Opinion ID: 2284287
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: The principal opinion's stretch to find evidence of neglect.

Text: The principal opinion stretches the circuit court's findings to allow the adoptive parents to present evidence of neglect on remand. The principal opinion says that the circuit court's findings on neglect were simply inconsistent. No inconsistency exists; the circuit court did not find neglect for the statutory period. The circuit court's judgment says that, under section 453.040(7), RSMo 2000, the consent of the biological parents is not necessary because the biological mother and father of the child have for a period of at least sixty days immediately prior to the filing of the Petition for Adoption, willfully abandoned the child and have willfully, substantially and continuously neglected to provide the child with necessary care and protection. (Emphasis added). But section 453.040(7) [5] requires a finding of neglect for six months prior to the filing of the petition for adoption, which the circuit court did not find and, under the evidence on the record, could not find. At best, the circuit court's finding can be read as finding the mother neglected to care and provide for her son for 60 days prior to the filing of the adoption petition, even though the adoptive parents' brief specifically notes that there was no underlying abuse or neglect case. Further, the adoptive parents' argument to this Court under section 453.040(7) is focused entirely on the subject of abandonment; they make no assertion of neglect under this section. Nevertheless, the principal opinion, in an apparent attempt to give the adoptive parents a leg-up in the proceedings below, seems to give the adoptive parents the opportunity to proceed on neglect. But this is not possible. A finding of neglect under section 453.040(7) typically is a question of an intent to forego `parental duties,' which includes both an obligation to provide financial support for a minor child, as well as an obligation to maintain meaningful contact with the child. In re C.M.B., 55 S.W.3d 889, 894 (Mo.App.2001). The mother was providing financial support for her son up until the day she was arrested on May 22, 2007. The adoptive parents, however, were required to show lack of financial support beginning April 16, 2007, to show neglect six months prior to the filing of their petition for adoption. The only way this could be shown below is by evidence that the mother was raising her son improperly. The principal opinion notes that the mother and her son were living in a cramped one-bedroom apartment with other family members and that her son may not have received sufficient attention, was not receiving WIC services, was behind on his immunizations and was suffering from developmental delays. For this Court to believe that such evidence shows neglect as defined as an intent to forego parental dutiesis to disregard the fact that many families in the United States cannot afford a crib and other resources for their children. The principal opinion also believes that a lack of resources for the child shows that a transfer of custody . . . urgently needed to occur. Undoubtedly, it would be wonderful if all children in the United States could grow up with their own bedroom and hours of attention from his or her parent(s) and never fall behind other children. This, however, is not the reality for many people in this country, citizens and non-citizens alike. If the legal standard calls for transfer of custody and termination of parental rights when a parent has inadequate resources to care for his or her child, an unfortunately large percentage of the children in this country could be taken from their parents. The fundamental right of a parent to raise his or child does not allow the principal opinion's statement to be a legal standard. Where resources are inadequate, the traditional and appropriate response is for the state to step in (if neighbors, church members or communities do not) and help the parent find resources. In this case, the state never was asked to get involved. Most pertinently, no evidence exists that the mother intentionally was foregoing her parental duties in not providing her son with a crib and giving him undivided attention. What the record shows instead is a mother working at a poultry factory and trying to provide for her family as best as she could. The principal opinion refers the decision on neglect to the circuit court. To find evidence of neglect under section 453.040(7), the circuit court would be required to find that the mother willfully, substantially, and continuously neglected her son for six months. The trial court, however, made the specific finding that [t]he Court is not aware of any deliberate acts toward by [sic] the child by the biological mother or anyone else that might have subjected the child to a substantial risk of physical or mental harm. It is unclear how the trial court can find willful neglect when the trial court previously has found no deliberate acts of harm toward the child. In short, the adoptive parents presented some scant evidence of neglect that did not meet the statute's requirement; the circuit court made no finding of neglect. The doctrine of law of the case bars a decision on that basis on remand. See State v. Deck, 303 S.W.3d 527, 545 n. 2 (Mo. banc 2010).