J.D.W. v. Miss. Cnty. Juvenile Office (In re N.L.W.)
| Decision Date | 20 September 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. SD 34860,SD 34861,SD 34860 |
| Citation | 534 S.W.3d 887 |
| Parties | IN the INTEREST OF: N.L.W. and J.D.W., J.D.W., Natural Father, Appellant, v. Mississippi County Juvenile Office, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appellant's attorney: Stephen R. Southard, Cape Girardeau.
Respondent's attorney: Daniel F. Norton, Sikeston.
J.D.W. ("Father") appeals the judgments terminating his parental rights to his daughter, N.L.W., and his son, J.D.W.1 ("the Children").2 Finding Father has failed to convince us of any trial court error warranting reversal, we affirm the judgments of the Juvenile Division of the Circuit Court of Mississippi County (the "trial court").3
Our recitation of the relevant facts is in accord with the principle that we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment. See J.A.R. v. D.G.R. , 426 S.W.3d 624, 626 (Mo. banc 2014). Id. (internal quotation and citation omitted). " ‘All fact issues upon which no specific findings are made shall be considered as having been found in accordance with the result reached." ’ Id. (quoting Rule 73.01(c)).4 In re Adoption of C.M. , 414 S.W.3d 622, 629 (Mo.App. S.D. 2013) (internal quotation and citation omitted). "In reviewing questions of fact, the reviewing court is to recognize that the circuit court is free to disbelieve any, all, or none of the evidence, and it is not the reviewing appellate court's role to re-evaluate the evidence through its own perspective." J.A.R. , 426 S.W.3d at 627. Viewed in this context, the following facts are pertinent to the current appeal.
The record reveals that J.D.W. is the biological father of N.L.W., born in 2005, and J.D.W., born in 2007 ("the Children"). On April 14, 2014, the Children came under the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Division of Mississippi County. The Children were taken into protective custody after Mother's arrest for possession of drug paraphernalia; unsanitary home conditions; educational neglect; Mother's positive tests for methamphetamines and other drugs; and three counts of endangering the welfare of a child. Father was in the Mississippi Count Jail at the time, awaiting trial on a charge of sexual abuse in the first degree with a victim under the age of 18, pursuant to section 566.100,5 having been arrested on November 29, 2012. The Children remained in the custody of the Children's Division of the Missouri Department of Social Services (the "Children's Division") from April 14, 2014, through the date of the termination of parental rights hearing.
Father remained in jail until he was released on bond on September 9, 2014. Following a jury trial on May 7, 2015, Father was found guilty of the class C felony of sexual abuse in the first degree. On July 9, 2015, Father was sentenced to seven years in the Missouri Department of Corrections ("DOC") with a release date in October 2020. Father would potentially be eligible for parole as of June 2018, if he were to complete a sex offender program.6
A total of six Written Service Agreements ("WSAs") were implemented for Father from the time the Children were placed into protective custody, through Father's incarceration.7 Pursuant to the agreements, Father agreed to write letters to the Children at least weekly, and later monthly; maintain contact with the Children's Division; maintain safe and adequate housing; obtain and maintain employment; attend all FST8 meetings and court hearings; attend parenting classes; and obtain information about parenting and fatherhood programs while in prison. The Children's Division also requested Father attend a sex offender program.
Father failed to comply with most of the goals outlined in the WSAs. Father wrote letters to the Children while he was in jail awaiting trial, and again after he was transferred to the DOC. However, he did not write any letters while he was out of jail on bond awaiting trial and sentencing. Father was subject to a no-contact order with the Children due to his sexual abuse of a minor; Father was advised by Children's Division representatives to continue writing to the Children, that the letters would be delivered to the Children once the no-contact order was no longer in place, and that writing would show his attempts at continuing to have contact with the Children. Nevertheless, Father refused.
While Father had some contact with the Children's Division at various times, he failed to keep in consistent contact as required. Father failed to notify the Children's Division when he was released on bond in September 2014. The Children's Division was unable to locate Father, or obtain his address and phone number, until he appeared at an October 2014 hearing.
Father also failed to maintain safe and adequate housing. At no time after the WSAs were entered into did Father obtain such housing.
Father had mixed results in fulfilling his obligation to obtain and maintain employment. While Father did work for a farmer until December 2014, he was then laid off. He did not obtain work again until April 2015. He then worked until he was delivered to the DOC in July 2015.
Since April 2014, Father contributed nothing financially for the care and maintenance of the Children. Father was released on bond in September 2014, and sometime thereafter, began working until July 2015. In addition to wages, Father also received a Christmas bonus, but did not contribute financially to the Children, nor bought any birthday or Christmas gifts. While in the DOC, Father initially received a stipend of $7.50, which was later increased to $8.50. Father saved that money to buy himself a fan, and then was saving up to buy himself a television. The only thing the Children received from Father were some letters and drawings, but only when Father was in jail.
As to Father's obligation to attend all FST meetings and court hearings, Father's compliance was deficient. While Father was incarcerated and awaiting trial, he was brought to court to attend the juvenile hearings. He was not able to participate in the FST meetings while in jail, but following the meetings, the Children's Division would contact Father to discuss the meetings. When Father was out of jail on bond, awaiting trial and sentencing, Father was not consistent in attending these meetings. Since Father was transported to the DOC, Father has not participated in FST meetings or court hearings. The Children's Division continued to communicate with Father following the FST meetings.
Father has not participated in any parenting classes. He failed to even initiate contact with any agency about parenting classes until "sometime after he was transferred to DOC." Father, at all times, has openly refused to participate in a sex offender program as requested by the Children's Division.
On July 18, 2016, a juvenile officer filed, on behalf of the Children, petitions for termination of parental rights, pursuant to section 211.447. The pleadings asserted, in relevant part, that:
The pleadings also asserted in part, pursuant to section 211.447.5(3), that: (1) the Children had been under the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Division for a period of one year, and that conditions that led to the assumption of jurisdiction still persist—and/or conditions of a potentially harmful nature continue to exist—so there was little likelihood that those conditions would be remedied so that the Children could be returned to Father in the near future; (2) Father failed to achieve any significant or consistent success with the goals outlined in the WSAs due to his failure to work with the Children's Division case managers, and his failure to follow through with the recommended and offered services; (3) there was no evidence that Father had a mental condition; and (4) there was no evidence that Father had a chemical dependency.
Finally, pursuant to section 211.447.7, the pleadings asserted that the Children had little emotional ties to Father; Father had not visited with the Children since they were taken into protective custody due to Father's felony sexual abuse conviction; that it was unlikely additional services would bring about a lasting parental adjustment enabling the Children to return to Father within an ascertainable period of time; Father consistently showed a disinterest and lack of commitment to the Children by his actions; and Father had been convicted of a felony offense of such a nature that the Children would be deprived of a stable home for a period of years.
A hearing was held on September 30, 2016. The trial court took judicial...
To continue reading
Request your trial