Melody FRYE, Respondent, v. Ronald J. LEVY, Director, State of Missouri, Department of Social Services, Children’s Division, Appellant, 440 S.W.3d 405

The Children’s Division appeals a trial court summary judgment ordering that Mother’s name not be placed in the central registry due to noncompliance with the 90-day investigation deadline in §210.152.2.
The Division completed a Frye investigation and substantiated some neglect findings; Frye’s name was placed in the registry on a related case, while criminal charges were later dismissed.
Mother’s hotline complaints regarding neglect were substantiated in part; she timely sought de novo review, and the Review Board upheld the Division’s determinations.
The trial court held the 90-day deadline caused the Division to lose jurisdiction to continue its investigation or determinations, and thus barred listing Mother.
The lead opinion vacates the judgment and remands, holding no statutory sanction supports stripping the Division of authority after the 90th day.
Dissent argues that the Division’s failure to comply divested it of authority, requiring affirmance and listing Mother in the registry.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 90-day deadline sanction is authorized	Division argues no court-imposed sanction exists; legislature did not authorize loss of authority.	Mother contends the deadline sanctions the Division by stripping its authority after 90 days.	Judgment vacated; no court-imposed sanction; remand for proceedings.
Whether §210.152.2 is mandatory or directory and its consequences	Division argues the statute is directory and not require loss of authority.	Mother argues the 90-day deadline is mandatory and creates a sanction.	Statutory interpretation favors no court-imposed sanction; remedy remains unsettled; remand.
Whether due process requirements were violated by delay	Division asserts delay could trigger due process protections due to investigation extension.	Mother asserts due process rights were violated by noncompliance timing.	Due process not violated; notice and pre-deprivation review remain adequate.

Farmers & Merchants Bank & Trust Co. v. Dir. of Revenue, 896 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1995) (absence of sanction for noncompliance not automatically overridden by 'shall')
Jamison v. State, Dept. of Social Services, 218 S.W.3d 399 (Mo. banc 2007) (remedial purpose of Child Abuse Act; protections before listing)
Ross v. Dir. of Revenue, 311 S.W.3d 732 (Mo. banc 2010) (remedial statutes construed to protect public; mandatory vs. directory context)
Garsez v. Sauro, 639 S.W.2d 830 (Mo. banc 1982) (due process notice considerations and directory vs mandatory analysis)
State v. Teer, 275 S.W.3d 258 (Mo. banc 2009) (statutory construction; 'shall' and mandatory/directory distinctions)