M.M.A. v. L.L. (In re T.Q.L.), No. SC 92442.

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
• Writing for the Court: MARY R. RUSSELL
• Citation: 386 S.W.3d 135
• Parties: In re the Matter of T.Q.L., a minor child, M.M.A., Appellant, v. L.L., Respondent and Unknown Natural Father, Defendant.
• Decision Date: 18 December 2012
• Docket Number: No. SC 92442.

386 S.W.3d 135

In re the Matter of T.Q.L., a minor child,
M.M.A., Appellant,
v.
L.L., Respondent
and
Unknown Natural Father, Defendant.

No. SC 92442.

Supreme Court of Missouri,
En Banc.

Argued and Submitted Oct. 23, 2012.
Decided Dec. 18, 2012.

[386 S.W.3d 137]

John C. Holstein and Jennifer R. Growcock, Polsinelli Shughart PC, Springfield, and Jack A. Cochran, The Cochran Law Firm, Blue Springs, for appellant.

No brief filed for appellee.

MARY R. RUSSELL, Judge.

M.M.A. (Petitioner) brings this action for reinstatement of his petition seeking third-party custody and visitation of T.Q.L. (Child), whom he thought was his biological son. The circuit court dismissed Petitioner's petition for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. This Court reviews that petition by treating the facts contained within it as true and construing those facts liberally in favor of the petitioner. Lynch v. Lynch, 260 S.W.3d 834, 836 (Mo. banc 2008). Because Petitioner sufficiently alleged the elements necessary under section 452.375.5(5)(a), RSMo Supp.2011, to establish third-party custody, this Court reverses the decision of the circuit court and remands the case.

I. Facts and Procedural History

During Petitioner's relationship with L.L. (Mother), she gave birth to a son, Child, in 2003.¹ They signed a pre-birth agreement providing that, among other things, Petitioner would give monetary support to Mother and Child, Mother would not list Petitioner on Child's birth certificate, Petitioner and Mother neither would assert nor deny that Petitioner was Child's father, and Petitioner would agree not to initiate or participate in any action seeking custody of Child. Over the years, Petitioner acted as Child's father, taking an active role in his life. The two spent time together, including holidays, traveled to Disney World, visited Petitioner's family in another state and took other short trips together.

Meanwhile, the relationship between Petitioner and Mother soured. Petitioner decided to take legal action to determine his custodial rights in 2007. He filed a petition for declaration of paternity, custody and visitation in the circuit court as Child's putative father. Eventually, Mother advised Petitioner that he was not Child's biological father and that the biological father was a Brazilian man. Mother did not know the man's last name or how to locate him.

The court, sua sponte, required Petitioner to take a DNA test to determine paternity. He took the test, which indicated that he was not Child's biological father. At that time, the appointed guardian ad litem (GAL) moved to dismiss Petitioner's petition for custody for failure to state a claim under the Uniform Parentage Act. The GAL's motion was premised on Petitioner not being biologically related to Child and Petitioner's claims of equitable parentage being unsupported by Missouri law. The circuit court agreed and dismissed

[386 S.W.3d 138]

the petition for failure to state a claim. Petitioner appealed to the court of appeals. The court of appeals reversed the circuit court and remanded to allow Petitioner to file his second amended petition under other theories of custody.

On remand, Petitioner filed his second, and later, third amended petition. In the petitions, he made allegations that Mother and the unknown biological father were unfit parents and sought a declaration of paternity, custody and visitation, for equitable relief, or, in the alternative, for appointment of a guardian and conservator. The third amended petition stated in part that:

Mother's acts establishing her unfitness include, but are not limited to, the following:

a. [Mother] is mentally unbalanced in that she has attempted suicide on at least two separate occasions;

b. [Mother] has been involuntarily committed to a psychiatric facility on at least one occasion;

c. On at least one occasion, [Mother] attempted suicide while minor children were in her home with her;

d. [Mother] has left town to travel overseas on at least one occasion leaving the minor child alone without making adequate provision for his care;

e. [Mother] has engaged in a course of conduct deliberately designed to destroy the strong father/child bond that has been established between [Petitioner] and the minor child all of which will cause serious and significant emotional harm to [Child];

f. [Mother]'s actions demonstrate [an] irrational disregard for the financial welfare of the minor child in that she spends enormous sums of money on personal clothing and personal items at a time when she has no employment and no visible means of support for herself and the child;

g. [Mother] irrationally chose an individual that she met over the internet as a father figure for the minor child, traveled overseas and married that individual about whom she had no background knowledge and who later proved to be dishonest and deceitful[;]

h. [Mother] has on at least three occasions made false hotline reports...