Court: Missouri Court of Appeals; September 20, 2010; Missouri; State Appellate Court
William W. Francis, Jr., the father (R.J.M.) of minor children L.M. and A.M., appeals the judgments terminating his parental rights. The appellate court affirms the trial court's decisions. The factual and procedural history reveals that prior to May 2007, R.J.M. and the children's mother (H.M.B.) were together for approximately 3-3.5 years. In late April or early May 2007, H.M.B. left their mobile home without the children. R.J.M. temporarily cared for L.M. and A.M. but was found by H.M.B. in a negligent state, allegedly smoking marijuana while the children were left alone, hungry, and distressed. Following this incident, H.M.B. took the children to the Phelps County Juvenile Office on June 7, 2007, citing concerns for their safety and her inability to care for them. The children were dirty, had bug bites, diaper rash, and displayed aggressive behavior. They were placed in foster care but required relocation due to their challenging behavior and food insecurity. R.J.M. was contacted by a Missouri Department of Social Services caseworker, Christine Abmeyer, but failed to attend meetings or request custody of the children. His subsequent communications with the caseworker were denied by him. In September 2007, another caseworker, Phyllis Sickman, took over and made extensive efforts to locate R.J.M. through various means, including contacting local jails and sending letters, but he remained unresponsive.
Father did not consult the Division of Child Support Enforcement regarding his children. He received paternity test results for L.M. but did not respond, believing it was linked to Mother seeking child support. Father's only documented attempts to locate the children were unverified claims made in August and September 2007. A "Petition for Termination of Parental Rights" was filed by the Juvenile Office on May 14, 2008. Father learned about the termination notice from his mother on July 2, 2008, and subsequently began making inquiries about the children. He asserted he had been unaware of their whereabouts since May 2007. Following a call from Ms. Sickman on July 8, 2008, informing him of his abandonment status and the need for legal representation, Father hired attorney Nanci R. Wisdom on August 22, 2008. On August 28, 2008, Mother consented to the termination of parental rights and adoption for both children, which the court approved on September 3, 2008.
On November 13, 2008, Father entered into a service agreement with the Children's Division, completing some, but not all, required tasks. He underwent a psychological evaluation with Dr. Evelyn Darrow but did not follow her counseling recommendations. He partially complied with drug testing requirements. His service agreement included a timeline of his activities since 2007, with minimal engagement documented, such as a single call to the Division of Child Support Enforcement and delivering gift baskets for the children. A visiting assessment by Dr. Gary Evans categorized Father as a neglectful parent and diagnosed him with avoidant personality disorder, indicating a poor prognosis for being the primary caregiver.
On January 24, 2009, Dr. Evans noted the children did not recognize Father during a visit, and a court order was issued on March 11, 2009, for supervised visitation. Father failed to respond to meeting requests from Dr. Deborah McKee, who subsequently noted a lack of bond between Father and the children and observed discomfort from L.M. in his presence. Father had a history of separation from his wife, B.M., from 2002 until 2008, after which they lived with her mother, with the home deemed suitable by a Children's Division caseworker.
Father contributes to household expenses by providing food and paying utilities. He has a stable work history in the foodservice industry and shares two children with B.M., along with another daughter from a previous relationship. Although he claims to have regular overnight visits with this other daughter, B.M. asserts that he has not seen her in over eighteen months due to a lack of communication with her mother. Father is current on child support for this daughter but is approximately $1,000 to $2,000 in arrears and is on probation for these arrears. Both parents have not tested positive for illegal drugs since June 2007, though B.M. has a prescription for Xanax and Father tested positive for benzodiazepines without a prescription, claiming he took B.M.'s medication. On August 20, 2009, following a five-day trial, the court terminated Father’s parental rights. Father argues that the court erred, as the evidence did not convincingly demonstrate abandonment, abuse, neglect, or unfitness, nor that termination was in the children’s best interests. The Juvenile Office contends otherwise. The appellate court must determine if statutory grounds for termination were proven by clear and convincing evidence and if termination serves the children's best interests, which is evaluated under a preponderance of the evidence standard. The trial court’s factual findings are given deference, and its decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion, particularly regarding the best interests of the children.
The excerpt addresses the termination of parental rights, emphasizing the significant legal implications and fundamental liberty interests involved in family and child-rearing matters. In this case, the father challenges the trial court's decision to terminate his parental rights on several grounds: abandonment, abuse and neglect, failure to rectify his situation, and unfitness. The Juvenile Office argues that there is clear, cogent, and convincing evidence supporting termination on each ground.
The father asserts he did not abandon his children, claiming they were involuntarily removed from his custody and that he was unaware of their location until July 2008. In contrast, the Juvenile Office contends he abandoned them by failing to provide support or communicate for over a year despite knowing where they were.
The legal framework for termination of parental rights under Section 211.447.5(1)(b) specifies that a parent may be deemed to have abandoned a child if they have not provided support or communicated for six months or more, without good cause. Abandonment is defined as an intentional relinquishment of custody or a withholding of care and support. Intent is inferred from the parent’s actions.
Although involuntary removal typically complicates a finding of abandonment, the court can still conclude abandonment if the parent's lack of involvement exceeds what is caused by enforced separation. The record indicates that the father did not attempt to see or support his children from June 19, 2007, to July 2, 2008, despite being aware of their situation, and the trial court found credible evidence that he received notice of their foster care placement.
Father's testimony, which included denying a July 19, 2007 conversation with the Children's Division and claiming impersonation, was deemed not credible. His assertion that he could not provide support due to not knowing his children's whereabouts was contradicted by the court's findings. The trial court emphasized that Father’s willful absence from his children's lives for over a year constituted abandonment under section 211.447.5(l)(b). Despite receiving notification of his children's location on June 19, 2007, Father failed to make arrangements to visit or support them, even though he was employed during this time. His lack of contact from June 19, 2007, until July 8, 2008, further demonstrated intentional withholding of parental support without justification.
The court noted that any attempt by Father to reconnect after July 2008 did not equate to repentance of abandonment, as true repentance requires exercising parental rights and duties post-abandonment. The intent behind a parent's actions is assessed based on their overall conduct. The court generally gives little weight to post-filing conduct when determining repentance. Although Father engaged in some actions after the termination petition was filed—such as hiring an attorney and delivering gifts—these were not sufficient to establish genuine repentance. His history of prolonged communication gaps and lack of commitment to the children strongly supported the court's decision to favor termination of parental rights, concluding that the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated Father's abandonment.
The trial court's judgment to terminate Father's parental rights is upheld based on evidence of abandonment, one of the statutory grounds for termination outlined in section 211.447.5. Father's arguments that he is capable of caring for the Children and has made significant efforts to maintain contact were rejected. The Juvenile Office argued that Father displayed a lack of commitment and financial and emotional instability. The court emphasized that after establishing any statutory ground for termination, a best interest determination must be made, requiring a preponderance of evidence and reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Factors outlined in section 211.447.7 were evaluated, including emotional ties to the parent, visitation consistency, financial support, potential for parental adjustment, commitment, felony convictions, and risks of harm to the child. The trial court found no significant attachment between the Children and Father, supported by expert testimonies. It also noted Father's lack of regular visitation between June 2007 and July 2008 and his failure to financially support the Children despite steady employment. The trial court’s findings were deemed adequately supported by the record, affirming that terminating Father's parental rights was in the best interests of the Children.
Father failed to meet his children's daily needs for over a year and is obligated to provide support regardless of any pending child support order. The trial court found that additional services would not lead to a meaningful change in Father's ability to care for the children, as evidenced by their undisciplined behavior prior to entering foster care and their improved conduct thereafter. Key factors in the trial court's decision included Father's lack of interest and commitment to parenting, highlighted by his inaction during the year his children were in custody and his minimal engagement in the ACT Program. While he had no felony convictions that would preclude providing a stable home, he subjected the children to substantial risk by leaving them alone while engaging in illegal activities. Father's limited efforts, such as delivering gift baskets, were viewed as token gestures that did not reflect a genuine desire to parent. The trial court emphasized that infrequent visitations or communications would not weigh heavily in favor of maintaining the parent-child relationship. Ultimately, the court concluded that terminating Father’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests, supported by a preponderance of the evidence, and affirmed the trial court's judgments. The citation of section 211.447.5(2)(a) regarding a mental condition was noted as an error, as the court intended to reference section 211.447.5(1)(b), which was not challenged by Father.
