Mo. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. A.S. (In re L.N.G.S.)
| Decision Date | 06 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | WD85072 |
| Parties | IN THE INTEREST OF: L.N.G.S.; Juvenile, JUVENILE OFFICER; and Respondent, v. A.S. AND A.S., Appellants. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, CHILDREN'S DIVISION, Respondent, |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
IN THE INTEREST OF: L.N.G.S.; Juvenile, JUVENILE OFFICER; and Respondent,
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, CHILDREN'S DIVISION, Respondent,
v.
A.S. AND A.S., Appellants.
No. WD85072
Court of Appeals of Missouri, Western District, First Division
September 6, 2022
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri Honorable Alisha Diane O'Hara, Judge
Before: Janet Sutton, Presiding Judge, Alok Ahuja and Karen King Mitchell, Judges
OPINION
Janet Sutton, Presiding Judge
A.S. and A.S. (the relatives) appeal a Clay County juvenile court judgment assuming jurisdiction over L.N.G.S. (the child) under section 211.031 and placing the child in Children's Division care and custody for placement in alternative care.[1] The relatives bring this appeal based on the juvenile court's denial of their motion to
continue the adjudication hearing. We would ordinarily dismiss the appeal because we do not believe the relatives are entitled to appeal under section 211.261. However, because of the split of authority on the issue of whether an appealing party can rely on section 512.020 to confer authority to appeal as an "aggrieved party" when they are excluded by section 211.261 to appeal a juvenile court judgment issued under chapter 211, we do not finally decide the relatives' appeal, and instead order this appeal be transferred to the Supreme Court of Missouri for final disposition pursuant to Rule 83.02.
Factual and Procedural Background
The child was born on March 7, 2020. The natural mother executed a consent to termination of parental rights and adoption, and, in early June 2020, the relatives, the child's aunt and uncle, filed a petition for transfer of custody and adoption. On June 7, 2021, the court granted the relatives temporary custody for subsequent adoption.
On July 7, 2021, while the relatives' adoption petition was pending, the Clay County Juvenile Officer (Juvenile Officer) completed an emergency authorization to place the child in judicial custody, specifically, in alternative care under the temporary care and custody of Children's Division. In the authorization for judicial custody, the Juvenile Officer stated that the child had four healing leg fractures, that the relatives were unable to give a plausible explanation for the injuries, and that the child also had second-degree leg burns, which the relatives said were accidental.
The next day, on July 8, 2021, the Juvenile Officer filed a petition alleging that the parents or other persons legally responsible for the care and support of the child
neglected or refused to provide the proper care, custody or support necessary for the child's well-being under section 211.031.[2] The petition specifically alleged the following, supported by an attached probable cause statement signed by the Deputy Juvenile Officer: that Children's Mercy Hospital reported to Children's Division that on June 14, 2021, the child was diagnosed with second-degree burns to her legs and feet, the child had healing fractures to her right distal femur, right proximal tibia, and left proximal tibia, and on June 30, 2021, an additional fracture to the left distal femur was found. The petition alleged these injuries were diagnosed as child physical abuse. The petition also alleged that the relatives were the child's only caretakers and they were unable to give a reasonable explanation for the child's injuries. The juvenile court entered an order of temporary protective custody, and the child remained in Children's Division's temporary care and custody.
After the juvenile court removed the child from the relatives' custody, the Juvenile Officer filed a motion to dismiss the relatives as "interested parties," arguing that because the relatives were no longer custodians of the child, the relatives lacked both standing and a statutory direct interest in the matter. The juvenile court did not rule on the motion before the adjudication and dispositional hearing.
The relatives' first attorney entered her appearance in mid-July 2021, and, on July 23, 2021, the relatives filed motions to disqualify both the judge and guardian ad litem. The case was reassigned to a different judge and the guardian ad litem remained on the case. That same day, the juvenile court held a protective custody hearing,[3] after
which the juvenile court ordered the child remain in Children's Division temporary protective custody. The juvenile court scheduled an adjudication hearing for August 30, 2021.
On August 19 and August 24, 2021, a new attorney entered his appearance for the relatives, and the relatives' previous attorney withdrew.
Three days before the adjudication hearing, the relatives' new counsel filed a motion for continuance. In the motion, the relatives gave the following reason for the continuance request: "The witness is not available for the scheduled matter." The motion did not include any additional details, and it did not include an affidavit. The Juvenile Officer did not consent to the continuance request and filed suggestions in opposition. The juvenile court did not rule on the motion for continuance before the adjudication hearing.
The parties, including the relatives and their attorney, appeared for the adjudication hearing. The juvenile court heard arguments on the relatives' continuance motion at the start of the hearing, and the juvenile court denied the continuance request and the case proceeded to trial.
At trial, a doctor from Children's Mercy Hospital (who was also a child abuse pediatrics fellow) testified that she examined the child, and that the child had second-degree burns on her feet and legs, and had four healing leg fractures. The doctor testified that the child's fractures were of the type caused by "pulling, yanking, and in some cases twisting of the bones." The doctor stated that there was a "high probability" that all of the above injuries were a result of child abuse and neglect. A Children's Division investigator testified that the Division initially recommended the child remain
with the relatives, but after receiving additional information from the doctor about the child's injuries, the recommendation changed to the child remaining in Children's Division custody. The relatives testified and denied that they abused the child, and said the burns were accidental.
The juvenile court issued a judgment finding that the allegations of the petition were established by clear and convincing evidence, that the relatives neglected or refused to provide the proper care necessary for the child's well-being, and determined it had jurisdiction over the child pursuant to section 211.031. A dispositional hearing was held immediately following adjudication, and the child was committed to the custody of the Children's Division for appropriate placement.[4] The juvenile court also ordered the relatives "released as parties" from the case.
After the adjudication and dispositional hearing, the juvenile court entered a separate judgment in the adoption case terminating its earlier order granting temporary custody of the child to the relatives. The relatives took no further action on the adoption case and did not appeal.
The relatives[5] filed a motion for new trial, the guardian ad litem filed suggestions in opposition, and the parties appeared for a hearing on the motion in December 2021. The juvenile court denied the motion.
The relatives appeal.
Legal Analysis
"'This Court has an obligation, acting sua sponte if necessary, to determine its authority to hear the appeals that come before it.'" In re D.R.T., ...
To continue reading
Request your trial