IN THE INTEREST OF: D.L.P., T.H., W.C.H., A.G.H., AND R.S.M.H.
Appeal from Circuit Court of Washington County to Missouri Court of Appeals – Eastern District
No. ED109493
Opinion Filed December 7, 2021
Outcome: Reversed and Remanded in part
The biological mother, (hereinafter “Mother”) appeals the Circuit Court’s decision to terminate her rights to four of her five children.
Child Protective Services got involved with Mother and her children after they received a tip that the family was living in a shed and without adequate food, beds or running water. Additionally, the minor children were absent from school from long periods of time and were going for weeks without bathing.
Mother consented to a social service plan in December 2018. The plan set forth several requirements, including participation in parent aid and substance abuse services; drug screening; counseling; and acquisition and maintenance of a stable home environment free of safety hazards, with working utilities and adequate space for Mother and her children.
Unfortunately, Mother was unable to obtain adequate housing or employment and follow through with other requirements of the social service plan. Mother’s rights to the children were terminated by the Circuit Court on November 23, 2020.
In Point I, Mother argues the trial court erred and abused its discretion in denying her motion to reopen the evidence following the trial court’s judgment. In Point II, Mother argues the trial court’s finding grounds existed to terminate her parental rights was against the weight of the evidence. In Point III, Mother argues the trial court erred in terminating her parental rights because the evidence presented against her only proved she is poor. In Point IV, Mother argues the trial court misapplied the law by failing to state the clear, cogent, and convincing evidence standard in its judgment terminating her parental rights.
On Appeal, only Points II and IV are granted and since these points were considered dispositive, Points I and III were not discussed.
Point II – Social Service Completion:
Section 211.447 provides the statutory grounds for judicial termination of parental rights. One of the grounds used to terminate a person’s parental rights is the “failure to rectify.”
In Point II, Mother argues the trial court erred in finding sufficient grounds existed to terminate Mother’s parental rights due to Appellant’s alleged failure to complete her social service plan.
Although Mother did not obtain stable housing, transportation or employment she did complete other portions of her social service plan. For instance, she completed all counseling available, complied with all drug testing completed parenting classes and never missed a single court ordered child support payment. Furthermore, testimony indicated that employees of the Children’s division did not provide Mother with the necessary support or assistance to find stable housing or employment.
With respect to Point II, the Appellate Court held that: “Because the Children’s Division failed in its duty to assist Appellant, Appellant’s failure to complete her social service plan is not an independent ground for termination.” Accordingly, the Appellate Court remanded the case for further services rather than immediate reunification. Point II is granted.
Point IV – Sufficiency of Court’s Language:
In Point IV, Mother argues the trial court erred in failing to include the applicable evidentiary standard in its judgment terminating her parental rights.
To preserve for appellate review the trial court’s failure to make statutory findings in a termination judgment, an appellant must move to amend the judgment under Rule 78.07(c).
Section 211.447.6 provides the juvenile court may terminate the rights of a parent to a child upon a petition filed by the juvenile officer or the division, or in adoption cases, by a prospective parent, if the court finds termination is in the best interest of the child and it appears by clear, cogent and convincing evidence grounds exist for termination under subsection 2, 4, or 5 . . . E.B.R., 503 S.W.3d at 281 (citing B.H., 348 S.W.3d at 776)
The Appellate Court held that “because the words ‘clear, cogent, and convincing’ appear nowhere in the trial court’s judgment, the judgment is defective and requires reversal.”
Outcome: Points II and IV were granted and remand for proceedings consistent with the opinion. Since Points II and IV are dispositive, the Appellate Court declined to address Points I and III.
