547 S.W.3d 804
Mo. Ct. App.2018Background
- Child born 2007 while Father was incarcerated for statutory rape and sodomy; Father later convicted for failure to register as a sex offender and had repeated incarcerations.
- Child removed from mother's care in January 2015 and placed with family member S.M.; Father had little to no contact during most of Child’s life.
- Children's Division sought termination; trial court relieved Division of reasonable-reunification efforts based on Father’s convictions and status under §§ 210.117/211.038.
- Father signed a service agreement in March 2017 but had limited compliance and substantial gaps in contact and support; therapist and caseworker recommended no visitation and supported termination.
- Trial court found multiple statutory grounds satisfied (30+ months in care; neglect/failure to provide; failure to rectify; parental unfitness) and terminated Father’s parental rights on September 1, 2017.
- Father appealed raising four points: challenge to failure-to-rectify finding, challenge to neglect determination (statutory-factor findings), weight/substantial-evidence arguments, and an argument about exclusivity of termination grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Respondent/Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Failure to rectify (§ 211.447.5(3)) | Trial court lacked substantial evidence; Father complied with service plan | Father failed to make meaningful progress, long gaps in contact and incarceration were voluntary and prevented reunification | Affirmed — father failed to meet Houston analytical requirements and record supports failure-to-rectify finding |
| 2. Neglect finding procedure (§ 211.447.5(2)(a)-(d)) | Trial court did not make findings on all four statutory subfactors; requests remand for specific findings | Respondent: point not preserved below; trial court’s judgment otherwise addressed statutory factors | Denied — issue forfeited for appellate review under Rule 78.07(c) |
| 3. Weight/substantial evidence on neglect | Father says he could not support Child while incarcerated/ill and requested contact but was denied; judgment against weight of evidence | Trial court credited evidence that Father largely abandoned relationship, provided almost no support, and voluntary acts caused inability to parent | Affirmed — appellant failed to follow required appellate frameworks; deferential review finds ample support for judgment |
| 4. Parental unfitness / statutory grounds exclusivity | Father contends §§ 210.117/211.038 cannot be used as termination grounds because § 211.447 is exclusive | Trial court relied on statutory interplay and only one statutory ground needed to sustain termination | Denied as unnecessary to reach on appeal — termination sustained on other statutory grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- J.A.R. v. D.G.R., 426 S.W.3d 624 (Mo. banc 2014) (standard: view evidence in light most favorable to judgment and defer to trial court credibility findings)
- Matter of A.L.R., 511 S.W.3d 408 (Mo. banc 2017) (very deferential review of weight-of-evidence challenges)
- White v. Director of Revenue, 321 S.W.3d 298 (Mo. banc 2010) (standards for considering uncontradicted evidence not subject to credibility determinations)
- Houston v. Crider, 317 S.W.3d 178 (Mo.App. S.D. 2010) (required analytical sequences for substantial-evidence and against-the-weight challenges)
- In the Interest of J.P.B., 509 S.W.3d 84 (Mo. banc 2017) (preservation and appellate review reminders)
- In Interest of C.Z.N., 520 S.W.3d 828 (Mo.App. S.D. 2017) (clarifying appellate analysis steps)
- In the Interest of Z.L.G., 531 S.W.3d 653 (Mo.App. S.D. 2017) (only one statutory termination ground is needed)
- In the Interest of N.L.W., 534 S.W.3d 887 (Mo.App. S.D. 2017) (failure to follow required appellate analysis is fatal)
- Ivie v. Smith, 439 S.W.3d 189 (Mo. banc 2014) (trial court's advantage in credibility and fact findings)
- In re Adoption of C.M., 414 S.W.3d 622 (Mo.App. S.D. 2013) (deference to trial court on evidence in termination proceedings)