In the Interest of L.Q.F., A.E.D., D.G.F., J.S.F., L.T.K. and J.L.K.
No. ED109823
Appeal from Franklin County to Missouri Court of Appeals – Eastern District
Decision Issued: March 15, 2022
Trial Court Ruling Affirmed
Mother’s six children, L.Q.F., A.E.D., D.G.F., J.S.F., L.T.K. and J.L.K. were taken into custody by the Missouri Department of Social Services, Children’s Division on February 16, 2018. The children were removed based on allegations of abuse and neglect by Mother and her live in paramour who was the biological Father of some of the children.
Both Mother and her paramour acknowledged in engaging in physical abuse towards the minor children. The paramour was eventually sentenced to seven years in prison. Additionally, Mother did not complete services required by the service plan, such as mental health counseling, a psychological evaluation and batterer’s intervention.
On September 25, 2019, a juvenile officer of the Circuit Court of Franklin County filed a petition to terminate Mother’s parental rights as to all six children. Mother’s attorney filed a Motion for Extraordinary Expenses asking the circuit court to approve up to $3,000 for an expert physical therapist to evaluate and testify to Mother’s physiological history and limitations. The circuit court held a hearing and denied the motion on October 20, 2020. During trial, hearsay statements made by the children were heard by the Court, including statements about the abuse the children had suffered at the hands of Mother and her paramour and their desire to not return home.
Mother’s parental rights were terminated by the Franklin County trial court on March 18, 2021 under Sections 211.447.5(2) and 211.447.5(3).
Mother filed a two-point appeal of the trial court ruling alleging the following: (1) the circuit court erred in denying Mother’s motion for extraordinary expenses and (2) the circuit court should have excluded as hearsay the statements made to her by L.T.K. and J.L.K.
First, the Appellate Court noted that, “An evaluation by a physical therapist in October 2020 would have shed little light on Mother’s physiological condition in February 2018 and the preceding years of abuse.”
Second, the Appellate Court held that the children’s hearsay statements were admissible under the P.K.A. exception which permits . . . “allows the admission of hearsay statements of children regarding their abuse in certain circumstances.” 725 S.W.2d at 81. The Appellate opinion emphasized that: “The exception applies in non-jury sexual, physical, or emotional abuse cases where (1) the primary concern is the best interests of the child; (2) abuse may have occurred or been threatened; (3) the child may not be competent or reasonably expected to testify to it; and (4) there is a substantial basis that the statements are true.” In re A.A.T.N., 181 S.W.3d 161, 170 (Mo. App).
Trial Court Ruling Affirmed.
