Kevin, In Interest of, 13452

Decision Date25 January 1985
Docket NumberNo. 13452,13452
Citation685 S.W.2d 938
PartiesIn the Interest of KEVIN.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Jeanene Moenckmeier, Costantinou & Moenckmeier, P.C., St. Louis, for appellant.

TITUS, Judge.

Donna, the natural mother of Kevin, born October 4, 1978, was 17 years old at the time of her son's birth. She now appeals from the May 25, 1983, order of the Juvenile Court of Butler County terminating her parental rights to Kevin. § 211.482. 1

Our resolution of this appeal has been made more onerous than necessary by the misaction and nonaction of various interested parties. No party concerned with the affirmance of the court nisi has filed a brief which, had that been done, might have aided our determinations. Many citations and much of the argument contained in the brief filed for Donna deal with adoption cases and problems arising under Ch. 453. This is not an adoption case but one wholly concerned with "Termination of Parental Rights," § 211.442, et seq., which is a separate and complete code within itself. State ex rel. Brault v. Kyser, 562 S.W.2d 172, 174 (Mo.App.1978); In re S------ M------ W------, 485 S.W.2d 158, 164 (Mo.App.1972). The citations, points and arguments advanced by Donna's counsel germane solely to adoption problems will not be entertained or belabored in our determination of this appeal.

The evidence and testimony in the cause was received piecemeal at four separate hearings held December 11, 1981, October 22, 1982, April 22, 1983, and May 4, 1983. Prompted by the request of Donna's counsel at the last session, the court announced "that all previous testimony that's been taken at various times ... will be a part of the evidence in this case here." Though single when Kevin was born, Donna later married Kevin's father only to divorce him soon thereafter in March 1979. Donna testified at the December 11, 1981, hearing that she was 21 years of age, that the whereabouts of Kevin's father was then unknown to her and that she had been awarded custody of Kevin in the divorce action.

To better understand the bizarre evidence and ofttimes contradictory testimony of Donna, we list additional principal characters involved in the cause:

Kimberly (Kim)--An acquaintance and friend of Donna's for perhaps two years before December 14, 1980.

Maryann--Met Donna through Kim.

Phyllis--Did not meet Donna until December 14, 1980.

The Popes--Husband and wife residing in Poplar Bluff. They are "cousins" of Phyllis.

Exactly why Donna wanted to be shed of the possession of Kevin (she had considered putting him in a boys' home) is not clear, although she expressed fear for his safety from an unidentified man who allegedly raped her. Donna acknowledged at the first hearing that from the time she divorced Kevin's father in March 1979, until December 14, 1980, she "popped a lot of dope and smoked a lot of pot and all that." She also admitted "shooting" Kevin "with pot" but not on numerous occasions. Subsequent to December 14, 1980 (the date will be shown to be important later), Donna went to Texas January 4, 1981, when she married her current husband, Arvin, June 27, 1981. She has resided in Texas ever since and has given birth to a girl child who was 11 months of age on the date of the third hearing held April 22, 1983. When Donna initially moved to Texas, she confessed she was then "shooting a little dope and smoking a lot of pot" before allegedly discontinuing the practices because "my husband disallows it."

Donna, Kevin, Kim, Maryann and Phyllis resided in St. Louis County on December 14, 1980. Through some unexplained prearrangements among the four females, they met at Kim's home on the last-mentioned date. Phyllis and Donna had not met prior thereto. As admitted by Donna, the meeting was held to arrange for Phyllis to receive from Donna possession of Kevin (then two years and two months of age), so that he could be delivered into the possession of the Popes (whom Donna had not then seen or known) to be taken to Poplar Bluff for residence. Kim, Maryann and Phyllis testified that after discussing the matter with Donna for some two hours to insure Donna understood the situation, Donna signed Juvenile Officer's Exhibit A as follows:

"I, Donna ..., give temporary custody of my son Kevin ... to [the Popes]. This temporary custody is to remain in effect until such time as adoption papers can be completed giving [the Popes] full and permanent custody."

As admitted by Donna at the first hearing, she signed, read and understood the exhibit as giving the Popes "full custody" of Kevin "until such time as there could be an adoption." The exhibit dated "12/14/80" by Donna was penned by Phyllis and witnessed by Phyllis and Maryann. Without objection on Donna's behalf, Kim, Maryann and Phyllis each testified Donna fully understood the meaning of the exhibit when she signed it.

Commencing with the second hearing held October 22, 1982, Donna began to waver from the sworn testimony given at the first session. By the time the last hearing was conducted May 4, 1983, Donna had completely reversed her previous recountings even to the extent of claiming that she had not signed Exhibit A, which she previously testified she had done. Her latest testimony was that the consent she had signed to give the Popes custody of Kevin was only "a medical consent" so that the Popes could provide Kevin with medical care in the event he "got hurt." In other words, it seems evident that Donna was clearly mistaken or lying when she testified at one time or another. However, her previous testimony that she delivered Kevin to Phyllis for redelivery to the Popes for final adoption purposes and her subsequent recounting the delivery was only temporary until such time as she could acquire permanent residency, is only one inconsistency in her testimony. Albeit Donna contacted Phyllis shortly after December 14, 1980, to learn if the Popes would give her money so she could go to Florida, she went to Texas. Also, even though she claimed at the last hearing that Kevin's custody by the Popes was temporary, Donna admitted she had never contributed anything for Kevin's support since she "voluntarily gave up custody of that boy."

In our review of this court-tried proceeding we are to affirm the judgment below unless there is no substantial evidence to support it or it is against the weight of the evidence or it erroneously declares or applies the law. Conflicts in evidence are for resolution by the trial court, which has leave to believe all, part or none of the testimony of any witness. In Interest of D.A.F., 637 S.W.2d 780, 782 (Mo.App.1982); Matter of Adoption of Shelly ------, 625 S.W.2d 183, 184[1, 2] (Mo.App.1981); In Interest of M------ K------ P------, 616 S.W.2d 72, 80 (Mo.App.1981).

The final order of the court, in part, reads: "3. That the parent, Donna ... has consented in writing to the termination of her parental rights. 4. That it appears by clear, cogent and convincing evidence that the parent, Donna ... who is both legally required and financially able, has failed to support the child for a period of six months. WHEREFORE, the Court finds that the best...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • S----- A----- J-----, In Interest of
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • September 30, 1991
    ...provided it is in the best interests of the child. In Interest of J.C.G., 743 S.W.2d 449, 452 (Mo.App.1987); In Interest of Kevin, 685 S.W.2d 938, 941 (Mo.App.1985); In Interest of H.J.P., 669 S.W.2d 264, 273 In the instant case, the trial court found termination of the parental rights of a......
  • Y.M.H., In Interest of, WD
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • October 22, 1991
    ...for support and without any communication or visitation and had therefore abandoned him. Id. See also In Interest of Kevin, 685 S.W.2d 938, 941-42 (Mo.App.1985). Similarly, in the present appeal, the mother left Y.M.H. with no provision for support, and she did not communicate with or visit......
  • L---- E---- E----, In Interest of, 17819
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • September 24, 1992
    ...A---- J----, 818 S.W.2d 690, 703 (Mo.App.1991); In Interest of J.C.G., 743 S.W.2d 449, 452 (Mo.App.1987); In Interest of Kevin, 685 S.W.2d 938, 941 (Mo.App.1985); In Interest of H.J.P., 669 S.W.2d 264, 273 We fail to see how the lack of a dispositional hearing within the time required by § ......
  • C.L.S. v. C.L.S., 50767
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • December 23, 1986
    ...would be for plain error. Rule 84.13. The rule will not be invoked to excuse failure to properly object. In Interest of Kevin, 685 S.W.2d 938, 942 (Mo.App.1985). "The requisite prelude to plain error review occurs where the circumstances are characterized as having engendered hatred, passio......
  • 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