In the Interest of: O.J.B., Juvenile Officer v. E.B. and T.B., 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 783

Juvenile Officer filed a petition (Oct 26, 2011) alleging parents E.B. (Father) and T.B. (Mother) neglected their child O.J.B., who had severe developmental delays and medical needs; child had been placed in a DMH residential facility.
Parents initially stipulated at the December 20, 2011 adjudication; the court found the allegations sustained and a dispositional judgment was entered Jan 20, 2012.
Multiple review and permanency hearings followed (May 2, 2012; July 27, 2012; Oct 17, 2012; Jan 23, 2013; July 29, 2013), with final judgments entered after each; parents were sometimes represented and sometimes pro se.
Father filed a pro se "Motion for Dismissal" shortly before the July 29, 2013 permanency hearing; the court denied the motion in the July 29, 2013 judgment.
Parents appealed pro se, raising four points attacking (1) withholding of exculpatory evidence, (2) coercion of the stipulation, (3) use of false/misleading information by the Juvenile Officer, and (4) Juvenile Officer lacked standing because evidence was fabricated. All issues challenged the earlier adjudication, not the permanency determinations.
The appellate court treated the parents' claims as collateral attacks on the earlier final adjudication/dispositional judgment (Jan 20, 2012) and affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss as an abuse-of-discretion standard did not obtain where the points were untimely collateral attacks.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Withheld exculpatory evidence	Parents: Juvenile Officer and witness knowingly withheld medical/evidentiary records that would exonerate them	Juvenile Officer: Issues relate to the earlier adjudication and are not properly before the court on a permanency-judgment appeal	Court: Claim is an improper collateral attack on the final adjudication; denied
2. Coerced stipulation	Parents: Stipulation was coerced by Juvenile Officer and thus invalid	Juvenile Officer: Stipulation and adjudication were resolved earlier; challenge untimely in current appeal	Court: Challenge targets the prior adjudication and is barred as collateral attack; denied
3. False/misleading information to bias court	Parents: Juvenile Officer used false allegations (e.g., restraining order claims) to mislead the court	Juvenile Officer: These are adjudication-era allegations; not relevant to permanency judgment appeal	Court: Claims relate to adjudication; collateral attack improper; denied
4. Lack of standing / fabricated evidence	Parents: Case was manufactured and jurisdictional facts fabricated, so Juvenile Officer lacked standing	Juvenile Officer: Jurisdiction was already adjudicated and disposed; remedy was a direct appeal from earlier final judgment	Court: Time to appeal the adjudication/disposition has passed; collateral attack is barred; denied

In re A.G.R., 359 S.W.3d 103 (Mo. App. 2011) (standard of review for juvenile adjudication appeals)
Stine v. Stine, 401 S.W.3d 567 (Mo. App. 2013) (denial of motion to dismiss under Rule 67.03 reviewed for abuse of discretion)
In re Halverson ex rel. Sumners, 362 S.W.3d 443 (Mo. App. 2012) (orders denying motions to dismiss not ordinarily final but may be considered on appeal from a final judgment)
Reid v. Steelman, 210 S.W.3d 273 (Mo. App. 2006) (generally, validity of a judgment may be attacked only by direct appeal; collateral attacks disfavored)
Spicer v. Donald N. Spicer Revocable Living Trust, 336 S.W.3d 466 (Mo. banc 2011) (late direct appeals cannot be entertained after appeal period has lapsed)
Juvenile Officer v. A.S.M., 423 S.W.3d 824 (Mo. App. 2014) (disposition judgment renders juvenile proceedings final and appealable)
In re C.A.D., 995 S.W.2d 21 (Mo. App. 1999) (once disposition is entered, judgment is final and appealable)
Payne v. Markeson, 414 S.W.3d 530 (Mo. App. 2013) (appellate courts prefer resolving appeals on the merits where possible)
Maskill v. Cummins, 397 S.W.3d 27 (Mo. App. 2013) (pro se appellants held to same standards as attorneys)