In the Interest of D.F.P.

Missouri Court of Appeals

In the Interest of D.F.P.

981 S.W.2d 663, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 2314, 1998 WL 910008

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 31, 1998

DocketNo. 22245

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 981 S.W.2d 663 (In the Interest of D.F.P.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In the Interest of D.F.P., 981 S.W.2d 663, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 2314, 1998 WL 910008 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PREWITT, Presiding Judge.

L.P., Appellant, is the natural mother of D.F.P., born August 31, 1994. She appeals from judgment terminating her parental rights. Among her contentions is that the trial court failed to follow Section 211.477.5, RSMo 1994, in that no finding was made that it was in the best interest of the child to terminate Appellant’s parental rights. Respondent juvenile officers concede that if this contention is properly raised this Court should remand to the trial court with direction that it enter a specific finding as to whether termination of parental rights is in the minor’s best interest, as required by Section 211.477.5.

This contention is first raised in argument under Appellant’s Point I, and also specifically recited in Point II, although only raised in regard to a report of the juvenile officer complained of in that point. Even if this contention was not properly raised, due to the seriousness of a termination of parental rights proceeding, we will review under plain error. See Rule 84.13(c). Absent a finding that termination is in the best interest of a child, manifest injustice may have occurred.

We reach this determination because severance of the parent-child relationship by law is an awesome power which demands strict and literal compliance with statutes allowing it. In re Interest of W.S.M., 845 S.W.2d 147, 151 (Mo.App.1993). Compliance with Section 211.477.5 is not idle statutory rhetoric, it is obligatory and such failure is grounds for reversal. Id. See also In the Interest of K.T., 946 S.W.2d 246 (Mo.App.1997)(failure to make required findings requires remand, the court declining to address the merits).

Pursuant to the holdings of W.S.M. and K.T., the cause is remanded with directions to enter findings regarding D.F.P.’s best interest, as required by Section [664]*664211.477.5, RSMo 1994. Thereafter an appeal may be taken, as provided by law.

CROW and PARRISH, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PREWITT, Presiding Judge.

L.P., Appellant, is the natural mother of D.F.P., born August 31, 1994. She appeals from judgment terminating her parental rights. Among her contentions is that the trial court failed to follow Section 211.477.5, RSMo 1994, in that no finding was made that it was in the best interest of the child to terminate Appellant’s parental rights. Respondent juvenile officers concede that if this contention is properly raised this Court should remand to the trial court with direction that it enter a specific finding as to whether termination of parental rights is in the minor’s best interest, as required by Section 211.477.5.

This contention is first raised in argument under Appellant’s Point I, and also specifically recited in Point II, although only raised in regard to a report of the juvenile officer complained of in that point. Even if this contention was not properly raised, due to the seriousness of a termination of parental rights proceeding, we will review under plain error. See Rule 84.13(c). Absent a finding that termination is in the best interest of a child, manifest injustice may have occurred.

We reach this determination because severance of the parent-child relationship by law is an awesome power which demands strict and literal compliance with statutes allowing it. In re Interest of W.S.M., 845 S.W.2d 147, 151 (Mo.App.1993). Compliance with Section 211.477.5 is not idle statutory rhetoric, it is obligatory and such failure is grounds for reversal. Id. See also In the Interest of K.T., 946 S.W.2d 246 (Mo.App.1997)(failure to make required findings requires remand, the court declining to address the merits).

Pursuant to the holdings of W.S.M. and K.T., the cause is remanded with directions to enter findings regarding D.F.P.’s best interest, as required by Section [664]*664211.477.5, RSMo 1994. Thereafter an appeal may be taken, as provided by law.

CROW and PARRISH, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

981 S.W.2d 663, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 2314, 1998 WL 910008, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-dfp-moctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack