In re Interest of K.A.M.L.
| Citation | 644 S.W.3d 14 |
| Decision Date | 12 April 2022 |
| Docket Number | ED 109556 |
| Parties | In the INTEREST OF: K.A.M.L. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
FOR APPELLANT: Christopher M. Braeske, The Law Offices of Christopher M. Braeske, 7751 Carondelet Avenue, Suite 700, Clayton, Missouri 63105.
FOR RESPONDENT: Troy J. Anderson, 105 South Central, Clayton, Missouri 63105, Richard J. Childress, Missouri Division of Legal Services, 111 North 7th Street, Suite 329, St. Louis, Missouri 63101.
GUARDIAN AD LITEM: Shevon L. Harris, The Harris Law Firm, 1515 North Warson Road, Suite 249, St. Louis, Missouri 63132.
M.L.R. ("Father") appeals the trial court's judgment terminating his parental rights of his children, T.M.L., K.A.L., and K.M.L. (collectively "the Children"). Father raises five points on appeal. In Point I, Father argues the trial court erred and abused its discretion in denying his motions for a continuance of trial and to reopen the evidence, violating his right to due process. We deny Point I. In Points II-V, Father argues the trial court erred in terminating his parental rights under Sections 211.447.5(2), abuse or neglect, 211.447.5(3) failure to rectify, 211.447.5(5) parental unfitness, and 211.447.7, best interests, respectively. We deny Points III and V. Because Points III and V, failure to rectify and best interests, are dispositive we need not address Points II and IV, abuse or neglect and parental unfitness.
We affirm.
M.L.R. is the Children's father. The Children are between six and ten years old. On October 26, 2016, the Juvenile Officer of St. Louis County ("Officer") filed a petition alleging the Children's mother had a history of substance use and neglected the children because her home lacked heat or electricity and was unsanitary. When the petition was filed, the Children's father was unknown. Father lived in a separate residence from the Children. M.L.R. was later identified as the Children's father. The trial court found the allegations against the Children's mother true on December 20, 2016.
On January 19, 2017, the court took jurisdiction over the Children and ordered Father to participate in services with the Children's Division (the "Division"). The court-ordered services included mental health and parenting assessments; individual counseling; substance abuse treatment; and drug screens. On April 1, 2019, the Officer filed a petition to terminate Father's parental rights under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 211.447.5(2), § 211.447.5(3), and § 211.447.7.1
On November 29, 2019, the trial court conducted a hearing on the petition, but Father failed to appear. Father's court-appointed attorney orally requested a continuance. Father's counsel stated he spoke with Father the day before trial by telephone and Father confirmed he would be present. Counsel was unsure why Father failed to appear. The Juvenile Officer of St. Louis County ("Respondent") objected, and the trial court denied the request for a continuance. At trial, the evidence showed Father had a history of substance abuse and multiple criminal convictions for possession of controlled substances, was on probation through the Missouri Department of Corrections, failed to complete the court ordered substance abuse treatment program, had multiple positive drug screenings, and missed about seventy drug screenings.
On December 18, 2019, Father's counsel filed a Motion to Reopen Trial Evidence, alleging he missed the November 29 hearing due to the flu. The trial court did not rule on Father's motion to reopen but entered judgment terminating his parental rights on February 5, 2020. The court's judgment found Father suffers from a chemical dependency which has not been treated and prevents him from consistently providing care for the Children; has repeatedly and continuously failed, although physically and financially able, to provide the Children with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or other care necessities for the Children; failed to participate and complete court-ordered services successfully; and, for the reasonably foreseeable future, is unable to appropriately care for the ongoing physical, mental and emotional needs of the Children. The court further found that the termination of Father's parental rights was in the Children's best interest, as the continuation of the parent-child relationship greatly diminished the Children's prospects for early integration into a stable and permanent home.
Father appealed, challenging the trial court's denial of his request for continuance and motion to reopen the evidence. On December 22, 2020, this Court reversed and remanded for the trial court to conduct a hearing on Father's motion to reopen the evidence and make a credibility determination regarding Father's explanation for missing trial. The trial court conducted a hearing on Father's Motion to Reopen Trial Evidence on January 30, 2021, but the recording was inaudible, so the court held a second hearing on May 25, 2021. Father testified he failed to appear at trial because he was seeking medical treatment at Urgent Care for the flu and hip pain.2 Father presented no documentation supporting his claim he was ill or visited Urgent Care on the date of trial. With no supporting evidence, the trial court found Father's testimony not credible and denied his motion to reopen. This appeal follows. Additional factual and procedural history will be provided as necessary to address Father's arguments.
In termination of parental rights cases, we will sustain the trial court's judgment unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law. S.S.S. v. C.V.S. , 529 S.W.3d 811, 815 (Mo. banc 2017) (citing Murphy v. Carron , 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976) ). The evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the trial court's judgment and will be reversed only if we are firmly convinced the judgment is erroneous. In re S.Y.B.G. , 443 S.W.3d 56, 59 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014). The party seeking termination bears the burden of proof. Id. We recognize the trial court is better positioned than this Court to determine witness credibility and weigh evidence in the context of the whole record. J.A.R. v. D.G.R. , 426 S.W.3d 624, 626 (Mo. banc 2014). The grounds for termination must be supported by clear, cogent and convincing evidence, meaning the evidence must "instantly tilt the scales in favor of termination when weighed against the evidence in opposition and the finder of fact is left with the abiding conviction that the evidence is true." S.Y.B.G. , 443 S.W.3d at 59. The standard of proof for the "best interest" inquiry is a preponderance of the evidence; on appeal, the standard of review is abuse of discretion. J.A.R. , 426 S.W.3d at 626.
This Court previously reviewed and affirmed the trial court's decision to deny Father's Motion for Continuance of Trial. Interest of T.M.L. , 615 S.W.3d 100, 103 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020) ( T.M.L. I ). We noted Rule 65.03 requires the submission of a written motion for continuance "accompanied by the affidavit ... unless the adverse party consents that the application for continuance may be made orally." Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 65.03.3 Failure to meet Rule 65.03 requirements will not constitute an "abuse of discretion in denying a continuance." In Interest of C.L.L. , 776 S.W.2d 476, 477 (Mo. App. E.D. 1989). Father's attorney failed to follow the procedural requirements of Rule 65.03, and all adverse parties objected to the oral motion. 615 S.W.3d at 103. Therefore, this Court held Father's noncompliance with Rule 65.03 established the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying his counsel's oral request for a continuance on the day of the trial. Id.
In T.M.L. I , this Court remanded to the trial court with instructions to conduct a hearing on the merits of Father's motion to reopen and make a credibility determination about his explanation for missing trial. Id. On remand, Father testified he missed trial because he had debilitating nerve pain in his hip and the flu. Father testified he sought medical treatment for his illness and pain. Father provided no documentary evidence, such as a doctor's note, in support of his testimony. On June 1, 2021, the trial court denied Father's motion. The court found Father's testimony "unconvincing and not credible" and stated Father failed to present a legal basis to reopen the case.
Father argues the trial court erroneously denied his Motion to Reopen the Evidence because his testimony provided sufficiently credible evidence to entitle him to reopen the evidence. Father claims the trial court should have granted his Motion to Reopen the Evidence because his motion would not have prejudiced either party. Father asserts the termination of his parental rights tantamounted to a "civil death penalty," and thus was entitled to relief.
We disagree. A court's decision to terminate parental rights is an exercise of an awesome power which we do not review lightly. T.M.L. I , 615 S.W.3d at 103 (citing In re J.R. , 347 S.W.3d 641, 645 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011) ). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's judgment and reverse only if we are firmly convinced the verdict is erroneous. S.Y.B.G. , 443 S.W.3d at 59 (citing In re C.J.G. , 75 S.W.3d 794, 797 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002) ). We recognize the trial court's ability to freely determine evidence credibility and refrain from re-evaluating the evidence through our own perspective. Interest of R.D.M. , 576 S.W.3d 318, 323 (Mo. App. E.D. 2019) ().
Father never supplied the trial court with any evidence to support his illness or his visit to the Urgent Care, despite having...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Smith v. Stewart
-
Greene Cnty. Juvenile Office v. R.W. (In re H.M.W.)
... IN THE INTEREST OF: H.M.W. and W.E.L., children under seventeen years of age. GREENE COUNTY JUVENILE OFFICE Petitioner-Respondent, v. R.W., ... ...