Opinion ID: 1717373
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of Dunklin County

Text: Missouri has a significant interest in the welfare of all children born or residing in this state. One of the most important safeguards in protecting children's welfare is to have a mechanism in place to ensure their proper care and custody. Chapter 453, Adoption and Foster Care, governs Missouri's procedures for the care, custody and ultimate adoption of Missouri's children. At the outset, § 453.005 identifies the guiding principle that should always remain in focus by stating that the Act is to be construed to promote the best interests and welfare of the child in recognition of the entitlement of the child to a permanent home. Section 453.110.1 sets forth the method for transferring custody of a minor child. [4] It states, in relevant part: Prohibiting transfer of custody of childexceptionpenaltyinvestigation and report.1. No person, agency, organization or institution shall surrender custody of a minor child, or transfer the custody of such a child to another, and no person, agency or organization or institution shall take possession or charge of a minor child so transferred, without first having filed a petition before the circuit court sitting as a juvenile court of the county where the child may be, praying that such surrender or transfer be made, and having obtained such an order from such court approving or ordering transfer of custody. The only exception to the court order requirement afforded by the statute is where the right to supervise the care of the child and to resume custody thereof is retained. § 453.110.2. The obvious purpose of the legislature in enacting § 453.110.1 was to prohibit the indiscriminate transfer of children, the concept that a parent could pass them on like chattel to a new owner. In the Matter of K.W.S., 370 S.W.2d 698, 702 (Mo.App. 1963); In the Matter of Baby Girl Smith, 339 S.W.2d 490, 492 (Mo.App.1960); In re Adoption of Davis, 285 S.W.2d 35, 37 (Mo. App.1955). In order to effect this purpose, the legislature enacted § 453.110.1 whereby the custody of a child could not be transferred at the whim of an individual in charge of it, but, on the contrary, a transfer of custody of a child must have the sanction of a court given by order approving such transfer. In re Adoption of Davis, 285 S.W.2d at 37. The court from which the order must issue is specifically designated in § 453.110.1. It states that the petition for transfer of custody must be filed in the circuit court sitting as a juvenile court of the county where the child may be. § 453.110.1. In the case of In re Adoption of Sypolt, 361 Mo. 958, 237 S.W.2d 193, 195-196, (1951), this Court found the language where the child may be to be clear and unambiguous. It stated that where the child may be means where the child is a resident at the time. Id. at 196. Thus, jurisdiction is initially established when the child is born and may follow the child and legal custodian from county to county. In the present case, the child was born in Dunklin County and her initial legal custodian was her natural mother. While the child was physically removed from this jurisdiction, no one sought or obtained judicial approval of the transfer of custody from the Circuit Court of Dunklin County. Nor has there been any showing or claim that the transfer of custody fell within the exception of § 453.110.2. This is precisely the type of action that the legislature sought to avoid when it enacted § 453.110.1. In the Matter of K.W.S., 370 S.W.2d at 702; In the Matter of Baby Girl Smith, 339 S.W.2d at 492; In re Adoption of Davis, 285 S.W.2d at 35. Because an appropriate order was not obtained, all acts thereafter regarding custody were void from any legal perspective. The transfer of custody of the child from Peggy to Michael and Becky was illegal from its inception. In re Baby Girl Smith, 339 S.W.2d at 492. [5] Jurisdiction still remains in Dunklin County. Where an illegal transfer of custody has taken place, jurisdiction is made clear in § 453.110.2. The statute provides: If any such surrender or transfer is made without first obtaining such order, such court shall, on petition of any public official or interested person, agency, organization, or institution, order an investigation and report as described in section 453.070 to be completed by the division of family services and shall make such order as to the custody of such child as may be for the best interest thereof. (Emphasis added). The reference in § 453.110.2 to such court must refer to the court specified in § 453.110.1 as the circuit court sitting as a juvenile court of the county where the child may be. Thus, such court is the court where an order originally should have been sought to have legal custody transferred, in this case, Dunklin County. The illegal removal of a child from the court's physical jurisdiction does not divest the court of its legal jurisdiction over the child. Our holding is also mandated by Article V of the Interstate Compact on Child Placement (Compact). [6] Section 210.620. The Compact, enacted by all fifty states, is part of a comprehensive legislative scheme to protect the welfare of children. Article V states, in relevant part: The sending agency shall retain jurisdiction over the child sufficient to determine all matters in relation to the custody, supervision, care, treatment and disposition of the child which it would have had if the child had remained in the sending agency's state, until the child is adopted, reaches majority, becomes self-supporting or is discharged with the concurrence of the appropriate authority in the receiving state. Such jurisdiction shall also include the power to effect or cause the return of the child or its transfer to another location and custody pursuant to law. Under the Compact, even if the Circuit Court of Dunklin County had entered an order giving the Arkansas couple custody, it would have retained jurisdiction until an adoption or some further order as set out in the statute was decreed. No adoption decree or other such order has been entered by a court of this state or any other state. In fact, the Arkansas Court has expressly refused to take jurisdiction, at least at this time, and has specifically directed Michael and Becky to obtain an appropriate order from a Missouri court, which they did not do. Therefore, the Compact also provides the Circuit Court of Dunklin County jurisdiction over the child. [7]