477 S.W.3d 626
Mo. Ct. App.2015Background
- The Missouri Family Court assumed jurisdiction over four-month-old S.F.M.D. based on alleged abuse/neglect by both parents, leading to removal and eventual disposition with the Children’s Division.
- S.F.M.D. sustained a leg burn and four rib fractures found in September 2013, with initial skeletal surveys showing healing injuries by September 18, 2013.
- May 2014 domestic violence incident between Father and Mother was admitted on remand, involving choking and threats while unsupervised visitation with the child occurred.
- The trial court found a pattern of domestic violence and other parental conduct that rendered the home injurious to the child’s welfare, sustaining the J.O.’s allegations by clear and convincing evidence.
- The appellate court previously remanded for explicit factual findings under § 211.181 after lacking specific fact findings support in the initial judgment.
- On remand, the Family Court entered detailed findings, including a history of violence, alcohol use by Father, and injuries to the child while in parental custody, justifying placement with the Children’s Division.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court properly relied on § 211.037 and § 211.447 despite not all facts being pled | F.D. contends due process requires pled facts for § 211.037 purposes | The court could consider § 211.037 factors and related evidence within § 211.031 findings | No due process error; factors properly considered |
| Whether Exhibit 1 (order of protection petition) could be admitted as substantive evidence against Father | Exhibit 1 contains admissible evidence of domestic violence against Father | Exhibit 1 should not be used as substantive evidence against Father, only impeach, per law of the case | Exhibit 1 properly admitted; not used as substantive against Father |
| Whether the rib fractures were non-accidentally caused in August 2013 without expert causation | Terreros’s testimony suffices to infer non-accidental injury | Medical causation requires expert certainty | No expert needed; substantial evidence supports non-accidental injuries |
| Whether the court erred in relying on domestic-violence evidence as co-occurrence without expert proof | Co-occurrence data require expert validation | Court based its ruling on specific evidence of parental actions; no co-occurrence proof required | Court properly based on case-specific evidence; no error |
| Whether admission of Exhibit 2 (prior conviction) was improper propensity evidence | Prior conviction is relevant to history of violence impairing parenting | Evidence could be misused to prove propensity | Admission was proper; relevant to parenting history and not used for propensity |
Key Cases Cited
- In re S.F.M.D., 447 S.W.3d 758 (Mo. App. 2014) (remanded for explicit fact finding under §211.181; allowed reopening for new evidence)
- In re A.R., 330 S.W.3d 863 (Mo. App. 2011) (non-offending parent considerations under §211.037)
- In re A.G.R., 359 S.W.3d 103 (Mo. App. 2011) (standard for juvenile adjudication; evidentiary review)
- State v. Reed, 282 S.W.3d 835 (Mo. banc 2009) (prejudice required for evidentiary error reversal)
- State v. Sisco, 458 S.W.3d 304 (Mo. banc 2015) (deference to trial court credibility determinations)