Opinion ID: 1986881
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Evidence of Mother's personality profile supports likelihood of future abuse

Text: Psychological evidence also provided insight into Mother's actions regarding the twins and her inability to provide the twins with a stable environment. Dr. Susan Randich, a psychologist, conducted a personality inventory on Mother. Dr. Randich testified that Mother displayed immaturity and made poor decisions with the children, tended to gloss over and minimize any kind of problems, and might have a low tolerance for stress. In her evaluation, Dr. Randich wrote that people with a personality profile similar to Mother's have little insight into their own behavior and motivations and little awareness of the consequences of their behavior on other people. She testified that Mother's repeated consideration of adoption followed by rejection of the idea reflects that she is pretty susceptible to manipulation or influence by others. She agreed that Mother's prolonged indecisiveness regarding adoption of the twins was not in their best interests. Moreover, Dr. Randich testified it was not clear whether Mother was willing to parent the twins and that the first two years of life are extremely important in the bonding process of a child. As for the twins' ongoing physical, mental, and emotional needs, the twins have RAD, speech delays, and asthma. Dr. Luby testified that these conditions require monitoring by a very emotionally stable, emotionally available, nurturing, giving parent who can devote a lot of energy to them. Mother has not demonstrated an ability to furnish the twins with these qualities in a parent. Cf. M.E.W., 729 S.W.2d at 197 (child with special physical, educational, and emotional needs required extra attention and stable home environment his mother was unable to provide). The majority opinion focuses on the fact that two failed placements alone do not constitute emotional abuse and that the trial court's decision relied solely on past behavior that was not linked to future behavior. Mother's pattern of behavior, however, evidences the traits and tendencies of her behavior toward the twins. The trial court's justification for terminating pursuant to section 211.447.4(6) was not limited to the grounds expressly included within that finding, and the justification included those grounds within the context of all the testimony heard. Any improvements that Mother has made in her life have largely occurred after the termination petition was filed. Mother's conduct after the filing of a termination petition cannot constitute the sole consideration of the court's decision. A court must look at the totality of a parent's conduct both prior to and after the filing of the termination petition. Otherwise, a parent can always argue that she or he has reformed since the filing of the petition, reformation usually occurring while the child is away. For these reasons, a parent's conduct after the termination petition has been filed may not be compelling. In the Interest of C.L.W., 115 S.W.3d 354, 358-59 (Mo.App.2003) (citations and quotations omitted). The majority claims there was no evidence that Mother would continue this behavior in the future. The evidence supporting the judgment was based on Mother's particular pattern of actions toward the twins and included not only the two failed placements but also the protracted vacillation regarding adoption. [14] In light of Mother's personality traits as attested to by Dr. Randich, this pattern is likely to continue. A DFS worker testified at the termination hearing that the circumstances since the adjudication and dispositional hearings had not changed. Mother, however, presented no evidence at the termination hearing. As a result, it is unclear on what evidence the majority's claim is based.