R.M.M., In Interest of, 19892
| Decision Date | 29 June 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 19892,19892 |
| Citation | 902 S.W.2d 355 |
| Parties | In the Interest of R.M.M. Angela Kay (Moyer) GLENN, Respondent, v. Leon MOYER, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Leon Moyer, pro se.
No appearance for respondent.
This appeal involves the procedures of the Family Court pursuant to Chapter 487 and Child Protection Orders pursuant to §§ 455.500 et seq. 1 Pro se Appellant, Leon Moyer, appeals from a Full Order of Child Protection entered by a commissioner of the family court. Respondent has not filed a brief on this appeal.
The marriage of Appellant and Respondent was dissolved in 1988 by the Circuit Court of Stone County and custody of their only child, R.M.M., was apparently granted to Respondent. In 1989 the circuit court terminated Appellant's visitation privileges for reasons which do not appear on this record. At that time the court apparently indicated that Appellant was to seek counseling and could seek reinstatement of his visitation privileges after a period of 150 days, but he has failed to do so. In 1993 a child protection order was entered against Appellant which had apparently expired at the time of the order which is the subject of this appeal.
On September 13, 1994 the judge of the Greene County Family Court entered an Ex Parte Order of Child Protection at the request of Respondent in which Appellant was ordered "not to enter upon the premises of said child's school ... and ... not to contact or attempt to contact said child at such location or any other location." The ex parte order specified that a hearing would be held on September 28, 1994.
On September 20, 1994, however, Appellant filed a "Motion For Change of Judge" which was sustained by the judge and the case was reset for October 4, 1994. On that date a commissioner of the family court heard evidence and entered the Full Order of Child Protection which is the subject of this appeal. That order was to be effective until April 3, 1995.
At the conclusion of the hearing, after the commissioner announced that he was issuing a full order of protection, he informed Appellant that because the hearing had been held before a commissioner, he was entitled, within fifteen days, to file a request "for a review of this hearing" by the family court judge. The docket sheet states that "Respondent [Appellant] advised and given notice in open court that he has the right to petition for new hearing to the family court Judge within 15 days." The Full Order of Child Protection signed by the commissioner was, however, issued that day to the "City and Sheriff dispatch in Springfield, MO."
On October 17, 1994, Appellant filed a "Motion For Hearing/New Trial" which stated that it was pursuant to § 487.030 2 and requested that it be ruled by a judge of the family court. That motion, however, was overruled on October 28 by the same commissioner who had held the hearing and entered the Full Order of Child Protection. 3 On November 7, 1994, Appellant filed a notice of appeal from the Full Order of Child Protection.
Appellant's brief on this appeal violates several requirements of Rule 84.04. The statement of facts violates Rule 84.04(c) in that it is not a fair and concise statement of the facts relevant to the questions presented for determination without argument. Most of the points relied on are contrary to the requirements of Rule 84.04(d) that they state briefly and concisely what actions or rulings of the court are sought to be reviewed and wherein and why they are claimed to be erroneous. The points relied on are also to be followed with citations of authorities in support. In the instant case, some of the points contain no authorities and one refers to "Family Law volumne [sic] # 21, of Missouri Practice and Procedure." Points relied on which are in violation of Rule 84.04(d) preserve nothing for appellate review. Blankenship v. Better Business Bureau, 782 S.W.2d 131, 134 (Mo.App.E.D.1989).
Additionally, one of Appellant's points complains about the ex parte order while the appeal is from the Full Order of Child Protection. Another point purports to appeal from denial of his motion for new trial, although denial of an after trial motion is not an appealable order. See Roberts v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 91, 93 (Mo.App.W.D.1990). These and other deficiencies of the brief, including the failure to include any argument on five of his nine points relied on, would justify our dismissal of the entire appeal. It is not an excuse that Appellant is appearing pro se. Hansen v. Missouri Real Estate Appraisers Com'n, 875 S.W.2d 620, 621 (Mo.App.S.D.1994). As a result of these matters, we decline to review eight of Appellant's nine points of alleged error.
One of Appellant's points, however, although lacking in citation of authorities, sufficiently raises an issue which merits our review. In that point he contends that it was error for the commissioner to issue the full order of protection and argues that pursuant to § 487.030 the commissioner's findings and recommendations must be submitted to and adopted and confirmed by an order of the family court judge. This contention has merit.
Initially, we note that the full order of protection from which Appellant appeals expired on April 4, 1995. He apparently requested an extension of that order on April 3, 1995 as indicated by a supplement to the legal file. This was presumably for the purpose of maintaining a live issue for resolution on appeal. 4 Ordinarily, a party will not be heard to complain on appeal of alleged error which his own conduct creates. See Philmon v. Baum, 865 S.W.2d 771, 776 (Mo.App.W.D.1993); Reed v. Rope, 817 S.W.2d 503, 509 (Mo.App.W.D.1991). In the instant case, however, the appeal is not from any such extension, but from the full order of protection. The fact that the full order of protection has expired making this issue otherwise moot does not necessarily preclude our review. An appellate court has discretion to decide moot appeals where an issue of public importance will likely recur. Toll v. Toll, 882 S.W.2d 290, 290-291 (Mo.App.W.D.1994). Because of the difficulty in obtaining appellate review of full...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Stroup v. Facet Automotive Filter Co.
-
Thomas v. Lloyd
... ... " contribution of $140,000 along with his other capital contributions in determining his interest in the real estate. Defendant asserts that "[b]y failing to calculate the party's [sic] relative ... ...
-
Dir., MO. Dep't. Public Safety v. Murr
... ... moot given our discussion, supra, because it presents an unsettled legal issue of public interest" and importance that is likely to be raised in the future, the Court will address it ... \xC2" ... ...
-
Marriage of McMillin, In re, 19839
...case, the "Decree" signed by the commissioner on August 25, 1994 was not effective as the judgment of the court. See In re R.M.M., 902 S.W.2d 355, 358 (Mo.App.S.D.1995) (holding that a "judge" as opposed to a "commissioner" must enter orders which become the decree of the court). The legal ......