In Re Ddc
351 S.W.3d 722
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- D.C. (father) appeals a trial court judgment terminating his parental rights to D.D.C. and permitting adoption by N.J.A. and A.R.A.
- Child was born in 2006 to L.H. (mother) and D.C., with father listed on the birth certificate; both parents used methamphetamine during early years.
- Child suffered a skull fracture in 2007 while in mother's care; Child was later placed with Foster Parents after incidents suggesting drug use in the home.
- Father moved from Arizona to Kansas City seeking custody in 2009; he participated in counseling, visitation, and attempted to obtain custody while undergoing various assessments.
- Division sought termination based on grounds including chemical dependency, failure to support, and parental unfitness; trial court found methamphetamine use and related conduct supported grounds and that termination was in the child’s best interests.
- Court affirmed termination and adoption by Foster Parents; issues included compliance with procedures and whether grounds were proven, with the court noting one or more grounds sufficed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether chemical dependency supports termination under 211.447.5(2)(b) | Father argues dependency cannot be treated; lacks clear, cogent evidence that dependency is untreatable. | Father contends evidence did not prove an untreatable chemical dependency. | Chemical dependency not proven to be untreatable; however other grounds sufficed |
| Whether failure to support supports termination under 211.447.5(2)(D) | Mother and Father failed to provide adequate support for Child; Father could have contributed more. | Father asserts some support was provided and record insufficient for neglect. | Sufficient evidence that Father failed to provide support when able; supports termination |
| Whether parental unfitness under 211.447.5(6) supports termination and future ability to care for Child | Father’s ongoing drug use renders him unfit for the reasonably foreseeable future. | Drug use may be treatable; termination should not occur solely on past acts. | Findings supported by continued methamphetamine use at termination; supports unfitness and termination |
| Whether termination was in Child's best interests under 211.447(6) & (7) | Permanent adoption by Foster Parents best for Child; long bond with Foster Parents. | Father argues potential for reunification cannot be ruled out due to services. | Termination in best interests; stable, permanent home with Foster Parents supported |
Key Cases Cited
- In re P.C., 62 S.W.3d 603 (Mo. App. W.D.2009) (requires clear, cogent evidence of untreatable chemical dependency)
- In re K.A.W., 133 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. banc 2004) (defines standard for chemical dependency and future ability to care for child)
- In re S.C., 914 S.W.2d 408 (Mo. App. W.D.1996) (flexible interpretation of support obligations in termination context)
- In re C.M.B.R., 332 S.W.3d 793 (Mo. banc 2011) (discussion of termination standards and investigation/social study requirements)
- In re W.C., 288 S.W.3d 787 (Mo. App. E.D.2009) (drug use alone not automatically establish chemical dependency grounds)
- In re J.M.N., 134 S.W.3d 58 (Mo. App. W.D.2004) (petition sufficiency and notice standards for termination proceedings)
- In re R.S.L., 241 S.W.3d 346 (Mo. App. W.D.2007) (plain-error review for statutory procedure in termination cases)
- In re C.W., 211 S.W.3d 93 (Mo. banc 2007) (mandatory nature of social investigation in termination decisions)
- D.G.N. v. S.M., 691 S.W.2d 909 (Mo. banc 1985) (expedite termination and adoptive processes to minimize harm to children)