In the interest of D.T.H. and M.T.H.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Jackson County to Missouri Court of Appeals – Western District
WD84988
Decision filed September 13, 2022
Trial Court Ruling Affirmed
Mother is the parent of two children, D.T.H. and M.T.H. Both children were taken into custody by Child Protective Services due to Mother’s inability to care for the children. Throughout the proceedings, Mother was diagnosed was significant mental illness and the prognosis with regards to recovery were very low. Mother did not demonstrate an ability to identify the children’s needs or properly care for them.
Numerous experts, including a psychologist that evaluated Mother, and the Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) appointed to the case recommended that Mother’s parental rights be terminated. On February 10, 2020, the Juvenile Officer filed a Petition for Termination of Parental Rights. The Juvenile Officer alleged that three statutory grounds – abuse or neglect under section 211.447.5(2), parental unfitness under Section 211.447.5(5), and failure to rectify under section 211.447.5(3) – warranted termination and that termination was in the best interest of the children. The trial court found Mother to be an unfit parent and terminated her parental rights.
Thereafter, Mother filed a four-point appeal. Mother argued (1) against the statutory grounds used to support the termination of parental rights; (2) there was insufficient evidence to support the termination of parental rights (3) there was insufficient evidence to support that her mental illness prevented her from caring for the children; and (4) the trial court abused its discretion in determining that the termination of parental rights are in the best interests of the children.
Point 1: With regards to Point 1, the court found Mother’s argument to be multifarious and that nothing was preserved for review. Point 1 denied.
Point 2: The Appellate Court noted that there was plenty of evidence to support the termination of parental rights.
Point 3: Mother argued that the trial court did not have a clear record of her mental health history and therefore could not determine if her mental illness prevented her from caring for the children. However, the trial court noted that Mother did not make an effort to supplement the record before the court and the trial court had to rely on the evidence that they had before them – which supported a termination of parental rights. For instance, Mother did not consistently utilize the services offered to her or take her prescribed medication. Point 2 denied.
Point 4: The Appellate Court noted that Mother failed to provide a complete record to the Appellate Court and therefore they were forced to rely on the exhibits that the trial court used. The trial court noted that “. . . trial court found that Mother provided minimal support for the children; that additional services would not be likely to bring about a parental adjustment enabling a return of the children to Mother; and that Mother had demonstrated a lack of commitment to the children by refusing to meaningfully and consistently cooperate with court-ordered programs intended to aid Mother.” Based on these facts, the Appellate Court held that the trial court could reasonably find that termination of parental rights is in the best interests of the children.
Trial Court Affirmed.
