Opinion ID: 2284287
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mother's Claims of Error

Text: Mother raises 14 points of trial court error on appeal that she asserts warrant reversal of the judgment and remand for dismissal of the petition and return of the custody of Child to her. Several of her points contain multiple claims of error. These claims of error most easily are understood and addressed by grouping them by the nature of the claim. Her claims are that: 1) The termination and adoption proceedings failed to strictly comply with governing statutes:  The placement was improper under section 453.014.  The transfer was improper under section 453.110.  There was a lack of notice of the hearing to transfer custody of Child pursuant to Rule 44.01(d).  The Court failed to ensure compliance with the investigation and reporting requirements of sections 211.455, 453.026, 453.070, 453.077, 453.080, and 453.110. 2) The trial court's findings under section 211.447.7 are formulaic and conclusory, contrary to the law, and not supported by the evidence. 3) The trial court misapplied the best interest of the child standard in terminating Mother's parental rights under section 211.447, because the trial court focused on her immigration status, the Adoptive Parents' fitness, and the Child's bonding with Adoptive Parents, instead of her constitutional rights. 4) The findings of abandonment do not comply with the law and are not supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. 5) Mother's due process rights were violated:  She did not receive notice of the custody hearing or the petition.  She does not speak or read English. The petition and all process served to her were in English and not her native language, Spanish.  She was not appointed counsel for the transfer of custody hearing.  Adoptive Parents were involved improperly in the selection of her appointed counsel, Mr. Dominguez.  The guardian ad litem and the juvenile officer failed to investigate Mother and to undertake an investigation independent of the Adoptive Parents.  The combining of the TPR proceeding and the adoption proceeding in the same trial improperly injected the issue of the Adoptive Parents' fitness into the TPR proceeding.  She did not receive a fair hearing because her immigration status and criminal record were injected into the hearing while the trial court ignored the criminal past of S.M. and the molestation history of M.M.'s brother.  Her appointed attorneys were ineffective.