In re F.L.M.
| Decision Date | 30 October 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. ED 106208,ED 106208 |
| Citation | 561 S.W.3d 474 |
| Parties | IN the INTEREST OF: F.L.M. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Lena A. Conley, 3920 Lindell Blvd., Suite 209, St. Louis, MO 63108, for appellant.
Karen D. Siegel, 16761 Benton Taylor Dr., Chesterfield, MO 63005, Steven W. Neimeyer, 1034 South Brentwood Blvd., Suite 1480, St. Louis, MO 63117, for respondents.
Mary E. Davidson, 8820 Ladue Road, Suite 201, St. Louis, MO 63124, Guardian Ad Litem.
The father, M.S.F., appeals the judgment entered by the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis terminating his parental rights to his six-year-old child, F.L.M., and later granting the petition of the guardians, K.F. and L.F., to adopt the child.1 We find that the record contains no clear, cogent, and convincing evidence to support the trial court’s determination that the father willfully, substantially, and continuously neglected to provide the child with necessary care and protection. We reverse and remand with instructions.
The child was born in May 2012 to the father and A.R.M., the mother.2 The parents never married. L.F. and the father testified that the father cared for the child when she was a newborn, and the father stated that he worked and provided for her as well. The father was incarcerated when the child was three months old on charges of assaulting a law-enforcement officer, driving while intoxicated, and leaving the scene of an accident in the summer of 2012. The father ultimately pleaded guilty, and remained imprisoned at the time of trial.
The child and an older sibling entered protective custody in April 2014 based on allegations of abuse and neglect against the mother. The Children’s Division initially placed the child in foster care with non-relatives, and then in June 2014 placed her in foster care with K.F., the child’s paternal great-uncle, and his then fiancee and now wife, L.F. The father and mother consented to K.F. and L.F. later assuming guardianship of the child, and the probate division of the Circuit Court of Jefferson County issued letters of guardianship to K.F. and L.F. in early November 2015. The juvenile division of the Circuit Court of Jefferson County terminated its jurisdiction in the underlying care and protection case after K.F. and L.F. became the child’s legal guardians. In July 2016 in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, K.F. and L.F. petitioned to terminate the parental rights of the biological parents and to adopt the child. Neither parent sought termination of the guardianship. The Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis conducted a trial to address the termination of parental rights over the course of two days in May and June 2017. The father testified that he consented to K.F. and L.F. as guardians for the child and wished for her to remain in their care until his release from prison because he knew the child would be in a safe and stable home.
The father regularly wrote the child letters, sent her cards and drawings, and telephoned her. Twice the guardians took the child to visit the father, and twice the paternal grandmother took the child to visit. L.F. testified that the child knows who the father is, calls him "Daddy [M.]," and asks when he will call her. The father documented his completion of numerous courses in prison, including courses for substance-abuse treatment, first aid, parenting, communication, and anger management. He explained that he participated in programs in prison when and where available to help him connect with the child, specifically Project Angel Tree and Story Link.3 The trial court concluded that the father loves the child.
The father paid no child support. He testified that he has $8.50 per month to live on in prison, and "make[s] sacrifices just to make phone time and call and talk to my daughter." Father stated that he expected to be released from prison in April 2018; that he was considering options for housing upon release; that he expected to return to his former landscaping job; and that he wanted to reintegrate into the child’s life, and help her transition from living with K.F. and L.F. to living with him. The father testified that he inquired of the guardians about the child’s health, well-being, and education, but received no information.
The trial court made no finding regarding the father’s credibility although it found the guardians "less than forthcoming when questioned about [m]other’s attempts to contact them." The court, while observing that they had no legal obligation to do so, also found "that the guardians failed to provide a constant and regular schedule or method of visitation and contact between the natural parents and the child." Nonetheless, the trial court determined that the father willfully neglected the minor child, having noted that the father "never provided any monetary support" and "lacks adequate housing in which to assume [the child’s] custody any time in the near future." Further, "[i]n reviewing the evidence submitted and considering the testimony elicited from the witnesses at trial," the court found "that it is in the minor child’s best interest that the parental rights of the natural parents be terminated so that the minor child can be adopted by her present caregivers, [K.F.] and [L.F.]." The trial court did not elaborate further on its best-interest analysis. The father appeals.
We review a trial court’s decision to terminate parental rights under the standard set forth in Murphy v. Carron .4 In re R.M., 234 S.W.3d 619,622 (Mo. App. E.D. 2007). We will affirm the trial court’s judgment unless no substantial evidence supports it, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law. Id. We review whether clear, cogent, and convincing evidence supports a finding that parental consent is not necessary for the adoption of a child pursuant to section 453.040 RSMo. (2016)5 S.S.S. v. C.V.S., 529 S.W.3d 811, 815 (Mo. banc 2017). Clear, cogent, and convincing evidence instantly tilts the scales in the affirmative when weighed against opposing evidence. R.M., 234 S.W.3d at 622.
On appeal, the father claims the trial court erred in terminating his parental rights and granting the adoption of F.L.M. because the court’s decision is contrary to the law, is not supported by substantial evidence, and is against the weight of the evidence. Specifically, the father argues that the record fails to support a finding that he willfully, substantially, and continuously neglected to provide the child with the necessary care and protection.
The United States Supreme Court has long recognized that the relationship between parent and child is constitutionally protected. Stanley v. Illinois , 405 U.S. 645, 651, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972). This relationship is a fundamental right and liberty interest, entitled to protection under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Troxel v. Granville , 530 U.S. 57, 65, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000). The interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children is perhaps the oldest fundamental liberty interest recognized by the United States Supreme Court. Id. Termination of parental rights is among the most serious acts that a court can undertake. R.M. , 234 S.W.3d at 622. Therefore, we strictly construe adoption statutes in favor of natural parents. Id.
Before a court can grant an adoption under Chapter 453, the parents must either give their consent to the adoption, or have their parental rights involuntarily terminated. In re J.M.J. , 404 S.W.3d 423, 429 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) (abrogated on other grounds by S.S.S. , 529 S.W.3d at 816 n.3 ). "The quality of the adoptive home is not a part of the termination inquiry; rather, the focus is on the natural parent’s interactions and relationship with the child." In re C.M.B.R. , 332 S.W.3d 793, 822 (Mo. banc 2011) (abrogated on other grounds by S.S.S. , 529 S.W.3d at 816 n.3 ). The trial court must first consider the question of termination of parental rights in contested Chapter 453 adoption cases in order to avoid confusing the quality of the adoptive home with the grounds for terminating parental rights. Id.
Here, the child’s guardians, her paternal great-uncle K.F. and her great-aunt L.F., filed this action for termination of parental rights and adoption. K.F. and L.F. alleged neglect while tracking the language of section 453.040(7) so that consent of the child’s parents to her adoption would not be required under the statute. Section 453.040 provides in relevant part:
The burden rested on K.F. and L.F. to prove by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that the father willfully, substantially, and continuously neglected to provide the child with necessary care and protection for at least six months before the guardians filed their adoption petition.6
The statute expressly refers to "neglect" as failing to provide a child with "necessary care and protection." Section 453.040(7). Providing care and protection requires a parent to provide for the health, welfare, maintenance, and protection of a child, and it also suggests having a concern, interest, and attachment to the child. S.S.S., 529 S.W.3d at 818. Neglect focuses on physical deprivation or harm, and is characterized as a failure to perform the duty that the law and conscience impose on a parent. In re T.S.D., 419 S.W.3d 887, 895 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014). " ‘Neglect’ is ultimately a question of an intent to forego ‘parental duties,’ which includes both an obligation to provide financial support for a minor child, as well as an obligation to maintain...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re M. N. V.
...and child is one of the oldest constitutionally protected fundamental rights and liberty interests. In Interest of F.L.M. , 561 S.W.3d 474, 478-79 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018) (citing Troxel v. Granville , 530 U.S. 57, 65, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000) ; Stanley v. Illinois , 405 U.S. 645, ......
-
In re M. N. V.
...between parent and child is one of the oldest constitutionally protected fundamental rights and liberty interests. In Interest of F.L.M., 561 S.W.3d 474, 478-79 (Mo. App. ED 2018) (citing Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000); Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 (1972)). Therefore,......