Butler Cnty. Juvenile Office v. J.M.M. (In re Interest of N.D.B.)
| Decision Date | 05 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. SD 36838,SD 36838 |
| Parties | In the INTEREST OF N.D.B., Minor, Butler County Juvenile Office, Respondent, v. J.M.M., Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Attorney for Appellant – SAMANTHA P. EVANS, Doniphan, MO.
Attorneys for Respondents – MEGAN L. DITTMANN-RYAN, Jefferson City, MO.
J.M.M. ("Mother") appeals a judgment terminating her parental rights to N.D.B. ("Child"), who was born in July 2018.1 Mother argues the trial court's findings of neglect, failure to rectify, and parental unfitness are not supported by substantial evidence. See §§ 211.447.5(2), (3), and (5).2 Mother does not claim error in the finding and conclusion that termination of her parental rights was in Child's best interest. We affirm.
Child came into the custody of the Children's Division ("CD") following Mother's arrest on October 7, 2018.3 At the time of her arrest, Mother was driving a vehicle reported as stolen, and three-month old Child was not properly restrained in the vehicle, which had been previously traveling at a high rate of speed.4 Mother's blood alcohol content at the time of her arrest was .067% and she was driving while revoked. Child suffered extensive bruising and was diagnosed with head trauma
and multiple hematomas. Mother was incarcerated.
After a juvenile adjudication hearing, Mother was found to have neglected Child, and Child was placed in the custody of CD with placement in the care of his maternal aunt ("Foster Mother").
Mother was already on probation on other criminal charges. Her probation for the crime of tampering with a judicial officer was revoked and she was ordered to serve a four-year sentence in the Department of Corrections. Mother was then incarcerated from October 2018 until March 2020 when she was released and moved into a transitional living facility. Mother was still facing three felony charges for tampering with a motor vehicle, property damage in the 1st degree, and stealing, with a jury trial scheduled for August 21, 2020.
A petition to terminate Mother's parental rights was filed in December 2019 and an amended petition was filed on April 16, 2020. Hearing on the amended petition was held on May 29, 2020 and June 26, 2020. At the hearing, the trial court heard testimony from two CD caseworkers, Foster Mother, Mother, and a family specialist from the transitional living facility where Mother lived. The trial court also received various exhibits, including judgments terminating Mother's parental rights to three other children.5
Casey Seabaugh ("Seabaugh") was Child's first caseworker with Butler County's CD office. Seabaugh visited with Mother on October 9, 2018 at the Butler County Jail to explain to Mother that Child was in state custody and to inform Mother of her rights. Mother was allowed visitation, but since she was incarcerated, she was not able to attend visitation. Mother was given information about services she could complete while incarcerated which included substance abuse treatment and parenting classes. CD sent Mother quarterly updates regarding Child and pictures of Child. Seabaugh reported Mother sent letters to CD and to Foster Mother regarding Child. Seabaugh testified the only child support Mother paid to CD was $2 per month. Seabaugh stated Child did not have any emotional ties to Mother and did not have any relationship with her. Regarding Mother's history with CD before Child came into care, Seabaugh testified a previous family-centered services case had been opened in July 2018 shortly after Child's birth following a hotline call, but it was closed after the caseworker was unable to contact Mother or locate her.
Patricia Gray ("Gray") was Child's second caseworker beginning on February 1, 2020. Gray testified Mother was in a nine-month program at the transitional living facility, and Mother would not complete the program until December 2020. Gray testified Mother's ability to leave the transitional living facility was extremely restricted.
Gray testified Mother was currently employed with weekly wages of $455.04. Since Mother had become employed, she had not increased her payment of child support, but had bought Child a "couple of pairs of shoes[.]" Gray testified Mother had not made any arrangements as to where she would live after completing her aftercare program.
Mother told Gray she was going to trial on her pending charges and thought she would win at trial and the charges would be dismissed. According to Gray, Mother's current criminal charges were concerning because "we don't know where [Mother will] be after the criminal charges are disposed."
Gray described Child and Foster Mother as "very close, very bonded." She also said Child was in a "stranger-danger phase right now" and that it would have a "significant negative impact" on Child to be removed from Foster Mother.
Foster Mother testified she was interested in adopting Child. She stated Mother had only sent Child a gift card at Christmas and a pair of shoes. Foster Mother testified that on the evening of October 6, 2018, the day before Mother's arrest, Mother came to Foster Mother's house looking for Child's grandfather. Foster Mother, who had not seen Mother in ten years, stated Mother left around midnight, saying she was going to locate Child's grandfather in North Carolina, where he was working at the time. Foster Mother described Mother's behavior on that evening as "really erratic[.]" Foster Mother was not optimistic of a future relationship with Mother because of Mother's twenty-year cycle with drugs.
Mother testified regarding her current living situation and employment. She testified she was residing at a "nine-month aftercare program" facility utilized when a person is released from prison. Mother stated she was "not required to be there" and she could leave whenever she wanted, but she chose to be there. Mother planned to complete the program then leave "if [she was] ready[.]" Mother had become employed while at the facility and currently made $11.25 per hour. Mother stated she paid $2 per month in support, but acknowledged she "could send extra[.]" She also sent Child two gift cards during her incarceration. Regarding her pending criminal cases, Mother testified she had been offered a guilty plea for four years to run concurrent with her previous four-year sentence but she did not take that offer because she wanted to go to trial.
As for Mother's lifestyle in the period of time after Child was born and prior to her arrest, Mother described living with and working for two different families. Mother admitted she had been addicted to alcohol for most of her life and had previously used methamphetamine and marijuana. Mother acknowledged it would not be good for Child to be removed from his current home and relocated at the present time.
At the conclusion of the evidence, Child's Guardian Ad Litem recommended Mother's rights be terminated based on Mother's "chaotic" past and Child's need for stability.
After the hearing, the trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law on July 28, 2020 terminating Mother's parental rights to Child on three grounds: abuse or neglect, see § 211.447.5(2) (); failure to rectify, see § 211.447.5(3) (); and parental unfitness, see § 211.447.5(5)(a) ("parental unfitness ground"). The trial court made the statutorily-required findings related to the abuse or neglect ground and the failure to rectify ground. See §§ 211.447.5(2)(a)-(d); 211.447.5(3)(a)-(d). The trial court also found termination of Mother's parental rights was in Child's best interest and made the related statutorily-required findings.
Mother filed a motion to reconsider on August 27, 2020, which the trial court denied on September 16, 2020. Mother timely appeals.
"In reviewing termination of parental rights cases, like all types of bench-tried cases, this Court is mindful ‘that circuit courts are better positioned to determine witness credibility and weigh evidence in the context of the whole record than an appellate court.’ " Interest of R.R.S. , 573 S.W.3d 717, 724 (Mo. App. S.D. 2019) (quoting In Int. of J.P.B. , 509 S.W.3d 84, 89-90 (Mo. banc 2017) ).
J.P.B. , 509 S.W.3d at 90 (internal citations and quotation marks...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Greene Cnty. Juvenile Office v. E.A.F. (In re Interest of C.E.A.)
...Review The trial court's judgment is presumed valid and it is the appellant's burden to demonstrate error. Interest of N.D.B. , 623 S.W.3d 223, 228 (Mo. App. S.D. 2021). An order terminating parental rights will be affirmed unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is agains......
-
Greene Cnty. Juvenile Office v. B.N.C. (In re Interest of S.C.A.)
...injustice appears, we affirm the judgments.Analysis We presume that the judgment of the circuit court is correct, In re N.D.B. , 623 S.W.3d 223, 227-28 (Mo. App. S.D. 2021), and we must affirm it unless the appellant demonstrates that the judgment is not supported by substantial evidence, i......
-
Greene Cnty. Juvenile Office v. B. N.C. (In re S.C.A.)
...IN THE INTEREST OF: S.C.A. and I.S.A., minor children under seventeen years of age GREENE ... ...