In the Interest of: K.R.T., A.J.T. and K.L.T. Missouri Department of Social Services, Children's Division v. K.T.
505 S.W.3d 864
Mo. Ct. App.2016Background
- Father is the legal father of three children adjudicated abused/neglected in September 2009 and placed under the Missouri Children's Division supervision.
- Children were in Division custody or under its supervision intermittently; on August 17, 2011 the court changed their custodial placement and later (April 12, 2012) awarded custody to the Children's Division.
- The Children's Division filed petitions to terminate Father's parental rights in May 2015, alleging abandonment, prior adjudication of abuse/neglect, prolonged juvenile-court jurisdictional conditions, and parental unfitness.
- After trial, the juvenile court terminated Father’s parental rights, finding statutory grounds and that termination was in the children’s best interests; the court stated it had jurisdiction under section 211.452 based on prior juvenile cases.
- Father appealed only the court’s jurisdictional basis, arguing the August 17, 2011 assumption of jurisdiction was unlawful because it rested on a stealing charge that was later dismissed.
- The appellate court treated Father’s challenge as a collateral attack on the prior juvenile judgments (which Father did not appeal) and affirmed the termination judgments.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Children’s Division’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to hear TPR because the August 17, 2011 assumption of jurisdiction was unlawful | August 17, 2011 order rested on a stealing charge later dismissed, so court lacked lawful basis to assume jurisdiction | TPR petitions were filed in the juvenile court that had prior jurisdiction; Father’s challenge attacks the earlier juvenile judgments and must have been raised by direct appeal | Court held Father’s claim is an impermissible collateral attack on prior juvenile judgments and affirmed TPR judgments |
| Whether lack of factual basis for the 2011 order implicates subject-matter jurisdiction | Father contends factual insufficiency voids the juvenile judgment | The 2011 order did not implicate subject-matter jurisdiction; circuit/juvenile courts have plenary subject-matter jurisdiction over such cases | Court held issue does not raise subject-matter jurisdiction and is not cognizable collaterally |
| Whether lack of personal jurisdiction over Father or children invalidates prior juvenile orders | Father did not assert lack of personal jurisdiction | Children’s Division: Father and children were in-state; no personal-jurisdiction defect alleged | Court held no personal-jurisdiction defect; collateral attack not permitted |
| Whether the TPR judgment’s statement that prior juvenile court had jurisdiction complied with §211.452 | Father argues the prior jurisdictional finding was unlawful due to the dismissed charge | The statutory requirement is that TPR be filed in the juvenile court that has prior jurisdiction; record shows prior adjudication of abuse/neglect in 2009 | Court held as a matter of law §211.452 was satisfied and TPR court had statutory authority |
Key Cases Cited
- Gosserand v. Gosserand, 230 S.W.3d 628 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007) (standard of review for legal issue of jurisdiction)
- J.C.W. ex rel. Webb v. Wyciskalla, 275 S.W.3d 249 (Mo. banc 2009) (scope of circuit-court subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Reimer v. Hayes, 365 S.W.3d 280 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (collateral attack principles on judgments)
- Blanchette v. Blanchette, 476 S.W.3d 273 (Mo. banc 2015) (when a judgment rendered without jurisdiction is void and may be collaterally attacked)
- In re O.J.B., 436 S.W.3d 726 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014) (parents may not challenge juvenile-court jurisdiction via collateral attack in related proceedings)
- Barry, Inc. v. Falk, 217 S.W.3d 317 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007) (definition and scope of collateral attack)
- Developers Sur. & Idem. Co. v. Woods of Somerset, LLC, 455 S.W.3d 487 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015) (appellant’s duty to supply complete record on appeal)
- Kim v. Shelton, 485 S.W.3d 377 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016) (failure to cite authority or develop argument may result in point abandonment)