C.W.M. v. M.H. (In re Q.A.H)

• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: LISA WHITE HARDWICK
• Decision Date: 16 July 2013
• Docket Number: WD75786
• Citation: C.W.M. v. M.H. (In re Q.A.H), WD75786 (Mo. App. Jul 16, 2013)
• Parties: IN THE INTEREST OF: Q.A.H, Plaintiff; JUVENILE OFFICER, Respondent, C.W.M. & C.D.M., Respondents, v. M.H. (Mother), Appellant.

IN THE INTEREST OF: Q.A.H, Plaintiff JUVENILE OFFICER, Respondent C.W.M. & C.D.M., Respondents, v. M.H. (Mother), Appellant.

WD75786

Missouri Court of Appeals Western District

FILED: July 16, 2013

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY

THE HONORABLE JUSTINE E. DEL MURO, JUDGE

BEFORE DIVISION THREE: LISA WHITE HARDWICK, PRESIDING JUDGE,

CYNTHIA L. MARTIN AND GARY WITT, JUDGES

M.H. ("Mother") appeals the circuit court's judgment terminating parental rights to her daughter, Q.A.H. Mother contends the judgment should be reversed because it is unsupported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence on the three statutory grounds for termination. For reasons explained herein, we reverse the judgment of termination.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Q.A.H. was born on March 24, 2009, to Mother and R.J. ("Father"). The circuit court originally assumed jurisdiction over the child as a result of an incident that occurred on August 22, 2009, when Mother, who lived in Leavenworth, Kansas at the time, brought Q.A.H. to Children's Mercy Hospital ("CMH") and made what were latercharacterized as "delusional" statements to CMH staff. Mother reported that she and Q.A.H. were raped "in their sleep." Mother later explained that this could have occurred without her knowing at the time because she and Q.A.H. may have been drugged by sedatives administered through the air vents of her home. Mother further reported to CMH staff that she thought someone had placed an electronic listening device in Q.A.H.'s vagina. While at CMH, Mother also requested that Q.A.H. be circumcised and that Q.A.H.'s vagina be sewn closed. Additionally, Mother told CMH staff that Q.A.H., at only five months old, could speak in full sentences. Following this incident, the court granted custody of Q.A.H. to the Jackson County Division of Family Services, and the child was eventually placed in a foster home.

In September 2009, Mother began participating in therapy and receiving psychiatric services at The Guidance Center in Leavenworth, Kansas. Since that time, at least three mental health professionals have reached differing diagnoses concerning Mother's mental condition, including:

(1) On September 3, 2009, Patrick Nicholas, a pre-doctoral intern at The Guidance Center, conducted an initial clinical assessment of Mother and diagnosed her with "Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood." On March 2, 2010, Nicholas conducted another psychological evaluation of Mother and diagnosed her with Persecutory Type Delusional Disorder and Personality Disorder.

(2) On October 7, 2009, William A. McDonnell, a licensed psychologist unaffiliated with The Guidance Center, conducted a court ordered psychological evaluation of Mother and diagnosed her with Psychotic Disorder and possibly Post Partum Psychosis.

(3) Dr. Stanley Golan, a psychiatrist at The Guidance Center who had seen Mother every two to three months since October 2009 for medication management, stated at his deposition in August 2012: "[Mother's] current diagnosis is posttraumatic stress disorder, perhaps a generalized anxiety disorder, a mild depression. I still think there's a possibility of a mild delusional disorder."

In September 2009, Mother began having weekly supervised visits with Q.A.H. The parent aide who supervised the visits between Q.A.H. and Mother set the following goals for Mother: (1) understand the developmental stages of a child; (2) gain and maintain stable employment; (3) provide for Q.A.H.; and (4) obtain her own transportation. By February 2010, Mother was allowed unsupervised visits with Q.A.H., which she arranged on her own with the foster family.

In February 2010, after Mother had made progress toward her goals, the parent aide reported that "[Mother] is ready to be there for [Q.A.H.] emotionally, mentally, and can support [Q.A.H.]." The parent aide recommended that Q.A.H. be reunited with Mother. In May 2010, Mother regained custody, but Q.A.H. was removed from the home again in July 2010 after Mother failed to comply with a court order regarding Father's visitation. On July 26, 2010, Q.A.H. was placed in the foster care of C.W.M. and C.D.M. ("Foster Parents").

In August 2010, Mother resumed supervised visits with Q.A.H. and continued to work on her parenting goals with the parent aide. Reports from the parent aide stated that the "visits overall do go well," but also noted periodic concerns about Mother's behavior.

The parent aide reported that Mother seemed less open to advice after Q.A.H. was returned to foster care in July 2010. The most significant situation in which Mother demonstrated a stubborn attitude involved a food allergy Q.A.H. was reported to have. Mother was informed that Foster Parents had to take Q.A.H. to the emergency room due to an allergic reaction to either strawberries or apricots. Despite this information, Mother fed Q.A.H. strawberries on three separate occasions, maintaining that she did not believe Q.A.H. was allergic to strawberries. The first two times, Q.A.H. did not suffer any allergic reaction. The third time, the parent aide reported that "[Q.A.H.] did end up having a few splotches on her face, but nothing more significant occurred." Mother subsequently agreed to stop feeding Q.A.H. strawberries.

The parent aide occasionally reported that Mother provided Q.A.H. with various items, such as a potty training kit and clothes. However, Foster Parents testified that the clothes Mother provided were too small for Q.A.H..

The parent aide reported that she could tell Mother had continued to work towards her goal of understanding Q.A.H.'s developmental stages when Q.A.H. was returned to her custody. However, the parent aide also noted some behavior indicating that Mother still had unrealistic developmental expectations for Q.A.H., such as expecting Q.A.H. to stay focused on one activity until complete. Additionally, in the months leading up to the termination hearing, Mother began talking to Q.A.H. about the case in a way in which the parent aide described as "adult conversations."

The parent aide also set a new goal for Mother to obtain psychiatric help and take any medication prescribed. The parent aide acknowledged that Mother was already under the care of Dr. Golan, but she felt that Mother was "still showing someodd behavior." As an example of Mother's "odd behavior," the parent aide reported that, on November 1, 2010, Mother asked the parent aide if she thought it was possible for people to read minds and said that she "need[ed] to talk with someone that does have that ability so she can ask what the starting signs are so she can prepare herself and learn to control it." On November 14, 2010, Dr. Golan began prescribing mental health medications for Mother.

On September 25, 2011, Mother gave birth to her son, J.N., in Kansas.¹ J.N. was immediately placed into the custody of the State of Kansas due to the on-going Missouri proceedings concerning Q.A.H. Mother subsequently began participating in parenting services provided by Kansas. She received positive reports from the Kansas service providers, and J.N. was returned to her care and custody within a few months.

On September 9, 2011, Foster Parents filed a petition to adopt Q.A.H. Father executed a "Consent to Termination of Parental Rights and Consent to Adoption" for Q.A.H. On November 17, 2011, Foster Parents filed an amended petition to adopt Q.A.H. without Mother's consent under Section 453.040(7) and to terminate Mother's parental rights under Section 211.447.²

The case was assigned to a Family Court Commissioner for hearing on August 31, 2012. Prior to the hearing, the Commissioner and the parties agreed to bifurcate the proceeding, dealing first with the termination action and then the adoption. Thus, although evidence was submitted on both the termination and adoption issues, theCommissioner deferred ruling on the adoption "unless or until parental rights were in fact terminated and only after appeal on that decision was finally resolved."³

Following the hearing, the Commissioner made findings and recommended termination on grounds of abuse and neglect, Section 211.447.5(2); failure to rectify, Section 211.447.5(3); and parental unfitness, Section 211.447.5(6).⁴ The circuit court subsequently adopted the Commissioner's findings and recommendations and thereupon entered a judgment terminating Mother's parental rights to Q.A.H. Mother appeals.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Section 211.447 authorizes the termination of parental rights if the trial court finds: (1) that at least one of the grounds for termination exists; and (2) that termination is in the best interests of the child. In the Interest of C.F.C., 156 S.W.3d 422, 426 (Mo. App. 2005). The burden of proving grounds for termination rests on the petitioner. In the Interest of Q.M.B. and Q.T.P., 85 S.W.3d 654, 658 (Mo. App. 2002). Where the trial court finds multiple grounds for termination, any one of those grounds is sufficient to sustain the judgment on appeal, so long as that ground was proven by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. In the Interest of M.W.S., 160 S.W.3d 435, 437 (Mo. App. 2005). Clear, cogent, and convincing evidence is that which instantly tilts the scales in favor of termination when weighed against the evidence in opposition; and the finder of fact is left with the abiding conviction the evidence is true. In the Interest of A.S.W., 137S.W.3d 448, 453 (Mo. banc 2004).

We will reverse the judgment only if we conclude that it is unsupported by substantial evidence, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). The facts and reasonable inferences are viewed in a light most favorable to the judgment, with due regard given to the trial court's determination of witness credibility. In the Interest of B.S.B. and B.A.B., 76 S.W.3d 318, 324 (Mo. App. 2002).

The termination of parental rights interferes with "one of the...