In Re Kmw
342 S.W.3d 353
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Child K.M.W. was born August 2008; mother was in custody for first-degree robbery and armed criminal action; no father listed on birth certificate and paternity later established by DNA.
- Child placed in protective custody; initial caseworker noted Father’s desire to be involved but no contact or support from Father while in jail.
- Child remained in foster care; Father later engaged sporadically via limited communications and participated in some programs while incarcerated.
- Trial court terminated Father’s parental rights based on three grounds: abandonment, abuse/neglect, and failure to rectify, after considering evidence and best interests.
- Court emphasized Father’s incarceration, lack of bond with Child, minimal contact, and failure to request or pursue meaningful involvement or support.
- On appeal, the court affirmed termination of Father’s parental rights, finding clear, cogent and convincing evidence supports at least one statutory ground and best interests align with termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to rectify was proven | Father failed to rectify conditions, evidenced by lack of contact and support. | Father contends evidence insufficient to prove failure to rectify given credit for some services and intent to improve. | Yes; supported by clear, cogent evidence of ongoing neglect and lack of plan. |
| Whether incarceration alone invalidates termination | Incarceration plus nonperformance can sustain termination if conditions persist. | Incarceration alone cannot justify termination; must show inability to bond/meet needs. | Incarceration is a relevant factor but does not negate termination where no bond or care is shown. |
| Whether best-interests finding supports termination | Termination best serves Child’s stable home and permanency in light of Father’s lack of bond and ability to care. | Best interests could be served by continued involvement if opportunities for bonding and support existed. | Yes; best interests supported termination given Child’s stability in foster care and lack of meaningful connection. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.M.C., 87 S.W.3d 917 (Mo.App. S.D. 2002) (termination grounds preserved if any single ground shown)
- In re K.A.W., 133 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. Banc. 2004) (one proven ground suffices; best interests standards apply)
- In re D.M.B., 178 S.W.3d 683 (Mo.App. S.D. 2005) (best-interests review is abuse-of-discretion)
- In re A.S.W., 137 S.W.3d 452 (Mo. Banc. 2004) (strict construction in favor of parent; preserve relationship)
- In re J.B.D., 151 S.W.3d 885 (Mo.App. S.D. 2004) (incarceration alone not termination; bond and contact matter)
- T.W.C. v. Children's Div. of Soc. Servs., 316 S.W.3d 538 (Mo.App. W.D. 2010) (incarceration factors considered; not automatic termination)
- In re S.J.G., 871 S.W.2d 638 (Mo.App. S.D. 1994) (minimal or no support still weighs against bond and care)
- In re C.A.M., 282 S.W.3d 398 (Mo.App. S.D. 2009) (appellate deference to trial court on witness credibility)