Juvenile Officer of St. Louis County v. M.W.
2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 279
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Juvenile officer petitioned to terminate both parents’ rights to three children under 211.447; judgment terminated father’s rights only, mother’s still pending.
- Father and mother were not married; they did not cohabitate but were named in petitions.
- Earlier, court found abuse/neglect due to father’s violence; Jos hearing placed legal custody with Division, children with mother; later removed to foster care.
- In 2012, court conducted a hearing on termination of father only; father failed to appear; court denied continuance and terminated father’s rights.
- Appeal by father argued lack of finality (mother’s rights unresolved) and improprieties in continuance denial; court held judgment was final as to father and appealable under 211.261.1.
- Court discussed the interplay of juvenile procedure rules (Rules 110–129) and finality standards, concluding termination judgment can be appealed even if co-respondent parent’s rights are unresolved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the father’s termination judgment is a final appealable judgment | Father:sought appeal despite mother’s rights pending | Court:final termination judgment adverse to father exists | Yes; judgment on father is final and appealable under 211.261.1 |
| Whether the denial of a continuance was reversible error | Father: continuance denial violated due process | Court: no Rule 65.03 compliance, no abuse of discretion | No abuse of discretion; continuance properly denied |
| Whether there was sufficient evidence to terminate under 211.447.5(3) | Father: insufficient evidence; at best partial, not remedied | Court: clear, cogent, and convincing evidence supported termination | Sufficient evidence under (3) supporting termination; (2) moot |
| Whether the court’s Section 211.447.7 findings were an abuse of discretion | Father: findings under 7 were flawed | Court: findings discretionary and review is for abuse of discretion | No abuse; findings support best-interests determination |
Key Cases Cited
- Interest of N.D., 857 S.W.2d 835 (Mo.App.1993), 857 S.W.2d 835 (Mo. App. 1993) (finality in juvenile appeals and separation of issues to promote prompt resolution)
- In re C.M.L., 165 S.W.3d 522 (Mo.App.2005), 165 S.W.3d 522 (Mo. App. 2005) (discussion of Rule 74.04 and finality in termination context)
- In re C.A.D., 995 S.W.2d 21 (Mo.App.1999), 995 S.W.2d 21 (Mo. App. 1999) (custody/termination context and expedited disposition importance)
- In re K.A.W., 133 S.W.3d 1 (Mo.banc 2004), 133 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. Banc. 2004) (termination standards; strict construction in parental rights cases)
- In re J.R., 347 S.W.3d 641 (Mo.App.2011), 347 S.W.3d 641 (Mo. App. 2011) (absence of father at hearing and continuance considerations)
- In re P.L.O., 131 S.W.3d 782 (Mo.banc 2004), 131 S.W.3d 782 (Mo. Banc. 2004) (substantial evidence standard for termination)
- In re S.R.J., Jr., 250 S.W.3d 402 (Mo.App.2008), 250 S.W.3d 402 (Mo. App. 2008) (continued existence of unremedied neglectful conditions)