In re M. N. V.
| Decision Date | 13 July 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. ED 108888,ED 108888 |
| Citation | 630 S.W.3d 829 |
| Parties | In the MATTER OF: M. N. V. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
FOR APPELLANT: Daniel E. Leslie, #1 South Oak Street, Union, Missouri 63084.
FOR RESPONDENTS: Taylor Goodale, 104 S. McKinley Ave., Suite B, Union, Missouri 63084.
Appellant Matthew W. Vanness, Jr. (Father) appeals the judgment of the Juvenile Division of the Franklin County Circuit Court terminating his parental rights in M.N.V., his biological daughter, and approving the adoption of M.N.V. by Petitioners Crystal and Everette Winters, a married couple. The court found that because Father had neglected and abandoned M.N.V., his consent to her adoption was not required pursuant to section 453.040(7)1 and his parental rights were terminated, and that because M.N.V. was lawfully in both Winters' custody for at least six months prior to the entry of the adoption decree and the adoption was in M.N.V.'s best interest, the adoption was approved.
On appeal, Father argues three points of error. In his first point, he asserts that the court did not have jurisdiction to grant the Winters’ adoption because the statute's requirement was not met that M.N.V. be in the lawful custody of the adoptive parents for at least six months before entry of the adoption decree. In his second point, Father argues that the court's determination that he abandoned and neglected M.N.V. within the meaning of section 453.040(7) was not supported by substantial and competent evidence. And in his third point, Father argues that the court's finding that the adoption and the termination of his parental rights was in M.N.V.’s best interest was against the weight of the evidence.
We affirm. First, we affirm the trial court's judgment terminating Father's parental rights and its finding that his consent to the adoption was unnecessary based on the competent and substantial evidence that Father neglected and abandoned M.N.V. within the meaning of the statute. We also affirm the judgment approving the adoption of M.N.V. by Crystal Winters based on the undisputed competent and substantial evidence (1) that M.N.V. had been in Crystal Winters' actual and lawful custody for well over six months prior to the entry of the adoption decree, and (2) that the adoption by Crystal Winters was in M.N.V.'s best interest.
As for the adoption by Everette Winters, we also affirm based on our holding that as the spouse since 2015 of M.N.V.'s court-appointed guardian Crystal Winters, Everette Winters' custody of M.N.V. was both actual and lawful within the meaning of section 453.080 and the record is replete with support that M.N.V.'s adoption by Everette Winters is in M.N.V.'s welfare and best interest as well as consistent with her entitlement to a permanent and stable home.
M.N.V. was born to Father and Mother, Shelby N. Thrower, on July 12, 2012. M.N.V. lived with her biological parents on and off for approximately eight months before she was removed from Father's care by the division of family services in 2013. She was placed in the exclusive care of Father's niece, Petitioner Crystal Winters,2 who had been helping to care for M.N.V. since she was two weeks old. In 2014, the Probate Division of the Circuit Court of Franklin County appointed Crystal Winters M.N.V.’s legal guardian.3 At that time, Ms. Winters and Petitioner Everette Winters were in a romantic relationship and Mr. Winters assisted in the care of M.N.V. The two married in 2015.
On April 22, 2019, the Winters filed their petition to adopt M.N.V. in which they alleged pursuant to the statute that M.N.V.'s biological parents had willfully abandoned her and had willfully, substantially, and continuously neglected her. Specifically, the Winters alleged that neither parent had done anything monetarily or otherwise to help with M.N.V.’s care and support, that neither made any genuine attempts to see or maintain a relationship with M.N.V., and that at the time the petition was filed, neither parent had seen or spoken to M.N.V. in over two years. As a result, they alleged M.N.V.'s biological parents' consent to her adoption was not required pursuant to section 453.040(7). Furthermore, the Winters averred that they had the ability to properly care for, maintain, and educate M.N.V., and that they had been doing so while M.N.V. was in their lawful and actual custody for well over the six-month period required for an adoption pursuant to section 453.080.
The court heard the matter on March 9, 2020, pursuant to section 453.080(1), to determine whether the Winters’ adoption of M.N.V. should be finalized. As a result of its findings that (1) M.N.V. had been in the lawful and actual custody of the Winters since at least 2014 when Ms. Winters became M.N.V.'s court-appointed guardian, well beyond the statutorily required six-months, and (2) that M.N.V.’s biological parents' consent was not required under section 453.040 in light of the court's finding that they had abandoned and neglected her, the court granted the Winters’ adoption petition and the resulting termination of M.N.V.’s biological parents' parental rights. This appeal by Father follows.4
In adoption proceedings such as this one, the best interest and welfare of the child is the primary and paramount consideration. In re T.S.D. , 419 S.W.3d 887, 891 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014). Section 453.005 requires this Court to construe the adoption code to promote the best interests and welfare of the child in recognition of the entitlement of the child to a permanent and stable home. Section 453.005(1).
This Court reviews whether there was clear, cogent, and convincing evidence to support a statutory ground for terminating parental rights or to support a finding that a parent's consent is not necessary for adoption pursuant to section 453.040. H.W.S. v. C.T. , 827 S.W.2d 237, 240 (Mo. App. E.D. 1992) (citing Murphy v. Carron , 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976) ). See also In the Interest of J.P.B. , 509 S.W.3d 84, 90 (Mo. banc 2017); J.A.R. v. D.G.R., 426 S.W.3d 624 (Mo. banc 2014) ; In re Adoption of C.M.B.R. , 332 S.W.3d 793, 815 (Mo. banc 2011) (abrogated on other grounds by S.S.S. v. C.V.S., 529 S.W.3d 811 (Mo. banc 2017) ). Under Murphy v. Carron , 536 S.W.2d at 32, we will affirm the lower 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.
Appellate courts should exercise with caution the power to set aside a lower court's judgment on the ground that it is not supported by the evidence. S.S.S., 529 S.W.3d at 815. The clear, cogent, and convincing standard of proof may be met even though the lower court has contrary evidence before it. Id. ; see also T.S.D. , 419 S.W.3d at 895 (). This Court reviews the facts, and reasonable inferences therefrom, in the light most favorable to the judgment and disregards all contrary evidence and inferences. Id. at 891 (citing Matter of A.L.H. , 906 S.W.2d 373, 376 (Mo. App. E.D. 1995) ). Generally, this Court will not disturb the lower court's judgment unless the welfare of the child requires another disposition. Id.
1. The court's judgment terminating Father's parental rights and the conclusion that Father's consent to the adoption was not required based on the findings that Father abandoned and neglected M.N.V. are supported by substantial and competent evidence.
Father challenges the court's finding that he abandoned and neglected M.N.V. for at least six months prior to the filing of the Winters’ adoption petition. We find there is substantial and competent evidence supporting both findings.5
The United States Supreme Court has long recognized that the relationship 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. 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, 651, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972) ). Therefore, a prerequisite to any adoption is the consent of the natural parents or the involuntary termination of their parental rights. A.L.H. , 906 S.W.2d at 375 (citing Matter of J.F.K. , 853 S.W.2d 932, 934 (Mo. banc 1993) ).
Termination of parental rights is among the most serious acts that a court can undertake. Id. ; see also In re L.J.D., 352 S.W.3d 658, 662 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011) (quoting In re K.A.W. , 133 S.W.3d 1, 12 (Mo. banc 2004) ) ("The termination of parental rights has been characterized as tantamount to a civil death penalty.") Accordingly, there must be a strong basis for terminating parental rights in substantial and sound evidence. Id. One such basis is the finding that the natural parent abandoned or neglected their child within the meaning of section 453.040, which also renders their consent to the adoption unnecessary. Id.
Pursuant to section 453.040(7), a parent's consent to the adoption of a child is not required when:
"A parent who has for a period of at least six months [...] immediately prior to the filing of the petition for adoption, willfully abandoned the child or, for a period of at least six months immediately prior to the filing of the petition for adoption, willfully, substantially and continuously neglected to provide him with necessary care and protection[.]"
It is well established that "abandonment" and "neglect" as used in section 453.040 are used in the disjunctive; thus, either ground, if supported by substantial evidence, will obviate the need for parental consent to an adoption. See S.J.S. , 134 S.W.3d. at 677. See also Section 453.040(7) ; In re C.W. , 753 S.W.2d 933 (Mo. App. E.D. 1988) ; C.B.L. , 937 S.W.2d at 734 ; In re K.L.C. , 9...
To continue reading
Request your trial