In Re the Adoption of: I.M.W., a female minor child, C.R.R. and V.L.R. v. B.A.T.
2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 56
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Father (B.A.T.) was adjudicated a sexually dangerous person (SDP) in Illinois after convictions for sexual acts with minors and was committed to DOC; he was conditionally released in 2002 but later had release revoked and remained largely incarcerated thereafter.
- Child (I.M.W.) was born in 2007; Father was restricted from being alone with children and lived separately early on; after Father’s 2007 revocation, Mother moved with Child to Missouri in 2008.
- Father had minimal contact and support after the move: a few calls/cards, one small gift card, and at one point withdrew $500 from a joint account that nearly caused Mother and Child financial hardship; he provided no meaningful financial support.
- Mother married Stepfather (V.L.R.); Mother and Stepfather filed for step-parent adoption in July 2013 alleging willful abandonment and that Father suffered a mental condition preventing adequate parenting.
- At the November 2015 bench trial, testimony (including a home-study by licensed social worker Sherry Gott) established Father’s continued SDP status, risk of reoffending, lack of parental relationship with Child, and little likelihood of recovery; guardian ad litem recommended adoption.
- The trial court found willful abandonment and that Father’s mental condition prevented him from knowingly providing necessary care and protection, excused his consent under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 453.040(6)-(7), and granted the adoption. Father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Father willfully abandoned Child so his consent to adoption is unnecessary | Mother/Stepfather: Father’s prolonged incarceration, minimal support/contact, and conduct (e.g., withdrawal of funds) show willful abandonment | Father: Lack of contact largely attributable to incarceration; no willful abandonment | Court: Substantial evidence supports willful abandonment; finding not against weight of evidence — affirmed |
| Whether Father’s mental condition rendered him unable to provide care under § 453.040(6) | Mother/Stepfather: Father is an SDP with a persistent mental disorder and criminal propensity to sex offenses against minors; expert opined low likelihood of recovery and risk to Child | Father: Condition reversible; argued insufficient evidence that mental condition prevents parenting | Court: Substantial evidence (expert testimony, SDP status, Father’s admissions, reoffense after conditional release) supports finding Father’s condition prevents effective parenting — affirmed |
| Whether trial court applied correct standard of proof (clear, cogent, and convincing) | Mother/Stepfather: Trial court applied correct "clear, cogent, and convincing" standard for adoption/termination | Father: Challenged sufficiency and weight of evidence under that standard | Court: Applied correct standard; appellate review limited by deference to trial judge’s credibility determinations — affirmed |
| Whether appellate briefing preserved issues and complied with required analytical frameworks | Mother/Stepfather: n/a | Father: Raised claims but failed to follow Houston analytical sequence; multifarious point | Court: Noted briefing defects but exercised discretion to decide on merits; still found Father’s arguments failed on substance |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of C.M.B.R., 332 S.W.3d 793 (Mo. banc 2011) (clarifies clear, cogent, and convincing standard and deference to trial court in bench trials)
- J.A.R. v. D.G.R., 426 S.W.3d 624 (Mo. banc 2014) (reinforces appellate deference to trial court credibility findings under the instantly-tilt standard)
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (standard of appellate review in bench-tried cases)
- Houston v. Crider, 317 S.W.3d 178 (Mo. App. S.D. 2010) (required analytical sequence for against-the-weight and sufficiency challenges)
- Ivie v. Smith, 439 S.W.3d 189 (Mo. banc 2014) (procedural requirements for appellate points and related analysis)
- Matter of the Eberle Family Trust Two, 481 S.W.3d 592 (Mo. App. S.D. 2016) (on consequences of failing to follow required appellate analytical sequence)
- S.I.E. v. J.M., 199 S.W.3d 808 (Mo. App. S.D. 2006) (courts more tolerant of briefing technicalities in child-welfare appeals)