In the Interest of K.A.M.L.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County to Missouri Court of Appeals – Eastern District
ED109556
Date Opinion Filed: April 12, 2022
Outcome: Trial Court Ruling Affirmed
M.L.R. (hereinafter “Father”) appeals the termination of his parental rights to T.M.L., K.A.L., and K.M.L. (hereinafter collectively referred to as “children”). Following the trial court’s ruling, Father filed a five point appeal. For reasons not discussed herein, only points I, III and V were considered by the Appellate Court.
On October 26, 2016 the Juvenile Officer of St. Louis County filed a petition alleging the Children’s mother had a history of substance use and neglected the children because her home lacked heat or electricity and was unsanitary. When the petition was filed, the Children’s father was unknown. Father lived in a separate residence from the Children. M.L.R. was later identified as the Children’s father. The trial court found the allegations against the Children’s mother true on December 20, 2016.
On January 19, 2017, the court took jurisdiction over the Children and ordered Father to participate in services with the Children’s Division. The court-ordered services included mental health and parenting assessments; individual counseling; substance abuse treatment; and drug screens.
Father failed to appear for the hearing on November 29, 2019. Father’s attorney’s oral motion to continue the case was denied by the Court. Father later filed a Motion to Reopen Trial Evidence which the trial court did not rule on. The Court entered an order terminating Father’s parental rights on February 5, 2020 based on the findings that Fathers suffers from a serious chemical dependency that him from consistently caring for the children’s mental, physical and emotional needs and provide them with reliable financial support.
On December 22, 2020, the Appellate Court reversed and remanded for the trial court to conduct a hearing on Father’s motion to reopen the evidence and make a credibility determination regarding Father’s explanation for missing trial. Father testified he failed to appear at trial because he was seeking medical treatment at Urgent Care for the flu and hip pain. However, Father did not provide any documentation to support this assertion. The trial court did not find Father’s explanation credible and denied his motion to reopen.
Point I – Motion to Reopen Evidence: Father argues the trial court erroneously denied his Motion to Reopen the Evidence because his testimony provided sufficiently credible evidence to entitle him to reopen the evidence. The Appellate Court denied Point I noting that, “Father never supplied the trial court with any evidence to support his illness or his visit to the Urgent Care, despite having several months to collect and organize such evidence, if it existed. With no supportive evidence, a fact finder could have reasonably found Father’s testimony not credible. The Appellate Court also disagreed that this resulted in a Due Process Violation. Point I denied.
Point III – Failure to Rectify: The Appellate Opinion noted that with the exception of one service, Father failed to comply with his service plan. Father failed to complete substance abuse treatment, tested positive for several illegal substances on multiple occasions, and missed approximately seventy drug screens. The evidence showed Father was aware his failure to complete substance abuse treatment and drug screens prevented reunification and could lead to his parental rights being terminated. Point III denied.
Point V – Best Interests of the Children: The Appellate Opinion agreed with the trial court ruling that it was in the best interests of the children to terminate Father’s parental rights. Although Father maintained consistent contact with the children and the children were bonded to their Father, Father did not resolve his significant substance abuse issues, which was found to prevent him from caring properly for the kids, and he did not provide financial support for the children even though he was fully capable of doing so. Point V denied.
Trial Court Ruling Affirmed.
