529 S.W.3d 811
Mo.2017Background
- Child born in 2009; parents never married; Father listed on birth certificate and lived with Mother and Child about eight months after birth.
- Mother moved to St. Louis in 2010; Father visited from California and later increased calls and visits after Mother remarried Stepfather in 2013.
- Mother and Stepfather filed petition (Dec. 23, 2014) to terminate Father’s parental rights and adopt Child under § 453.040(7), alleging abandonment and willful, substantial, continuous neglect in the six months before filing.
- Evidence: Mother and guardian ad litem testified Child lacked emotional ties to Father; Father sometimes late or missed visits; mother testified financial transfers ($400/mo) in six months before filing came from Paternal Grandmother, not Father.
- Father testified he funded the $400 monthly payments from his trust via Paternal Grandmother, called Child ~3x/week, and visited multiple times; circuit court found Mother credible and Father not credible.
- Trial court terminated Father’s rights and authorized adoption; Missouri Supreme Court affirmed on review, rejecting Father’s weight-of-evidence challenge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother/Stepfather) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Father willfully abandoned Child under § 453.040(7) | Father’s contacts were superficial/tenuous; quality of interactions shows long-term lack of interest and intent to relinquish parental duties | Father maintained frequent/regular contact (calls ~3x/week; visits several times/year) so no intent to abandon | Court: Affirmed abandonment finding — court may infer intent from quality, not just frequency, of contacts; reasonable to find relationship superficial |
| Whether Father willfully, substantially, continuously neglected Child under § 453.040(7) | Father failed to provide financial support in statutory period (payments came from grandmother); demonstrated lack of meaningful contact and concern for child’s care/safety | Father funded $400/mo via grandmother, had ability and did maintain contact; failure to pay alone insufficient for neglect | Court: Affirmed neglect finding — court credited evidence that Father did not provide support and had only superficial contact; neglect proven by combined facts |
| Standard of review — whether judgment is against weight of evidence | Petitioners: trial court’s credibility determinations supported; evidence clear, cogent, convincing | Father: evidence supporting non-abandonment/non-neglect outweighs petitioners’ evidence; trial court erred | Court: Applied Murphy/Murphy–Carron standard; deferred to trial court credibility findings and declined to overturn absent firm belief judgment was wrong |
| Whether consent of Father required for adoption under § 453.040(7) | Because abandonment or neglect proven, Father’s consent not required | Father: consent required because statutory grounds not proved by clear, cogent, convincing evidence | Court: Held Father’s consent not required — either abandonment or neglect finding sufficed |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (standard of appellate review in bench trials)
- In the Interest of J.P.B., 509 S.W.3d 84 (Mo. banc 2017) (appellate deference to trial findings on contested facts)
- In re Adoption of C.M.B.R., 332 S.W.3d 793 (Mo. banc 2011) (clear, cogent, and convincing standard in adoption/termination)
- In re Adoption of W.B.L., 681 S.W.2d 452 (Mo. banc 1984) (intent for abandonment inferred from conduct; definition of clear, cogent, convincing)
- Ivie v. [State?], 439 S.W.3d 189 (Mo. banc 2014) (clarifies appellate deference; evidentiary standard commentary)
- J.A.R. v. D.G.R., 426 S.W.3d 624 (Mo. banc 2014) (deference where evidence permits two reasonable but different inferences)
- In re J.M.J., 404 S.W.3d 423 (Mo. App. 2013) (distinguishing token or sporadic contact from meaningful parental relationship)