516 S.W.3d 375
Mo. Ct. App.2017Background
- Paternal grandparents petitioned to adopt two grandchildren, K.M.W. and N.A.W.; maternal grandparents moved to intervene because adoption would terminate their visitation rights and were permitted to intervene.
- After testimony (chiefly from six witnesses called by Paternal Grandparents), the trial court denied the adoption petition.
- Paternal Grandparents appealed, arguing (1) the trial court erred by allowing Maternal Grandparents to intervene and (2) the court erred in denying the adoption on several grounds.
- The appeals court reviewed permissive intervention for abuse of discretion and adoption issues under the Murphy v. Carron standard (defer to trial court credibility findings; review for no substantial evidence, against-weight, or erroneous law application).
- The court concluded Paternal Grandparents did not show prejudice from permissive intervention and that adoption denial was supported by the trial court’s credibility assessments and proper legal reasoning.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Permissive intervention (Rule 52.12(b)) | Trial court erred in allowing Maternal Grandparents to permissively intervene | Intervention was within trial court discretion and produced no prejudice | No reversible error: appellant failed to show prejudice from permissive intervention; point denied |
| Intervention as of right (Rule 52.12(a)) | Intervention as of right was erroneous | Because permissive intervention was upheld, matter is moot | Moot; court need not decide whether intervention as of right was correct |
| Sufficiency/substantial-evidence in adoption (burden on petitioners) | Adoption denial lacked substantial evidence because visitation concerns about Maternal Grandparents were irrelevant | Petitioners bore burden of persuasion; trial court was not required to find in petitioners’ favor and could disbelieve their evidence | Denial of adoption need not be supported by substantial evidence when petitioners bore burden and trial court discredited their case; point denied |
| Against-the-weight / erroneous application of law re: visitation | Denial was against the weight of the evidence and improperly relied on impact to Maternal Grandparents’ visitation rights | Trial court properly weighed credibility, could decline to credit petitioners’ testimony, and was not required to make requested written findings; consideration of visitation effects was within court’s discretion | Judgment not against the weight of the evidence and did not misapply law; trial court entitled to credibility determinations and implied findings; points denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Breitenfeld v. Sch. Dist. of Clayton, 399 S.W.3d 816 (Mo. banc 2013) (permissive intervention reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Johnson v. State, 366 S.W.3d 11 (Mo. banc 2012) (liberal allowance of intervention)
- Comm. for Educ. Equal. v. State, 294 S.W.3d 477 (Mo. banc 2009) (prejudice required to reverse erroneous joinder/intervention)
- Heritage Warranty Ins., RRG, Inc. v. Swiney, 244 S.W.3d 290 (Mo. App. 2008) (appellate reversal requires showing of prejudice)
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (standard of review for reviewing trial-court fact findings)
- Ivie v. Smith, 439 S.W.3d 189 (Mo. banc 2014) (deference to trial court credibility findings in against-the-weight review)
- White v. Dir. of Revenue, 321 S.W.3d 298 (Mo. banc 2010) (burden of proof and effect of credibility on contested issues)
- In re K.K.J., 984 S.W.2d 548 (Mo. App. 1999) (burden on petitioners in adoption proceedings)