Opinion ID: 2284287
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The failure to adjudicate this case timely.

Text: When the proceedings in this case started, the child was 11 months old. He is now 4 years and 3 months old. Section 453.011, RSMo Supp.2007, declares the public policy of this statethat these cases must be expeditedin unmistakable terms. [4] In subsection 3, the statute says: It is the intent of the general assembly that the permanency of the placement of a child who is the subject of a termination of parental rights proceeding, a placement proceeding, or an adoption proceeding not be delayed any longer than is absolutely necessary consistent with the rights of all parties, but that the rights of the child to permanency at the earliest possible date be given priority over all other civil litigation other than children's division child protection cases. (Emphasis added). I attach to this opinion an appendix with a timeline of significant events, taken from the record and from the docket entries in the circuit court, in the court of appeals and in this Court. The timeline documents the shameful pattern of delay and pettifogging that characterizes this case. Much of the delay in this case has been caused by the lawyers, with the courts' indulgence. For instance, the second appointed counsel for the mother, paid for by the adoptive parents, did not appeal. It was several months later that a new attorney heard about the case, entered an appearance pro bono and had to bring the matter to this Courta process that took additional monthsjust to get permission for a late appeal. I include this timeline not to embarrass our courts or members of the legal profession, but as a reminder of how far we have strayed from the law's command that this case be decided expeditiously. Justice delayed surely is justice denied.