Court Opinion

ID: 9673169
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:07:35.670272+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:20.487241
License: Public Domain

HIGGINS, Judge,
dissenting.
I agree with the discussion which accords constitutionality to these proceedings and §§ 211.031 and 211.181, RSMo, and denies intervention. I do not agree with the discussion validating the support order for the reasons expressed in the dissent of Bard-gett, C. J. I dissent from the majority because I do not believe its discussion of any of the issues can be delivered as an opinion of this Court absent jurisdiction upon which to do so.
Premature consideration of the subject matter of this case is premised on the time these children have been within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. This is not required because the juvenile court with its flexible powers is better equipped to deal with their problems than the courts which deal with fixed rights and permanent status. In re J-, 357 S.W.2d 197 (Mo.App. 1962). The public policy of this state is that when jurisdiction over the person of a child has been acquired by the juvenile court for care and treatment because of parental neglect, jurisdiction may be retained, if necessary to his well-being, until the child has attained the age of twenty-one years. §§ 211.031 and 211.041, RSMo. Limitation on the exercise of parental rights in this case may comport favorably with achievement of the ultimate and most desirable goal of reinstating the natural and normal parent and child relationship. § 211.011, RSMo; State v. Couch, 294 S.W.2d 636 (Mo. App.1956).
The majority opinion demonstrates the absence of a final and appealable judgment in this case.1 Accordingly, this appeal is premature and should be dismissed and the cause remain open for such other and further proceedings in the juvenile court as could be indicated by order of this Court or otherwise. Rules 81.01 and 120.01; §§ 211.-261 and 512.020, RSMo; Kansas City Power & Light Company v. Kansas City, 426 S.W.2d 105 (Mo.1968).

. In re Beste, 515 £.W.2d 530 (Mo.1974) and In re W. H. J., Jr., 511 S.W.2d 795 (Mo.1974), cited in the majority opinion as support for taking jurisdiction in this case do not lack final and appealable orders. They do not stand for creation of jurisdiction where none exists. They stand for retention of jurisdiction in the Supreme Court where presence of a final ap-pealable order vests jurisdiction in the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court as the case may be.