Opinion ID: 2284287
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: adoptive parents failed to show abandonment by clear, cogent and convincing evidence

Text: The interest of parents in the care and custody of their children is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by [the United States Supreme] Court. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000). Therefore, [t]he fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in raising their children does not evaporate simply because they have not been model parents or have lost temporary custody of their children to the State. In the Interest of K.A.W., 133 S.W.3d 1, 12 (Mo. banc 2004). Instead, because parents retain a vital interest in preventing the irretrievable destruction of their family life. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982), due process demands that a judgment terminating parental rights be supported by clear, cogent and convincing evidence. Id. at 769, 102 S.Ct. 1388. In reviewing the circuit court's judgment that termination of a parent's rights was supported by clear, cogent and convincing evidence, this Court applies the standard of review set forth in Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976): a judgment will be sustained unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is against the weight of the evidence or the trial court erroneously declares or applies the law. In re Adoption of W.B.L., 681 S.W.2d 452, 454 (Mo. banc 1984). As W.B.L. notes, Murphy v. Carron : is not inconsistent with the high `clear, cogent and convincing' standard of proof which Missouri law requires to be satisfied by the trial court as fact finder in termination cases. That same standard of proof applies both to termination cases initiated by the state, § 211.447.2(2), RSMo Cum.Supp.1984; see Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 749, n. 3 [102 S.Ct. 1388] ..., and in conjunction with adoption under Chapter 453. Id. at 454 (emphasis in original). As W.B.L. further explained in regard to both chapter 211 and chapter 453 proceedings to terminate parental rights, while the existence of contrary evidence does not necessarily mean that the clear, cogent and convincing evidence standard was not met, that standard of proof requires that: the evidence instantly tilt[s] the scales in the affirmative when weighed against the evidence in opposition and the fact finder's mind is left with an abiding conviction that the evidence is true. In re O'Brien, 600 S.W.2d 695, 697 (Mo. App.1980). Id. This high standard for showing clear, cogent and convincing evidence is not unique to termination of parental rights cases. This is the standard applied on review of any judge-tried case in which the applicable standard of proof is clear, cogent and convincing evidence, whether the case involves a termination of parental rights [3] or some other kind of proceeding. See, e.g., Mace v. Loetel, 166 S.W.3d 114, 117 (Mo.App.2005) (The standard of proof in a discovery of assets proceeding is that of `clear, convincing, and cogent evidence'... As a result, in order for the trial court's judgment to be supported by substantial evidence, the evidence must also be clear, cogent, and convincing). Indeed, as noted by In re Estate of Dawes, 891 S.W.2d 510, 522 (Mo.App. 1994), in construing a constructive trust, [t]he requirement of an extraordinary measure of [clear, cogent and convincing] proof is not inconsistent with our standard of review, which is governed by ... Murphy v. Carron . ... `Substantial evidence' and `the weight of the evidence,' as those terms are used in Murphy v. Carron , ... must satisfy the applicable standard of proof. In other words, what evidence is sufficient to meet the substantial evidence and weight of the evidence standard set out in Murphy v. Carron will vary depending on whether the trial court had to find the proposition was proved by a preponderance of the evidence or by clear, cogent and convincing evidence. Or, as the court of appeals stated in requiring proof of mental illness by clear, cogent and convincing evidence in an involuntary commitment proceeding: Substantial evidence as used in Murphy means clear, cogent and convincing when that standard of proof is applicable. Thus, if it cannot be said that the judgment in this case is supported by clear, cogent and convincing evidence, then it cannot be said the judgment is supported by substantial evidence, and under Murphy v. Carron , must be reversed. In re O'Brien, 600 S.W.2d 695, 698 (Mo. App.1980) (emphasis added). O'Brien concluded that, in the case before it, Because this court cannot find clear, cogent and convincing evidence that [O'Brien] presented a likelihood of serious physical harm to others, [his commitment] is not supported by substantial evidence. Id. It is plain then that the standard for reviewing the termination of the mother's parental rights below must be informed by the clear, cogent and convincing standard of proof. To affirm based on evidence that, at most, may be sufficient to meet a preponderance of the evidence standard would defy the legislative requirement that the fundamental rights of a parent and child not be rent apart except on clear, cogent and convincing evidence. It would render the applicable standard of review, as set forth in Murphy v. Carron , devoid of any meaningful content. As applicable here, that means that, although the evidence adduced below is viewed in the light most favorable to the judgment, In the Interest of C.W., 211 S.W.3d 93, 99 (Mo. banc 2007), the appellate court must not cast a blind eye to overwhelming evidence undermining the judgment. To the contrary, when reviewing a trial court's termination of parental rights, appellate courts must examine the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law closely. In re K.A.W., 133 S.W.3d 1, 12 (Mo. banc 2004). The judgment in this case is not based on clear, cogent and convincing evidence. The principal opinion has not considered the contrary evidence in the record itself, including a letter from the mother to the court and information provided by a neighbor of the mother in determining whether there is clear, cogent and convincing evidence or whether there was a manifest injustice. The principal opinion has not even set out this evidence except briefly to discredit it (not entirely correctly) as being of little relevance because it was filed after the petition. Neither has it given any weight to the fact that the findings of abandonment are based almost entirely on hearsay evidence. While, as the principal opinion notes, hearsay evidence may be considered when not objected to, its hearsay nature and lack of specificity still detract from the weight of that evidence. [4] The court below and the principal opinion erred in failing to consider the record evidence, sent to the court's attention by the mother herself, evidencing her lack of abandonment, lack of notice, desire for visitation and contact with her son, and the falseness of the testimony to the contrary of Ms. Davenport from Parents as Teachers.
The circuit court determined that the mother's consent to adoption was not required because it found she had abandoned her son under section 453.040.7, RSMo 2000, which states that the consent to adoption of a parent is not necessary in the case of a parent who has for a period of at least six months, for a child one year of age or older, or at least sixty days, for a child under one year of age, immediately prior to the filing of the petition for adoption, willfully abandoned the child. ... (emphasis added). The petition for adoption in this case was filed two weeks before the child turned one year old. Therefore, the adoptive parents had to show, by clear, cogent and convincing evidence, that the mother continuously and willfully abandoned her son for a period of 60 days prior to filing the petition. See In re Adoption of N.L.B. v. Lentz, 212 S.W.3d 123, 129 (Mo. banc 2007) (The statutory requirement to prove abandonment `for a period of at least sixty days,' implies abandonment for a continuous period of 60 days...). Willful abandonment has been defined as the voluntary and intentional relinquishment of custody of the child with the intent to never again claim the rights or duties of a parent, or, the intentional withholding by the parent of his or her care, love, protection and presence, without just cause or excuse. I.D. v. B.C.D., 12 S.W.3d 375, 378 (Mo.App.2000). There is no dispute that the mother did not relinquish custody of her son voluntarily. Instead, the dispute centers on whether the mother intentionally withheld her love, care, protection and presence without just cause or excuse. Therefore, the applicable abandonment analysis focuses on determining the mother's intent, as inferred from her conduct. In re N.R.W., 112 S.W.3d 465, 469 (Mo.App.2003). In addition to the mother's conduct during the 60 days immediately preceding the filing of the adoption petition, her conduct both before and after the statutory period for abandonment is relevant to the analysis. In re P.G.M., 149 S.W.3d 507, 514 (Mo. App.2004). The adoptive parents filed their petition October 5, 2007. Therefore, pursuant to section 453.040.7, they had to prove that the mother continuously and willfully abandoned her son beginning no later than August 6, 2007. The ineffectiveness of the mother's counsel left a sparse record regarding her efforts to arrange care for and maintain contact with her son during her absence. The record consists almost entirely of evidence introduced by the adoptive parents. The evidence introduced by the adoptive parents and relied on by the circuit court when it adopted the adoptive parents' proposed findings without modification shows that when the mother was arrested May 22, 2007, her son was staying with her brother and his family. This arrangement continued for a few days until the brother sent the child to stay with the mother's sister. The sister worked outside of the home and, like many people, needed to arrange for outside child care services. Laura Davenport, a parent educator with Parents as Teachers, referred the sister to the Velasco family. For several weeks, the Velascos took the child in the morning, and the sister would bring him back home in the evening. The sister and the Velascos then agreed that the child would stay with the Velascos during the week and that the sister would care for him on the weekends. As of mid-September 2007, well after the child was alleged to have been abandoned, the child still was living with the sister on the weekends. [5] The record in this case is wholly insufficient to support a finding of willful abandonment under section 453.040.7. To the contrary, at all timesbefore and after the alleged statutory period of abandonment there are simply no facts that yield clear, cogent and convincing evidence supporting the circuit court's finding of abandonment.
The fundamental legal prerequisite underlying the judgment was the finding that the mother willfully and continuously abandoned her son for 60 days prior to October 5, 2007. The circuit court found that when the mother was incarcerated, she made no provision for her son and simply assumed that her brother would care for him. This finding, however, is not supported directly by the facts in the record or any reasonable inference from them. Even though the record consists almost exclusively of evidence introduced by the adoptive parents, there is no evidence that the mother had an opportunity to call her family to make arrangements for her son upon her arrest or that she had a better alternative than to leave him with her brother. Instead, the primary evidence presented with respect to the mother's understanding of the situation during the spring and summer of 2007 was Ms. Davenport's hearsay testimony relaying the mother's September 2007 statement that she was surprised her son was not still in her brother's care. This statement shows the mother had arranged for her family to care for her son. These facts refute the trial court's finding that the mother operated solely on an assumption and had made no arrangements for her son's care. Rather than relying on direct evidence in the record, the circuit court's finding as to this point infers abandonment from the fact that the child was being cared for by the brother. This inference is problematic because it implies that the mother instead should have entrusted her son to a non-family member. Even if the mother had the opportunity to make arrangements but did not, it would not be unreasonable for her to assume that her family would continue to care for her son. It is common knowledge that, in difficult situations, children often are raised with extensive help from grandparents, siblings and other family members. In re A.S.W., 137 S.W.3d 448, 453 (Mo. banc 2004). Accordingly, the more reasonable inference to draw from the mother's supposed assumption is that she made the perfectly reasonable decision that the best place for her son was to continue staying with close family members rather than be placed with strangers in a foreign country. Therefore, even had the mother simply assumed her family would care for her son, it does not follow that her assumption is evidence of abandonment. The circuit court also found that the mother made no attempt to contact her son all the way back to May 22, 2007, a period of over four months and over double the time necessary to establish abandonment. Once again, it must be noted that there is no evidence that the mother had the opportunity to contact her family to inquire about her son. This is not a trivial concern, for the fact is that the mother was incarcerated in a foreign country and immersed in a language she did not speak. If the mother had no reasonable opportunity to get into contact with her family, she cannot be faulted for failing to do so. Under the circumstances of this case, any lack of evidence demonstrating the mother's efforts to contact her son does not prove that she in fact did not undertake such efforts. It is simply a gap in the record that reflects nothing more than the fact that the adoptive parents introduced no evidence tending to disprove the allegations in their own petition. In fact, however, there was record evidence before the circuit court showing the mother did attempt to communicate with her son as soon as she was told that he was no longer with family and that an attempt was being made to adopt him. Specifically, in her October 28, 2007 letter, the mother informed the adoptive parents' attorney that she did not want her son adopted and that she wanted visitation with her son while in prison. The circuit court transcript references only the mother's desire that her son not be adopted and makes no mention even of the English translation of her letter, which says, I would like to have visitation with my son. Even this is not a complete translation, however. The Spanish portion states, quiero que me veuga a visitor todo el tiempo que este aqui en la carcel. This is not simply a request by mother for visitation, but also a request to visit with her son all the time that I am here in jail (todo el tiempo que este aqui en la carcel). This is a request to communicate with her son. No attempt was made by the court or any party to provide an official translation, nor was an attempt made to give her any access to her son; to the contrary, even the circuit court's judgment a year later simply ignores her request for visitation and makes a finding of lack of attempt to communicate that clearly is refuted by the attempt that is in the court's own record. Finally, the circuit court also found that the Velascos began caring for the child only a few days after his mother was arrested. This finding is crucial because the cases hold that a transfer of custody for any reason may ripen into abandonment if the absent parent foregoes the performance of the functions of a parent that demonstrate the continued intent to exercise the rights and duties of a parent. In re Adoption of Baby Boy W., 701 S.W.2d 534, 543 (Mo.App.1985). Consequently, the court's conclusion that the Velascos assumed care of the child shortly after his mother's arrest is the basis of the inference that the mother abandoned her son by making no effort to arrange for his care, thereby forcing her family to give the child to the Velascos. [6] The record, however, does not support the finding that the Velascos began caring for the child only a few days after the mother was arrested. Neither the Velascos nor anyone from the mother's family testified. The only evidence supporting this finding was the adoptive mother's testimony that the sister turned the child over to the Velascos within days of the mother's arrest. However, the adoptive mother made it clear that she first met the child September 24, 2007, fewer than two weeks before the petition for adoption was filed. Therefore, the adoptive mother's testimony that the sister placed the child with the Velascos within days of his mother's arrest five months earlier is simply the repetition of hearsay. Equally importantly, the adoptive mother's hearsay testimony flatly is contradicted by Ms. Davenport's testimony. Ms. Davenport had personal knowledge of where the child was living from the time of his mother's arrest in May 2007 until sometime in July 2007. Ms. Davenport saw the child while he was under the sister's care and recommended that the sister rely on the Velascos for child-care assistance. Ms. Davenport testified that the child lived with the sister and that the Velascos simply provided normal workday child care until at least mid-September 2007. This evidence contradicts the circuit court's finding that the child was living with the Velascos just days after his mother's arrest in May 2007. Conversely, the overwhelming weight of the evidence in this case indicates that the child still was living with the sister at least until sometime in September 2007, just days before the adoptive parents filed their petition. The conclusion that the child was under the sister's care until at least September 2007 is confirmed by other evidence that was before the circuit court but not mentioned in the findings of fact drafted by the adoptive parents and adopted by the circuit court or in the principal opinion of this Court. For instance, the record reflects that a neighbor, Mr. Walter, went to see the mother while she was in jail. Mr. Walter filed documents with the court November 9, 2007, nearly 11 months before the termination and adoption hearing. In those documents, Mr. Walter explained that the sister had asked him to help them obtain a passport for the child so they could send him to live with another sister in Guatemala. The record shows that Mr. Walter filed for that passport September 27, 2007, a week before the adoption petition was filed and well within the alleged 60-day period of abandonment. The record further showed that when the sister went to pick up the child from the Velascos on October 3, the first night that he stayed with the adoptive parents, the Velascos simply told her they didn't have the baby. This evidence is entirely consistent with the mother's assertion that she wished to take her son home with her after her release and further undermines the court's conclusion that the mother had abandoned her son. The principal opinion supports ignoring this evidence by stating: The trial court `is not required to leaf through a file to determine what should be used as evidence.'.... Because this document was not in evidence, it will not be considered. Principal Op. at 814 n.16 (citation omitted). This is not a contract or tort case, however. This is a case in which a child and parent's fundamental right to be a family is at issue. Under our statutes, the birth family is required to be kept together whenever possible and the constitutional rights of the child and parent are to be respected. Indeed: The United States Supreme Court has recognized that a natural parent's `desire for and right to the companionship, care, custody, and management of his or her children is an interest far more precious than any property right.' Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 758-759, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982). It is an interest that `undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection.' Lassiter v. Department of Social Servs. of Durham Cty., 452 U.S. 18, 27, 101 S.Ct. 2153, 68 L.Ed.2d 640 (1981). Cannon v. Cannon, 280 S.W.3d 79, 86 (Mo.2009). See also Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972) (It is plain that the interest of a parent in the companionship, care, custody, and management of his or her children `come[s] to this Court with a momentum for respect lacking when appeal is made to liberties which derive merely from shifting economic arrangements.' (citation omitted)). The evidence that this Court says the circuit court acted properly in refusing to consider was the mother's heartfelt plea for visitation with her child and her refusal to consent to his adoption. The record also contains evidence that she did contact her family about her son after her arrest and that she was arranging for him to go home to Guatemala so that he could be cared for there, even arranging for a passport application for him, before the adoption petition was filed. While the principal opinion acknowledges the passport application, it fails to acknowledge how the information about the application came to the circuit court's notice. It also credits inferences drawn by the adoptive parents' counsel in his proposed findings that the mother did not even know where her child was (based on a single statement that she was surprised her brother did not want to care for her son). Yet the opinion ignores contrary evidence that the mother's family did not abandon the child to the Velascos but rather the Velascos, without notice to the child's birth family, placed him with the adoptive parents, and then simply left a note telling the sister of this fact and washing their hands of the matter. While a court may not always have a duty to look at the record for evidence not brought to its attention by counsel, simply to ignore that evidence is inconsistent with this Court's duty to look closely at the findings of fact and consider whether the finding of clear, cogent and convincing evidence of abandonment is against the weight of the evidence. The lack of a showing that the circuit court independently considered the proposed findings simply adds to this duty. [7]
A parent's conduct after a petition is filed can be relevant to determining whether the parent intended to abandon a child. See In re Adoption of H.M.C., 11 S.W.3d 81, 87 (Mo.App.2000) (When determining whether abandonment has occurred, the parent's intent, an inferred fact, is determined by considering all the evidence of the parent's conduct, both before and after the statutory period). In this case, the mother's conduct after the petition was filed is also inconsistent with a finding of abandonment. To find abandonment, the parent must have the ability to communicate and visit the child but choose not to do so. § 211.447.2(2)(b), RSMo Supp.2009. Further, a finding of abandonment is incompatible with a situation where a child has been taken from a parent involuntarily. In re C.J.G., 75 S.W.3d 794, 801 (Mo.App. 2002). Specifically, the forced separation operates to create the very circumstances, i.e., lack of communication and visitation, complained of in the termination proceeding. Id. Here, the mother was separated involuntarily from her son when she was incarcerated. Additionally, the mother wanted to visit her son and contacted the adoptive parents' attorney regarding visitation. Because the mother was incarcerated, she had to rely on third parties to bring her child to the prison for visitation or to permit communicative access to him. Neither the adoptive parents nor their attorney attempted to find the mother in the federal system despite their knowledge that the mother was convicted of a federal crime and the name under which she was incarcerated. Neither Mr. Walter nor Ms. Davenport had any trouble locating the mother under that name. But none of the court notices were sent to that name, and none found the mother. The mother did the one thing she could do to communicate with her child. When Mr. Walter visited her in late October 2007, she sent a letter to the court, discussed above, telling the court she wanted to visit with her son while she was in prison. Though filed with the court, and addressed to it, this letter simply was ignored. This letter also is entirely consistent with the mother's September 9, 2007, statement to Ms. Davenport in which the mother rejected outright Ms. Davenport's suggestion that the child be placed for adoption. Additionally, in August 2008 and again in September 2008, the mother repeated her opposition to adoption. Therefore, both during and after the alleged but unproven 60-day abandonment period, the mother consistently maintained her conviction that she wanted to raise her son. Again, the principal opinion's choice not to consider these facts is inconsistent with this Court's duty in termination cases to examine the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law closely. K.A.W., 133 S.W.3d at 12. Finally, here, the Court is aware because of the showing made on appeal in support of the claim of ineffective assistance that there is specific documentary evidence showing that the evidence presented at the trial by Ms. Davenport, and which almost entirely forms the basis of the findings, simply is untrue. A transcript of her conversation with the mother shows that the mother did not show surprise at the fact that her son had moved from the brother's house to the sister's house, that in fact she spoke with her sister weekly and was making arrangements for her son to return to Guatemala before the adoption petition was filed, and that the telephone records from the jail confirm these calls. The facts repeated with such starkness by the principal opinion simply are not accurate. Shutting this Court's eyes to the contrary evidence when deciding whether the judgment results in a manifest injustice does not negate its existence. The circuit court's issuance of a judgment that contains so many factual misstatements is undoubtedly in large part due to its wholesale adoption of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law prepared by counsel for the adoptive parents. It is not unusual for one party to present the court with proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and as `long as the court thoughtfully and carefully considers the parties' proposed findings and agrees with the content, there is no constitutional problem with the court adopting in whole or in part the findings of fact and conclusions of law drafted by one of the parties.' Zink v. State, 278 S.W.3d 170, 192 (Mo. banc 2009), quoting State v. White, 873 S.W.2d 590, 600 (Mo. banc 1994). Here, however, it is evident that such thoughtful and careful consideration of the party's proposed findings did not occur, for the record in this case simply does not support the findings made concerning what reports were made, what process was provided and what the evidence showed. The record does not contain clear, cogent and convincing evidence supporting the circuit court's decision to terminate the mother's parental rights. For this reason alone, the judgment should be reversed.