In re Adoption J.A.D.

• Decision Date: 12 December 2013
• Docket Number: No. SD 32724.,SD 32724.
• Citation: 417 S.W.3d 327
• Parties: In re the ADOPTION OF J.A.D., B.L.D., J.D.D., S.R.N., and B.T.N.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

417 S.W.3d 327

In re the ADOPTION OF J.A.D., B.L.D., J.D.D., S.R.N., and B.T.N.

No. SD 32724.

Missouri Court of Appeals,
Southern District,
Division Two.

Dec. 12, 2013.

[417 S.W.3d 328]

Wesley A. Barnum, Barnum, Pennick & Barton, L.L.C., Webb City, MO, Attorney for Appellant.

Joseph L. Hensley, The Law Firm of Hensley & Nicholas, L.L.C., Joplin, MO, Attorney for Respondents S.W.P. and A.L.P., Adoptive Parents.

GARY W. LYNCH, J.

C.L.S. (“Appellant”) is the biological mother of five children who are the subjects of an adoption petition in the trial court. Appellant appeals the trial court's judgment terminating her parental rights to the children entered in that adoption proceeding claiming that the trial court erroneously applied the law because the underlying dispositional hearing did not take place within thirty days after the section 211.455 meeting between the juvenile office and the trial court, as required by section 211.459.¹ Because Appellant failed to raise this claim in the trial court ² and thereby preserve it for appellate review, we affirm.

Appellant does not challenge any of the six grounds for termination found by the trial court or the finding that termination is in the children's best interests. Therefore, we do not recite the evidence supporting those findings. Rather, only those

[417 S.W.3d 329]

facts relevant to Appellant's sole point on appeal need be discussed.

The three-count adoption petition was filed on January 24, 2013.³ Appellant was personally served with the petition on January 30. In accordance with section 211.455, the trial court met with the Jasper County Juvenile Officer on February 5, determined that proper service would be issued to all parties, and ordered the Missouri Department of Social Services, Children's Division, to conduct an investigation and social summary.⁴ On February 7, the trial court appointed counsel to represent Appellant. Service on all other necessary parties was completed on March 3. The dispositional hearing was held on April 9. Appellant's court-appointed attorney appeared at the hearing, but Appellant did not. Neither her counsel nor Appellant raised any objection to the timeliness of the hearing before it commenced or at any time during it. The judgment terminating Appellant's parental rights was entered on April 19. Appellant filed no after-trial motions. Appellant's notice of appeal was filed on May 6.⁵

In her sole point on appeal, Appellant claims for the first time that the trial court erred in terminating her parental rights because it failed to comply with section 211.459, in that “the dispositional hearing did not take place within thirty (30) days of the § 211.455 meeting between the juvenile officer and the trial court.” ⁶ This claimed error was never presented to the trial court in any manner.

“It is well recognized that a party should not be entitled on appeal to claim error on the part of the trial court when

[417 S.W.3d 330]

the party did not call attention to the error at trial and did not give the court the opportunity to rule on the question.” Niederkorn v. Niederkorn, 616 S.W.2d 529, 535 (Mo.App.1981) (citing Associated Underwriters, Inc. v. Mercantile Trust Co., 576 S.W.2d 343, 346 (Mo.App.1978)). “ ‘[A]ppellate courts are merely courts of review for trial court errors, and there can be no review of a matter which has not been presented to or...