Justia Missouri Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court terminating Father’s parental rights to Child and granting the petition for the adoption filed by Mother and Stepfather. The circuit court concluded that Father’s consent to the adoption was not required pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. 453.040(7) because Father willfully abandoned Child and willfully, substantially, and continuously neglected to provide Child with necessary care and protection. In affirming, the Supreme Court held (1) the circuit court’s conclusions regarding abandonment and neglect were not against the weight of the evidence; and (2) there was clear, cogent, and convincing evidence to support a statutory ground for terminating parental rights and support a finding that Father’s consent was not necessary for adoption. View "S.S.S. v. C.V.S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s judgment dismissing the petition of Grandparents for visitation and custody of their grandson, over whom Guardians had guardianship. The circuit court concluded that Grandparents failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Grandparents’ petition failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because their petition did not set forth the requisite elements of grandparent visitation under Mo. Rev. Stat. 452.402; and (2) Grandparents failed to state a cause of action under Mo. Rev. Stat. 452.375.5(5)(a) for custody or visitation when letters of guardianship had been issued by the probate division. View "Hanson v. Carroll" on Justia Law

Wife appealed the trial court’s judgment dissolving her marriage to Husband, challenging the court’s distribution of marital property. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) equitably divided the marital assets and debts in a manner that is definite and capable of enforcement; (2) did not err in assigning no present value to Husband’s defined benefit pension plan through the Missouri Local Government Employees Retirement Benefit Plan; and (3) properly considered the factors in Mo. Rev. Stat. 452.330 and did not err in ordering Wife to pay Husband an equalization share. View "Landewee v. Landewee" on Justia Law

When Child was not yet one year old, Grandfather filed a petition to establish a guardianship and conservatorship jointly in two cousins, alleging that Mother was unable or unfit to assume the duties of guardianship. After a hearing, the trial court found Mother unable and unfit to properly care for Child and ordered the issuance of letters of guardianship and conservatorship to the two cousins as co-guardians. Mother appealed, arguing that the trial court had utilized the wrong burden of proof and that due process requires proof of unfitness by clear and convincing evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Mo. Rev. Stat. 475.030.4 requires proof of inability or unfitness by a preponderance of the evidence, and Mother failed to preserve her argument that the statute is unconstitutional; (2) the trial court’s judgment ordering the issuance of letters of guardianship and conservatorship was supported by substantial evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence; and (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Mother’s motion for a continuance. View "In re A.L.R." on Justia Law

A juvenile officer filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Father, who was in prison, and Mother. After a trial, the circuit court entered a judgment terminating both parents’ parental rights. The court found that termination was in the best interest of Child and, with respect to Father, found three separate grounds for termination, including the ground that Father was unfit to be a party to the parent-child relationship pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. 211.447.5(6)(a). On appeal, Father challenged, among other things, the constitutional validity of section 211.447.5(6)(a). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) section 211.447.5(6)(a) is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to Father’s case; (2) the circuit court’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and were not against the weight of the evidence; and (3) Father’s challenges to the circuit court’s procedural rulings were unavailing. View "In re Interest of J.P.B." on Justia Law

The circuit court registered Kelly Blanchette and Steven Blanchette’s foreign judgment of dissolution and two subsequent judgments modifying custody visitation and support, all issued in West Virginia. Kelly had asked the Missouri county court not to register the latest West Virginia modification but to grant her proposed modification instead. Steven responded by filing a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under the Uniform Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). The circuit court registered all three West Virginia judgments and dismissed Kelly’s competing motion to modify on the grounds that West Virginia retained exclusive continuing jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the West Virginia judgment of dissolution and both subsequent modifications were not void for lack of jurisdiction, and the Missouri court did not err in registering them in Missouri; and (2) Kelly received reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard regarding the second custody modification sufficient to satisfy due process. View "Blanchette v. Blanchette" on Justia Law

Appellant, who was incarcerated, sought a dissolution of his marriage to his wife. The circuit court entered an order dismissing Appellant’s petition. Appellant appealed, challenging the constitutional validity of the application of Mo. Rev. Stat. 544.275 and Mo. Rev. Stat. 491.230 to him, asserting that these sections violated his right to due process because they denied him the right to be present in court to litigate his civil action and further denied him any reasonable alternatives to appearance in person. The Supreme Court transferred the appeal to the court of appeals, holding that Appellant failed to raise a real and substantial constitutional challenge to the validity of either statute so as to invoke the Court’s exclusive appellate jurisdiction. View "McNeal v. McNeal-Sydnor" on Justia Law

Mother and Father dissolved their marriage pursuant to a judgment of dissolution that granted Mother and Father joint legal and physical custody of their two minor children. Mother later announced her intent to relocate the children and moved to modify the dissolution judgment requesting that she be given sole legal and physical custody. The trial court approved Mother’s proposed relocation, modified legal custody of the children to sole legal custody in favor of Mother, and concluded that Mother and Father should continue to share joint physical custody of the children. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court’s approval of Mother’s relocation was supported by substantial evidence, and the record also contained substantial evidence supporting a change from joint to sole legal custody in Mother. View "Pasternak v. Pasternak" on Justia Law

This case centered on a petition to dissolve a same-sex marriage. The circuit court, sua sponte, dismissed the action on grounds that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and constitutional and statutory authority to dissolve a same-sex marriage due to the state constitutional and statutory bans on same-sex marriage. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction because the plain language of Mo. Const. art. V, 14 provides that Missouri circuit courts have jurisdiction over all civil cases and matters, and a petition for dissolution of marriage is a civil case or matter falling within the jurisdiction of the circuit court. View "In re Marriage of M.S." on Justia Law

The juvenile officer for the 10th Judicial Circuit filed an Emergency Petition for Protective Custody in the juvenile division of the circuit court after Mother denied the existence of her five-year-old son, JC. At an initial hearing, Mother appeared without JC and repeatedly testified under oath that JC did not exist. Mother subsequently surrendered JC to the juvenile officer and conceded that JC was her child. Thereafter, Mother was charged with perjury based on the false testimony she gave at the protective custody hearing. Mother moved to suppress her testimony on the ground that the conduct of the protective custody hearing violated her right to counsel and her privilege against self-incrimination. The motion was overruled, and Mother was found guilty of one count of perjury. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in overruling Mother’s motion to suppress; and (2) the evidence was sufficient to prove that Mother committed perjury. View "State v. Churchill" on Justia Law