Hessel v. Missouri Department of Social Services, Children's Division
2013 WL 1739778
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Division determined Hessel committed child neglect after a 2010 alcohol-related vehicle accident.
- CANRB initially granted review of Division’s neglect determination, with a hearing scheduled for March 23, 2011.
- Family Court (in a separate action) adjudicated neglect based on the same facts and placed Hessel’s name on the central registry.
- CANRB informed Hessel that it lacked power to review due to the Family Court adjudication.
- Hessel sued to compel CANRB review or for de novo trial; Division moved to dismiss, arguing lack of CANRB jurisdiction and collateral estoppel; trial court granted partial relief to Hessel, ordering CANRB review and registry removal, which Division appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Family Court adjudication substantiate Division’s neglect finding, depriving CANRB of jurisdiction? | Division argues adjudication substantiates findings under 210.153.8, eliminating CANRB review. | Hessel contends CANRB retains some jurisdiction or de novo review is possible. | CANRB lacks jurisdiction; Family Court adjudication substantiates the finding. |
| Did the Family Court order preclude de novo review by the trial court? | Division maintains Family Court precludes CANRB review and any de novo action. | Hessel argues de novo review remains available notwithstanding Family Court order. | The Family Court order does not preclude the trial court’s de novo review in this context; appeal leaves that ruling intact. |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri Gas Energy v. Mo. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 366 S.W.3d 493 (Mo. banc 2012) (administrative agencies must comply with statutory limits on jurisdiction)
- Deeken v. City of St. Louis, 27 S.W.3d 868 (Mo.App. E.D.2000) (summary judgment standards and procedural posture in review actions)