to issue SIJ findings in a dissolution proceeding; such findings ordinarily arise in juvenile/guardianship proceedings when acting in the child's best interest |
| Whether denial of SIJ findings violated due process/equal protection by relying on parents’ immigration status | Mother: The court impermissibly based denial on immigration status, violating Plyler and equal protection/due process | Court: Decision was not based solely on immigration status; court properly exercised discretion and was not required to make SIJ findings | Court: No constitutional violation. The denial was permissible and not reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Canales v. Torres Orellana, 800 S.E.2d 208 (Va. Ct. App. 2017) (federal SIJ statute does not compel state courts to make SIJ findings; state courts may do so when applying state law in child-welfare proceedings)
- Guaman, In re Guardianship of, 879 N.W.2d 668 (Minn. Ct. App. 2016) (SIJ process overview and role of state court findings)
- H.S.P. v. J.K., 121 A.3d 849 (N.J. 2015) (describing two-step SIJ process and state court's predicate factual role)
- Eddie E. v. Superior Court, 234 Cal. App. 4th 319 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (SIJ beneficiaries may naturalize after obtaining status; explains federal/state roles)
- Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (U.S. 1982) (illegal aliens are protected by Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses)