Juvenile Officer v. J.M. (In re Interest of A.M.R.)

• Docket Number: WD 85850 (,C/w WD 85858)
• Decision Date: 15 August 2023
• Citation: Juvenile Officer v. J.M. (In re Interest of A.M.R.), 673 S.W.3d 864 (Mo. App. 2023)
• Parties: In the INTEREST OF: A.M.R., R.H.H. III, and H.H. Juvenile Officer and Guardian Ad Litem, Appellants, v. J.M., Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

673 S.W.3d 864

In the INTEREST OF: A.M.R., R.H.H. III, and H.H.

JuvenileOfficer and Guardian Ad Litem, Appellants,

v.J.M., Respondent.

WD 85850 (

C/w WD 85858)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

OPINION FILED: August 15, 2023

Bree Sturner, Kansas City, MO, Attorney for AppellantJuvenileOfficer.

Devin B. Rodriguez, Kansas City, MO, Guardian ad litem and Appellant.

Emily N. Reed and Sandra J. Wirtel, Kansas City, MO, Attorneys for Respondent.

Before Division Three: Alok Ahuja, Presiding Judge, and Karen King Mitchell and Edward R. Ardini, Jr., Judges

Karen King Mitchell, Judge

The Juvenile Officer (J.O.)¹ appeals the trial court's denial of her petition to terminate the parental rights of J.M. (Mother).J.O. raises five points on appeal.In her first four points, she asserts the trial court erred in denying the petition because it was supported by substantial evidence (Point I) and denial of the petition was against the weight of the evidence (Point II), based on misapplication of the law (Point III), and relied on inadmissible evidence and misinterpretation of admissible evidence (Point IV).For her final point, J.O. argues the trial court erred in finding termination was not in the children's best interest (Point V).Finding no error, we affirm.

Background²

Mother has three children: A.M.R. (Eldest Child), whose birth father is not a party to this litigation, R.H.H. III (Middle Child), and H.H. (Youngest Child), who are the product of Mother's relationship with R.H. Jr. (Father).³On October 26, 2020, J.O. filed petitions alleging abuse and neglect and seeking protective custody of the two older children based on allegations that Middle Child had sustained injuries from non-accidental trauma.Following a hearing, the court placed those two children in the custody of the Children's Division for appropriate placement to include Parents so long as the maternal grandmother (Grandmother) resided in the home and all parental contact with the children was supervised.Early the following year, Youngest Child was born; she was allowed to remain in Parents’ custody under Children's Division supervision.

On April 7, 2021, J.O. filed motions to modify the abuse/neglect petitions, alleging additional physical abuse of Middle Child and Youngest Child.Two days later, the court ordered the children to remain in the care and custody of Children's Division for appropriate licensed placement, with supervised visitation granted to Parents.J.O. then filed first amended motions to modify and petitions to terminate Parents’ parental rights.The court consolidated the first amended motions to modify and the termination petitions.

On March 28 and 29, 2022, a bench trial was held,⁴ and the following testimony was offered.On September 2, 2020, Mother asked her grandmother (Great-Grandmother) to take Middle Child, who was then six months old, to his physician because Mother was concerned that Middle Child was not moving his left arm normally.The physician did not detect any trauma to the arm.Mother wanted a second opinion, so she took Middle Child to the emergency room on September 6, 2020.X-rays revealed three fractures in his arm—one each to his radius and ulna and one to his humerus.The radius and ulna fractures showed signs of healing, indicating that they had occurred at least seven-to-ten days prior to the x-rays.The humerus fracture was acute, meaning it showed no signs of healing and, thus, was more recent.

A child abuse pediatrician who examined Middle Child on September 18, 2020, concluded that he had suffered two separate arm injuries.She further testified that the types of injuries exhibited do not typically occur by accident, especially where, as here, Middle Child was not yet sitting independently or crawling.And there was no specific history of trauma that would indicate his injuries occurred accidentally.Mother reported that Middle Child had fallen off the family's couch, but the pediatrician testified that such a fall would not explain all three fractures.She diagnosed Middle Child with physical abuse and expressed concern for him if he were returned to the same caregivers.

A Grandview police detective interviewed Mother and Father.Mother reported that Middle Child had fallen off the couch but had been easily soothed; Mother also mentioned that Middle Child's arm had gotten stuck in the slats of his crib.Mother indicated that Middle Child was in her care all the time, that Father would be around sometimes but was never alone with Middle Child, and that neither Mother nor Father ever expressed anger toward Middle Child.According to the detective, Mother was cooperative throughout the interview.Father told the detective that neither parent ever lost patience with Middle Child, and Father denied hurting Middle Child.Father said that Middle Child was with Mother most of the time but would occasionally be left with other family members.The detective expressed concern for Middle Child if he were returned to Parents’ care.

Grandmother testified that, from October 2020 to April 2021, she, her husband, and sixteen-year-old son, lived with Mother, Father, and the children.Grandmother never saw Mother or Father get angry with the children or harm them.Great-Grandmother testified that Mother was the primary caregiver, but Father would watch the children while Mother bathed or cooked dinner; Father also liked to put the children to bed.Great-Grandmother never had concerns about how Mother treated the children, describing Mother as "a perfect mother with the kids."

On April 5, 2021, Grandmother went grocery shopping with Mother, Eldest Child, and Middle Child, while Youngest Child, who was approximately nine-and-a-half-weeks old at the time, stayed with Great-Grandmother.When Mother and Grandmother picked Youngest Child up from Great-Grandmother's house, Youngest Child was acting normally.⁵When they returned home, Mother gave Youngest Child a bottle and Father put her down for a nap; Father later told Grandmother that he accidentally hit Youngest Child's head on the dresser or crib as he was putting her down.Mother went to check on Youngest Child a few minutes later and found her unresponsive and experiencing an apparent seizure; Mother called 911.

A child abuse pediatrics fellow testified that, on April 5, 2021, Youngest Child arrived at the hospital with life-threatening injuries.She was having difficulty breathing and had to be intubated; she also displayed seizure-like activity and an altered mental state.X-rays showed four healing rib fractures and one acute rib fracture, indicating at least two episodes of trauma to her ribs; no medical explanation for the fractures was provided.

A CT scan of Youngest Child's head revealed multiple bilateral subdural hemorrhages and multiple skull fractures, including a V-shaped left parietal bone fracture, right parietal bone fracture with associated scalp swelling, and a left occipital bone fracture.None of the explanations offered by the family explained the extent and severity of her head injuries.She was hospitalized for twenty-four days.She required three surgeries post-discharge and eventually had a permanent feeding tube inserted.A June 2021 MRI of her brain showed parts of her brain shrinking and dying off; she will require caregiver assistance for her lifetime.

As a result of the injuries to Youngest Child, a sibling exam was performed on Middle Child, who was then thirteen months old.X-rays showed five healing rib fractures that were not present when he was examined in September 2020; the new fractures were caused by blunt-force trauma.The pediatrics fellow testified that both Middle Child and Youngest Child may or may not have exhibited symptoms indicating rib injuries.The fellow expressed concern for the children's safety if they were returned to the same caregivers.

The children's foster care case manager testified that the Parents successfully completed an intensive in-home services program, and Mother remained engaged in services.The case manager also testified that Eldest Child reported Father"put[ing] his hands on her."She said Father had pulled her out of bed and punched her in the stomach several times.She did not indicate that Mother abused her.The case manager expressed concern about Mother's ability to protect the children from Father despite the fact that Parents were no longer in a relationship.

Mother testified that she did not know the cause of the injuries to Middle Child or Youngest Child; Mother had not witnessed anyone use force on them, and the children displayed no outward signs of abuse.Mother testified that, if she learned that someone was abusing her children, she would call the police.Eldest Child never told Mother about Father's abuse.And, if Mother is reunited with the children, she would live with them at Great-Grandmother's house.When asked how she would protect her children, Mother testified that they would never see Father again.Mother confirmed that her relationship with Father had ended and, at the time of the trial, she was staying in an apartment leased by Father, but he was never home when she was there.⁶G.A.L. recommended termination of Mother's parental rights.

On September 6, 2022, the court issued findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment directing guardianship (September judgment).Despite inconsistencies in the court's findings, the court"found sufficient evidence that there [we]re [statutory] grounds to terminate ... [M]other's rights, ... [but] that [termination][wa]s not in the children's best interest ... as the[y] ... would benefit from a continued parent-child relationship" with Mother.The court also found that appointment of Great-Grandmother as guardian for the children was in their best interest and directed Children's Division to expedite that process.

J.O. timely filed motions to amend the judgment, claiming, among other things, that the court made inconsistent findings as to...