1 IN THE INTEREST OF: ) P.W.W., JR. , a child under seventeen years ) of age. ) ) GREENE COUNTY JUVENILE OFFICE
, ) ) Petitioner

- Respondent
, ) )

vs. ) No. SD36538 ) L.J.W

. , ) Filed: June 4, 2020 ) Respond ent

- Appellant

. )

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GREENE COUNTY

Honorable Robert Liston
, Senior Ju dge

AFFIRMED
L.J.W. (“Mother”), the mother of P

. W

. W

. , Jr. (“Child”), brings this appeal from
the termination of her parental rights; she claims that it is not in the best interest of Child
for her rights to be terminated. We find no error and affirm the judgment.

Child came into care as an infant because of Mother’ s homelessness, her mental

health issues that had never been addressed and the lack of funds to raise C hild. Mother
had her parental rights terminated to two other children for the same reasons that Child2 was brought into care. After C hild was brought into care, Mother had a treatment plan in
which she was to have a psychological assessment, at tend parenting c lasses, attend visits

with C hild, provide suitable housing and provide financial support. Mother did not
successfully complete the plan and does not complain in t his appeal about the statutory
grounds supporting termination. She only appe als the finding it is in the best interest of

Child that Mother’ s rights be terminated.

We review the determination that it is in the best interest of Child to have

Mother’ s parental rights terminated for an abuse of discretion. In Interest of S.L.L. , 51 8

S.W.3d 897, 898

- 99 (Mo.App. S.D. 2017). It is an abuse of discr etion only when the trial

court’ s ruling is “ so arbitrary, unreasonable, illogical and ill

- considered that it shocks the
sense of justice and indicates a lack of careful consideration. ” In Interest of Z.L.G.. , 531
S.W.3d 653, 660 (Mo.App. S.D. 2017). We find the decision is none of those.
The trial court was obligated to make findings on seven factors under s ection

211.447.7 , RSMo Cum. Supp. 2018 . The court found :
( 1) There are no emotiona l ties between C hild and Mother.
(2) Mo ther did not maintain regular visitation

. (3) Mother did not provide financial or in

- kind support for C hild except for some

token item s at visits.
(4) There are no additional services th e agency can provide to Mother

. (5) Mother had not demonstrated any com mitment or interest in C hild.
(6) Mother did not have any felony convictions of such a nature to deprive Child of a

stable home.
(7) There were not delibe rate acts of Mother or another that subjected Child to a3 subs tantial risk of physical or mental harm.
Additionally, the court noted that due to Mother’s neglect, unwilling ness to
participate in services , untreated mental conditions
, and ina bility to provide for Child’ s

needs , Mother failed to rectify the condition s that led to the removal of Child

. Further,

t he continuation of the parent

- child relationship greatly diminished Child’ s prospec t s for
early integration into a stable and permanent home.
All of these findings were amply s upported by the evidence at tr ial. Although
Mother had obtained housing approximately eight months prior to trial, 1 Mother had been
homeless for years and still did not have the means to provide for Child at the time of

trial. When she attended parenting clas ses, she continued to str uggle w ith parenting
skills. She was argumentative and disruptive in the classes. During supervised visits, s he
had to be reminded how to feed Child and change Child’s diapers. Mother miss ed many

of the visits with C hild and was not prepared for them. She brought moldy baby bottles

to the visits at least t en times and tried to feed C hild expired formula or expired cereal

numerous times. Mother’ s psychological evaluation indicated ment al health issues that
need long

- term treatment, which Mother was not willing to address. The psychologist
reported that Mother was insensitive to the negative impact her behaviors have on other
people and that put C hild at risk of harm or at risk for lack of care.
The finding that it is in the best interest of Child to te rminate Mother’ s parental
rights was not an abuse of discretion. The point is denied; the judgment is affirmed.

1 The trial took place in Dec ember 2019. Monique Hyden, a foster care manager through Springfield Partners, testified that Mother obtained housing in May 2019, through the Shelter Plus program, and had maintained that housing as of the time of trial. As long as Mother engaged in ser vices through Burrell and qualified for services, the Shelter Plus program continued to help pay the rent and utilities at that home. Ms. Hyden had completed a home visit at that residence; the home met minimal standards and would be appropr iate for Child

. Aside from obtaining housing, however, Mother had not made progress.4 Nancy Steffen Rahmeyer, J.

– Opinion Author
Gary W. Lynch, P.J.

– Concurs

William W. Francis, Jr., J.

– Concurs