Missouri Court Case: In re Q.M. B.

IN THE INTEREST OF: Q.M.B. and Q.T.P. S.S. (Adoptive Mother), Respondent, v. C.E.P.J. (Natural Mother), Appellant, A.B. (Putative Father), L.P.H. (Putative Father), and John Doe (Putative Father), Defendants. 

WD 60955 

COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, WESTERN DISTRICT 

85 S.W.3d 654 

August 6, 2002, Opinion Filed 

Rehearing Denied October 1, 2002. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri. The Honorable J.D. Williamson, Jr., Judge. 

Affirmed in part, and dismissed in part. 

COUNSEL:
Lori L. Stipp, Kansas City, MO, Attorney for Respondent.

Laura Higgins Tyler, Kansas City, MO, Attorney for Appellant.

Deborah G. Baron, Kansas City, MO, Guardian ad litem. 

JUDGES:
Before: Ulrich, P.J., and Spinden and Smith, JJ. Ulrich, P.J., and Spinden, J., concur. 

OPINIONBY:
Edwin H. Smith 
C.E.P.J. (mother) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Jackson County terminating her parental rights to her minor daughters, Q.M.B. and Q.T.P., and approving their adoption by the respondent, S.S. In entering its judgment, the court, pursuant to § 487.030.1, n1 adopted the findings, recommendations, and proposed judgment of the family law commissioner, who heard the case.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n1 All statutory references are to RSMo 2000, unless otherwise indicated. 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The mother raises five points on appeal. In Point I, she claims that the trial court erred in terminating her parental rights to Q.M.B. and Q.T.P. under § 211.447.4(1) for abandonment because the court's requisite statutory findings in support of termination on that basis were not supported by substantial evidence, were against the weight of the evidence, and erroneously applied the law. In Point II, she claims that the trial court erred in terminating her parental rights to Q.M.B. and Q.T.P. under § 211.447.4(2) for abuse and neglect because the court's conclusion in support of termination on that basis, that the mother, "although physically and financially able, repeatedly and continuously failed to provide the children with adequate food, clothing, shelter, education, and other care and control necessary for the children's physical, mental and emotional health and development, financial or otherwise," was not supported by substantial evidence and was against the weight of the evidence. In Point III, she claims that the trial court erred in terminating her parental rights to Q.M.B. and Q.T.P. under § 211.447.4(3) for failure to rectify because the court's requisite statutory findings in support of termination on that basis were against the weight of the evidence and erroneously applied the law. In Point IV, she claims that the trial court erred in terminating her parental rights to Q.M.B. and Q.T.P. as being in their best interests because it erroneously applied the law in that "the trial court can not [sic] reach the issue of best interest unless there is a basis to terminate parental rights and for the aforementioned reasons [as claimed in Points I-III] there was not a basis to terminate the mother's parental rights." In Point V, she claims that "the trial court erred in granting the respondent's petition to adopt because the finding that it is in the best interest of the children that respondent be allowed to adopt is not supported by substantial evidence, it is against the weight of the evidence and it erroneously applies the law."
We affirm in part, and dismiss in part.