J. L. L., In Interest of

Decision Date18 April 1966
Docket NumberNo. 8499,8499
Citation402 S.W.2d 629
PartiesIn the Interest of J.L.L., a child under 17 years of age.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Dorothy F. Roberts, Lamar, Frieze & Crandall, Arkley W. Frieze, Carthage, for appellants, the adoptive parents.

Gordon R. Boyer, Pros. Atty., Lamar, for the State.

STONE, Presiding Judge.

In this statutory proceeding under our Juvenile Act (Sections 211.01 to 211.431), the adoptive parents of J_ _ L_ _ L_ _, a girl six years of age, appeal from the judgment of the juvenile court entered on June 28, 1965, which found that the girl was a neglected child 'in need of care and treatment' (Section 211.031) and committed her to the care and custody of the division of welfare under the continuing supervision of the juvenile court. Section 207.020(17). (All statutory references are to RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S., and all references to rules are to the Rules of Civil Procedure, V.A.M.R.) The petition filed by the juvenile officer in the juvenile court (Section 211.091) specifically charged physical abuse of the girl, and the evidence at the hearing was directed toward that charge. No complaint is made concerning the form, substance or sufficiency of the petition, but the principal contention of the adoptive parents is that the evidence was 'wholly insufficient' to permit the court's finding that the girl was a neglected child. Before discussing the event which precipitated the institution of the neglect proceeding, it may be helpful to note certain background information.

The adoptive mother, forty-four years of age at the time of hearing, is the natural maternal grandmother (hereinafter referred to as the grandmother) of the girl. The record leaves us in doubt concerning the here unimportant detail as to whether the adoptive father, whose age is not given, is the natural grandfather or the stepgrandfather. The only revealed fact pertaining to the girl's early years was contained in the grandmother's statement that 'I've had her practically since birth,' inferentially for undisclosed reasons arising out of the natural mother's 'past'--a subject which the court charitably curtained from view when the natural mother made a fleeting appearance on the witness stand. However, the feeling of the grandmother toward the natural mother was made manifest at the hearing (a) by the natural mother's undisputed statement that 'my mother had wrote and told me that I wasn't welcome there at the house to see my little girl; she told me that before I left the last time' and (b) by the grandmother's query to the court, when informed of his finding at the close of the hearing, 'you ain't going to turn her (the girl) back over to the mother?'

The grandparents obtained their decree of adoption and thus became the adoptive parents of the girl in 1964, only 'a few months' prior to the neglect proceeding. The attorney, who was guardian ad litem for the girl in the adoption proceeding, was called as a witness in the neglect proceeding. When asked about his investigation and recommendation in the adoption proceeding, he stated that, even though the grandmother had been 'quite strict with the child,' he had been of the opinion that she was not mean or abusive and that, 'since it was the only home that the child had ever known,' he had recommended that adoption be decreed. He observed that 'perhaps from the health standpoint it was not too good because of (the grandfather's) condition,' which, although not developed in evidence, was such that the grandfather was in a state sanitarium at the time of the occurrence giving rise to the neglect proceeding. However, we record parenthetically that he was home when the proceeding was instituted on June 21, 1965, was served with summons on that date, and was represented by counsel at the hearing on June 28. That the possibility of obtaining additional financial aid may have been one of the considerations motivating the grandparents' petition for adoption of the girl is suggested by the grandmother's inquiry, after being informed of the court's decision in the neglect proceeding, 'will they have to take the disability social security and return it back to the social security office?'

About 6:40 A.M. on Tuesday, June 15, 1965, witness Lucille T_ _, who lived in the second house from the grandparents' home, heard the grandmother 'beating the child' and 'the little girl crying.' The witness said that it continued until about 7:15 to 7:20 A.M. when the girl 'commenced crying 'Mama"--'those cries of 'Mama' would just make your blood run cold'--'you could tell from the voice that the child was just desperate.' The grandmother 'was in a rage'--' not going to have this in my house.' Since she did not see the beating, the witness did not know what the grandmother was using; but the witness insisted that whatever was in use was striking 'flesh.' As the witness put it, after 'I took over thirty minutes of it . . . I called (the county welfare director) to get some help.'

At the request of the welfare director, peace officers went to the grandmother's home and asked her to take the girl to the director's office, which she did. The welfare director had known the girl 'for a long time'--'she is a very attractive, weak child.' Observing the stripes and bruises on the girl's arms and legs and a deep cut and bruise on her left temple, the welfare director told the grandmother 'that we wanted to take the little girl to a doctor.' There was no formal request for the grandmother's permission and, on the other hand, the grandmother voiced no objection to the proposed examination. Whereupon, the girl was taken to the office of a medical doctor, who examined and treated her and arranged for twelve black-and-white photographs of the girl to be made while she was still in his office.

Upon hearing, the doctor testified that the girl had 'numerous traumatic injuries to her skin and to her soft tissue,' including many bruises and contusions, some of which were 'actually superficial lacerations,' on her head, neck, thorax, buttocks, thighs and legs, and a 'laceration area with acute swelling and bruising' on the left forehead and temple. Some of the girl's injuries were fresh while, in the doctor's opinion, the duration of other injuries ranged from twenty-four hours to two weeks. The bruises, contusions and lacerations were so numerous that, when the court invited the doctor to count or estimate their number, the latter thought that 'it wouldn't be impossible but it would be a task.' The twelve photographs, in their totality, portray the entire head, body and extremities of the girl and establish, even more graphically and indisputably than the clear, cogent and compelling testimony of the medical examiner, the veritable multitude of grievous hurts inflicted on the girl.

The grandmother did not deny, and could not well have done so, the existence of multiple indicia of trauma to the girl. In fact, she testified that, when the peace officers had come to her home on the morning of Tuesday, June 15, she (the grandmother) had been, at that very moment, engaged in getting the girl 'ready to go to the doctor,' an osteopath who had been the 'family physician for approximately eighteen months.' However, the grandmother did deny that she had inflicted any of the bruises, contusions or lacerations and undertook to account for them by a vivid recital of the following-described series of alleged incidents in which (so she said) the girl had sustained those objective evidences of trauma.

(1) On Saturday, June 12 (three days prior to the medical examination), the girl had fallen through a hole in the rotten bed of a farm trailer sitting in the back yard. This had 'blackened her leg,' which the grandmother 'was doctoring myself.' (2) About 2:30 P.M. on Monday, June 14, the girl had fallen some ten to eleven feet out of a tree, while emulating the miraculous feats of 'Superman.' 'She (the girl) got up and run off and just rubbed her head and went on playing just the same with the other kids.' (3) While the grandmother was mowing the back yard about 5 P.M. on Monday, June 14, the girl and three of her cousins (two girls, six and five years of age, and a boy, three years old, temporarily in the grandmother's care) 'had a hickory fight' with some switches in the front yard. (4) Shortly after the grandmother had stopped the 'hickory fight' and had gone to the garden to gather beans, she 'heard a scream' and, returning to the front yard, found the children 'fighting' and striking each other with toy brooms and a toy gun. She took the girl inside 'and rubbed this lotion on her.' (5) About 7 A.M. on Tuesday, June 15, the girl had a pillow fight in bed with her dog, who 'scratched her down the front with his toenails.' The grandmother 'hollered' at the girl, 'don't lay there and wet the bed'; but, either before or after that admonition, the girl did 'wet the bed.' When she got out of bed, the girl 'come on running . . . right by the heater and she either tripped over her doll or else the dog reared on her and knocked her down and she bumped her head on the side where it was cut . . .. About that time I just retched down and spanked her tail and told her to get in there so I could get the wet bloomers off of her and change her and get her ready to go to the doctor. . . . So about that time the law rolls up . . ..'

The welfare director testified that, when the girl was brought to her office, the grandmother first told her that 'a little niece had pushed (the girl) down on the sidewalk and the dog had scratched her and then she later told me that she had tickled (the girl) with a switch and . . . that she had used her hand on her.' In fact, the grandmother 'changed her story I don't know how many times' about the manner in which the girl had sustained her injuries--'she (the grandmother) told me one thing and then when she realized she was headed for trouble, she told me something else.'

In urging...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • White v. Smith
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 16 Abril 1969
    ...Ry. Co., 326 Mo. 425, 432, 31 S.W.2d 1010, 1012(4), certiorari denied 283 U.S. 820, 51 S.Ct. 345, 75 L.Ed. 1435; In the Interest of J.L.L., Mo.App., 402 S.W.2d 629, 633--634(1); Fellows v. Farmer, Mo.App., 379 S.W.2d 842, 846(2).9 Caldwell v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 305 Mo. (banc) 619, 660, 26......
  • Frederick v. Frederick
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 14 Enero 1971
    ...v. Manley, Mo.App., 435 S.W.2d 420, 428, and cases cited in note 10; White v. Smith, Mo.App., 440 S.W.2d 497, 506; In re J.L.L., Mo.App., 402 S.W.2d 629, 633--634(1); Fellows v. Farmer, Mo.App., 379 S.W.2d 842, 846(2). With respect to those matters concerning which the testimony fo the part......
  • Day v. Mayberry
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 13 Septiembre 1967
    ...denied, St. Louis Merchants' Bridge Terminal Ry. Co. v. Doyle, 283 U.S. 820, 51 S.Ct. 345, 75 L.Ed. 1435; In the Interest of J.L.L., Mo.App., 402 S.W.2d 629, 633--634(1); Fellows v. Farmer, Mo.App., 379 S.W.2d 842, Viewing the record as a whole in the light most favorable to plaintiff and a......
  • Sanderson v. Richardson
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 4 Octubre 1968
    ...in evidence without objection or motion to strike (Steeley v. Kurn, 348 Mo. 1142, 1144, 157 S.W.2d 212, 213(3); In the Interest of J.L.L., Mo.App., 402 S.W.2d 629, 633--634(1); Lomax v. Sawtell, Mo.App., 286 S.W.2d 40, 42(1)), its probative worth and value were for the circuit court as the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT