M.T. v. Officer

Decision Date20 May 2014
Docket NumberNo. ED 99959.,ED 99959.
Citation431 S.W.3d 539
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
PartiesIn the Interest of M.T. & M.T., Appellant, v. JUVENILE OFFICER, Respondent.

431 S.W.3d 539

In the Interest of M.T. & M.T., Appellant,
v.
JUVENILE OFFICER, Respondent.

No. ED 99959.

Missouri Court of Appeals,
Eastern District,
Division One.

May 20, 2014.


[431 S.W.3d 540]


Patricia Ann Harrison, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.

Susan Clarissa Guerra, St. Louis, MO, for respondent.


ROY L. RICHTER, Presiding Judge.

J.T. (“Father”) appeals from the trial court's judgment, following an adjudication hearing and dispositional hearing, granting petitions filed by the St. Louis Family Court's Juvenile Officer (“Juvenile Officer”) in the City of St. Louis, alleging that twins, M.T. (“Daughter”) and M.T. (“Son”) come within the provisions of Section 211.031, RSMo., requiring the juveniles be placed in protective custody of the Missouri Department of Social Services, Children's Division (“Children's Division”) because they were without proper care, custody or support. At the close of the adjudication hearing, the trial court ordered that the juveniles remain in protective custody and be in the legal custody of the Children's Division. The trial court immediately proceeded to a dispositional hearing, granting legal custody to Children's Division, for appropriate placement. However, because the trial court later terminated its jurisdiction, we dismiss Father's appeal.

I. BACKGROUND

Twins, Daughter and Son were born on August 17, 2012, premature and with breathing problems. Daughter remained in the neonatal intensive care unit (“NICU”) for seventeen days and was on a breathing machine for three days during that time. Eventually both of the twins went home to live with Mother, Father, and their maternal grandmother, but Daughter continued to have breathing problems. Daughter was taken to St. Louis Children's Hospital Emergency Department (“SLCH ED”) on September 19, 2012, and again on the morning of October 20, 2012. Daughter was diagnosed with “preseptal cellulitis,” an infection, given a dose of medication, and sent home with a prescription to fill.

At home on October 20, 2012, Mother left to run errands and Father stayed with the twins. During naptime, Father and Daughter fell asleep with Daughter on Father's chest, and she slid off his chest and onto the bed. Father noticed Daughter having difficulty breathing and at one point, she completely stopped breathing. Father attempted to perform CPR, called 911, and Daughter was resuscitated by a bag-mask ventilation and transported back to the SLCH ED. Daughter was admitted to the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (“PICU”) with respiratory distress.

After examination by Dr. Jamie S. Kondis, M.D., the Children's Division was contacted and an investigation was conducted, producing petitions filed in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, alleging both children were in need of care and treatment due to Daughter being a victim of child maltreatment, physical abuse and abusive head trauma based on a diagnosis of acute bilateral subdural hematomas and retinal hemorrhages bilaterally 1 with no non-accidental explanation.

[431 S.W.3d 541]

A protective custody hearing was held on October 29, 2012, wherein Mother and Father were present and the trial judge appointed counsel for them and appointed a guardian ad litem. The trial court ordered the juveniles to remain in protective custody in the legal custody of the Children's Division for appropriate physical placement.

On November 8, 2012, new, private counsel (“Counsel”) entered her appearance on Father's behalf, and his original counsel withdrew. An adjudication hearing was held thereafter on December 10 and 18, 2012, before the Family Court commissioner. The court entered a dispositional order keeping the children in the legal custody of the Children's Division.

Mother and Father filed a Motion for Rehearing, which was granted. This Adjudication Hearing took place on April 11, 2013. The Juvenile Officer's first witness was Dr. Kondis, a member of the Child Protection Team at SLCH, who examined Daughter on October 21, 2012. She testified that Daughter had two symptoms: subdural and retinal hemorrhages, and taken together, were consistent with abusive head trauma. She had reasonable “cause to suspect that [Daughter] was the victim of child maltreatment, physical abuse type, or abusive head trauma.”

Father's Counsel called as a witness William Waldrop, M.D., who was employed by Washington University medical school in St. Louis and worked in the Pediatric Operating Room and Pediatric Critical Care Unit. He testified that he could not say with certainty whether Daughter had been shaken, since it is possible for a child to be diagnosed with acute bilateral subdural hematomas and retinal hemorrhages not resulting from abuse. He stressed his reason for referring Daughter to the child protective division was a precaution based on her...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • In re Interest of S.B.A.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • October 17, 2017
    ...or (3) "if the decision could have significant collateral consequences for one or more of the parties."4 ,5 M.T. v. Juvenile Officer, 431 S.W.3d 539, 542-43 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014) ; see In re A.G.R., 359 S.W.3d 103, 108 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011) (an appellate court has discretion to decide an othe......
  • Juvenile Officer v. H.J.S. (In re Interest of J.T.S.)
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • June 2, 2015
    ...[a moot] appeal if the decision could have significant collateral consequences for one or more of the parties.” M.T. v. Juvenile Officer, 431 S.W.3d 539, 543 (Mo.App.E.D.2014) (citing Glover v. Michaud, 222 S.W.3d 347, 351 (Mo.App.S.D.2007) ). We respectfully disagree with M.T.'s attributio......
  • J.T.S. v.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • June 2, 2015
    ...[a moot] appeal if the decision could have significantcollateral consequences for one or more of the parties." M.T. v. Juvenile Officer, 431 S.W.3d 539, 543 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014) (citing Glover v. Michaud, 222 S.W.3d 347, 351 (Mo. App. S.D. 2007)). We respectfully disagree with M.T.'s attrib......
  • Juvenile Officer v. A.D. (In re Interest of F.R.D.)
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • November 3, 2015
    ...[Mother]'s favor here would have no effect on the current custody of the child[ ], who [is] now with [Father]." M.T. v. Juvenile Officer, 431 S.W.3d 539, 543 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014). Mother "may have the ability to seek, in 481 S.W.3d 36good faith, other avenues of ... custody, but [t]his reli......
  • 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