In re the Matter of K.L.M. v. Juvenile Officer

• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Decided: January 31, 2023
• Docket: WD85029
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Western District

IN RE THE MATTER OF: K.L.M., ) Appellant, ) WD85029 v. ) ) JUVENILE OFFICER, ) FILED: January 31, 2023 Respondent. )

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BUCHANAN COUNTY THE HONORABLE PATRICK K. ROBB, JUDGE

BEFORE DIVISION TWO: EDWARD R. ARDINI, JR., PRESIDING JUDGE, LISA WHITE HARDWICK, JUDGE, AND KAREN KING MITCHELL, JUDGE

K.L.M. appeals the juvenile court’s judgment committing her to the

Buchanan County Academy (“BCA”) after she failed to attend school, engaged in

behavior injurious to her welfare, and violated the conditions of her probation.

She contends the juvenile court abused its discretion by failing to grant her

request for a continuance of the dispositional hearing. Because the case is now

moot, we dismiss the appeal.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

K.L.M. was born on January 31, 2007. In February 2020, shortly after K.L.M.

turned 13 years old, the Juvenile Officer of Buchanan County (“Juvenile Officer”)

filed a petition alleging K.L.M. committed the class A misdemeanor offense of stealing, if committed by an adult; failed to attend school; and was habitually

absent from her home without permission or justification. K.L.M. admitted the

allegations in the petition were true. The juvenile court took jurisdiction over

K.L.M. and committed her to the custody of the BCA. After she completed the

BCA’s program, she was released from the BCA and placed on probation.

In August 2020, the Juvenile Officer filed a motion to modify the previous

order of disposition alleging K.L.M. violated the conditions of her probation by

failing to attend substance abuse treatment at Preferred Family Healthcare and

failing to report to her probation officer. K.L.M. admitted the allegations in the

motion were true, and the court committed her to the custody of the BCA. After

she completed the BCA’s program, she was released from the BCA and placed on

probation.

On October 7, 2021, the Juvenile Officer filed another motion to modify the

previous order of disposition alleging that K.L.M. failed to attend school, engaged

in behavior injurious to her welfare by testing positive for marijuana, and violated

the conditions of her probation by being unsuccessfully discharged from Preferred

Family Healthcare outpatient treatment in July 2021 and failing to attend a

scheduled substance abuse intake assessment with Preferred Family Healthcare in

September 2021.

K.L.M. contested these allegations, so the juvenile court held an

adjudication hearing on this motion to modify on December 1, 2021. At the

hearing, K.L.M.’s school principal testified to K.L.M.’s numerous absences and

2 failing grades, K.L.M.’s probation officer testified that she administered the

urinalysis test that showed K.L.M. was positive for marijuana, and two employees

from Preferred Family Healthcare testified to K.L.M.’s discharge from Preferred

Family Healthcare due to lack of engagement. The juvenile court found all of the

allegations against K.L.M. to be true and told the parties it would immediately

hold the dispositional hearing.

K.L.M.’s counsel requested a continuance after he informed the court he

had prepared only for adjudication and not disposition. The juvenile court

overruled the continuance request. During the dispositional hearing, the Juvenile

Officer presented only argument, and K.L.M. gave a lengthy statement. The court

committed K.L.M. to the custody of the BCA. K.L.M. appeals.

MOOTNESS

K.L.M.’s sole point on appeal is that the juvenile court abused its discretion

in denying her request for a continuance of her dispositional hearing. She asks

that we reverse the court’s judgment and remand the case for a new dispositional

hearing.

“A threshold question in any appellate review is the mootness of the

controversy.” Interest of P.D.W., 606 S.W.3d 232, 235 (Mo. App. 2020) (citation

omitted). Because mootness implicates justiciability, we must consider, either on

a party’s motion or, as in this case, sua sponte, whether an appeal is moot.

D.C.M. v. Pemiscot Cty. Juvenile Office, 578 S.W.3d 776, 780 (Mo. banc 2019).

“When an event occurs that makes a court’s decision unnecessary or makes

3 granting effectual relief by the court impossible, the case is moot and generally

should be dismissed.” Id. (citation omitted). In determining whether a case is

moot, we may consider facts outside the record. Norton v. McDonald, 590 S.W.3d

450, 452 (Mo. App. 2020).

A review of the records of the underlying case on Case.net shows that, after

the juvenile court denied K.L.M.’s request for a continuance of her dispositional

hearing and committed her to the BCA on December 1, 2021, K.L.M. completed

the program and was released from the BCA and placed on probation in August

2022. In November 2022, the juvenile court issued an order to take K.L.M. into

custody after she was reported as a runaway. On November 28, 2022, the

Juvenile Officer filed another motion to modify alleging K.L.M. was repeatedly

and without justification absent from school, committed acts of behavior injurious

to herself or others by using marijuana on two occasions, disobeyed the

reasonable and lawful directions of her parent or other custodian by refusing to

return home, and violated the conditions of her probation by failing to abide by

the conditions of her electronic monitoring program. On December 1, 2022, the

juvenile court held a detention hearing and ordered that K.L.M. remain in a

designated juvenile detention facility until further order of the court. The hearing

on the Juvenile Officer’s motion to modify was scheduled for December 15, 2022.

These events have made any decision as to the propriety of the court’s

denial of the motion to continue the dispositional hearing unnecessary and made

granting any effectual relief impossible. K.L.M. completed her commitment to the

4 BCA ordered in that dispositional hearing and was released and placed on

probation. She was then ordered detained in the juvenile detention center

pending a hearing on new allegations in a subsequent motion to modify.

Remanding the case for a new dispositional hearing on the prior motion to modify

would be pointless, as there is no further disposition to be had on that motion.

K.L.M. can neither be “recommitted” to the BCA or another facility nor released to

her parent or custodian based on that prior motion. “If no relief can be granted . .

. because the situation has so changed that the relief sought cannot be granted,

the court will not go through the empty formality of determining whether or not

the relief asked for . . . could have been granted but for changed conditions.”

Interest of D.R.C., 588 S.W.3d 527, 530 (Mo. App. 2019) (citation omitted). K.L.M.’s

appeal is moot.1

If an appeal is moot, we can exercise our discretion to decide the case on its

merits “if one of two narrow exceptions to the mootness doctrine exist: ‘(1) when

a case becomes moot after submission and argument; and (2) when the issue

raised is one of general public interest and importance, recurring in nature, and

will otherwise evade appellate review.’” D.C.M., 578 S.W.3d at 780-81 (citations

1 K.L.M. does not challenge her adjudication of delinquency, which distinguishes this case from D.C.M. In D.C.M., the Supreme Court held that an appeal of an adjudication was not moot even though the juvenile had been released from supervision and the juvenile court no longer had jurisdiction over him. D.C.M., 578 S.W.3d at 781. Because the juvenile was entitled to “the opportunity to remove the discredit and stigma associated with his record of adjudication” and the record of his prior juvenile adjudication could be introduced if he were tried in the future for a criminal offense, the Court held that “addressing this appeal would have a practical effect on an existing controversy.” Id. The concerns present in D.C.M. are not present here, as K.L.M.’s appeal pertains only to her dispositional hearing.

5 omitted). Neither exception applies here. The case became moot before it was

submitted to this court, and the issue raised—the propriety of the court’s decision

to deny K.L.M.’s motion for a continuance of the dispositional hearing—involves

facts unique to this case that are not of general public interest or importance and

are not recurring in nature.

CONCLUSION

The appeal is dismissed.

________________________________ LISA WHITE HARDWICK, JUDGE ALL CONCUR.