Court Opinion

ID: 9777079
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:55:33.32762+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:47.860304
License: Public Domain

On Motions for Rehearing or Transfer
PER CURIAM.
Both parties have filed motions for rehearing or transfer. The suggestions accompanying the motion filed by the “State of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent,” aver error on our part in assuming that the county or circuit had a legally appointed juvenile officer. The record shows that the prosecuting attorney called a witness Napier to the stand and asked him:
“Q. What is your occupation? A. I am juvenile officer of the county.”
He then asked the witness:
“Q. In your official capacity as juvenile officer of Howell County did you have occasion to talk to Mr. and Mrs. N. I. Pilkinton * * *?”
The witness then related a series of discussions with the mother and stepfather of the child extending over the “last school term.”
Be that as it may, we have not held that the same person who holds the position of prosecuting attorney could not he appointed as juvenile officer and serve as such (although the record does not disclose any such appointment in this case). But, if such were the case, the petition must be filed by that person as juvenile officer and not (as was done here) in the official capacity and under the oath of prosecuting attorney.
The motion filed by the stepfather on behalf of the child demonstrates an entire misconception of the principal question involved. This is a proceeding which directly concerns the present and future welfare of a child. The vindication of the stepfather in his quarrels with various school and county authorities is incidental. This is the second time these quarrels, with a little girl as the innocent in-between, have reached this court. (See State v. Pilkinton, Mo.App., 310 S.W.2d 304.) In both instances the cases have been reversed in spite and not because of any record the stepfather was able to make in the lower court or any brief he has filed in this court. Should this controversy again erupt in such manner as to affect directly the welfare of this innocent girl, it is to be hoped that she may have the benefit and protection of more competent “counsel.”
The motions are overruled.