In the Interest of Y.S.W., 402 S.W.3d 600

Mother appeals from a juvenile court judgment adjudicating her children in need of care and placing them in custody of the Children’s Division.
Juvenile Office petitioned over alleged Father sexual abuse and certain medical neglect; petitions did not allege that the parents’ relationship harmed the children.
The juvenile court found no clear and convincing evidence of sexual abuse by Father and did not make findings on medical neglect, but concluded the children were without proper care due to the parents’ toxic relationship.
The court ordered custody in the Children’s Division; Mother moved for recusal, which the court denied without a hearing.
On appeal, Mother argues adjudication rested on grounds not pleaded and that the court erred in denying recusal; the court reverses because adjudication relied on unpleaded grounds and violated due process.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the court adjudicate based on grounds not alleged in the petition?	Warlick argues adjudication rested on parents’ relationship, not pleaded.	Warlick contends petitions alleged only Father’s sexual abuse (and medical neglect).	Yes; adjudication based on unpleaded grounds was unauthorized.
Was the adjudication beyond Rule 124.06 authority due to lack of clear and convincing evidence on pleaded grounds?	Warlick asserts insufficient evidence on pleaded grounds; court exceeded its authority.	Warlick asserts the court may adjudicate if any pleaded basis is proven.	Yes; court lacked authority to adjudicate on unproven, unpleaded grounds.

In re A.R., 330 S.W.3d 858 (Mo.App. W.D.2011) (standards for reviewing juvenile adjudications)
In re D.K.S., 106 S.W.3d 616 (Mo.App. W.D.2003) (jurisdiction requires clear and convincing evidence on pleaded grounds)
In re E.A.C., 253 S.W.3d 594 (Mo.App. S.D.2008) (due process notice and opportunity to defend against specific allegations)
Moore v. Moore, 134 S.W.3d 110 (Mo.App. S.D.2004) (abuse of discretion standard for recusal rulings)