In re the Adoption of: K.L.C.B., N/K/A K.L.C.S.; D.B. vs. J.A.S.

IN RE THE ADOPTION OF: ) K.L.C.B., N/K/A K.L.C.S.; D.B., ) ) WD88045 Appellant, ) v. ) OPINION FILED: ) J.A.S., ) February 24, 2026 ) Respondent. ) ) Appeal from the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri The Honorable Jennifer Marie Phillips, Judge Before Division One: Cynthia L. Martin, Presiding Judge, Thomas N. Chapman, Judge, and W. Douglas Thomson, Judge

D.B. ("Grandmother") appeals a judgment and decree of stepparent adoption entered by the Circuit Court of Jackson County. On appeal, Grandmother argues that the trial court's judgment is against the weight of the evidence and that the trial court misinterpreted the law. The judgment is affirmed. Background Child was born in Jackson County, Missouri to biological mother, S.B., and biological father, J.S. ("Father"). Child is now ten years old. Upon Child's birth, Child resided in the physical custody of S.B. In 2019, S.B. passed away.

2 Following S.B.'s death, Child resided in the physical custody of Grandmother (Child's maternal grandmother). Grandmother sought to establish legal custody of Child. In February of 2020, Grandmother filed a petition in the Circuit Court of Jackson County seeking third party custody of Child. Later in 2020, Father relocated from California to Missouri and sought custody of Child. In the custody proceedings, the parties agreed that it was in the best interests of Child for Father and Grandmother to share custody, and the parties entered into a stipulated parenting plan. In June of 2021, pursuant to the parenting plan to which Father and Grandmother agreed, the trial court entered judgment granting joint legal and joint physical custody to Father and Grandmother. 1

Father and C.S. ("Stepmother") 2 were married in 2017. In December of 2021, Father and Stepmother filed a petition for stepparent adoption of Child. Grandmother moved to intervene in the proceedings, but her motion was denied. Following a judgment of adoption in June of 2022, Grandmother appealed. This Court reversed the judgment and remanded, holding that Grandmother had a right to intervene in the adoption proceedings as a joint custodian of Child. See In re Adoption of K.L.C.B., 674 S.W.3d 1, 8-9 (Mo. App. W.D. 2023).

1 On August 4, 2022, Father filed a motion to vacate the judgment. The trial court denied this motion. The trial court's ruling was affirmed on appeal.

2 We recognize that, pursuant to the trial court's judgment, C.S. is Child's mother for all legal purposes. See § 453.090.1, RSMo 2016. We do, however, use the term "Stepmother" in this opinion for purposes of clarity to reflect C.S.'s status in the proceedings underlying this appeal, which occurred prior to the trial court's judgment.

3 Following remand, a hearing was held on the petition for stepparent adoption. Father, Stepmother, and Grandmother provided testimony. A number of exhibits were admitted into evidence including detailed home studies recommending that the adoption petition be approved. A court appointed guardian ad litem also participated in the proceedings. Regarding the best interests and welfare of Child, Father and Stepmother testified that Stepmother was fit and suitable to be Child's adoptive parent and testified regarding the bond that had developed between Child and Stepmother. Father and Stepmother testified that adoption would serve Child's best interests and welfare. Regarding the preexisting custody arrangement, Father and Stepmother testified that they recognized the strong bond between Child and Grandmother and testified that it was in Child's best interest to continue to honor the prior custody arrangement. Father and Stepmother testified that they planned to continue to honor the prior custody order if the court approved the adoption. Regarding their understanding of the consequences of adoption, Father and Stepmother testified that they understood that, upon adoption, Stepmother would share the same legal rights and responsibilities of Father. Grandmother testified regarding the strong bond between Child and Grandmother and her family. Grandmother testified that the prior joint custody arrangement was beneficial to Child, provided Child stability, and was working well such that it was important for that prior custody arrangement to continue. Grandmother also testified that she did not see the need for an adoption and expressed concern that the adoption would

4 be used to sever Child's contact with Grandmother and her family, which Grandmother indicated would leave Child devastated. Grandmother testified that, regardless of the outcome of the adoption proceeding, she hoped that Child's current relationships and stability would not be impacted. In providing her recommendation, the guardian ad litem indicated that it was clear that Child had two families that loved him very much and expressed the need for the two families to work together as a unit for Child. The guardian ad litem indicated her belief that adoption would further stabilize Child's life, while also indicating that she hoped that Grandmother's speculations about what might occur in subsequent proceedings were simply the worries of a devoted Grandmother. The guardian ad litem recommended that the adoption be approved. On April 8, 2025, the trial court entered a Judgment and Decree of Adoption. The trial court found that the adoption of Child would promote Child's best interests and welfare. The trial court recognized the preexisting custody arrangement in which Father shared joint legal and physical custody with Grandmother. The trial court found that continuing the relationship between Child and Grandmother was in Child's best interest. The trial court declared that the adoption would not impact the prior custody and visitation arrangement. Grandmother now appeals to this Court.

5 Standard of Review On appeal from court-tried civil cases, an appellate court will affirm the trial court's judgment "unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, unless it is against the weight of the evidence, unless it erroneously declares the law, or unless it erroneously applies the law." Lollar v. Lollar, 609 S.W.3d 41, 45 (Mo. banc 2020) (quoting Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976)). Analysis Grandmother raises two points on appeal. In her first point, Grandmother argues that the trial court's finding that adoption was in the best interest of Child was against the weight of the evidence. In her second point, Grandmother argues that the trial court erred in finding that the adoption would not impact the prior custody arrangement. We address these points in turn. Point One In her first point on appeal, Grandmother argues that the trial court's finding that adoption was in the best interest of child was against the weight of the evidence. We disagree. Appellate courts act with caution in exercising the power to set aside a decree or judgment on the ground that it is against the weight of the evidence. A claim that the judgment is against the weight of the evidence presupposes that there is sufficient evidence to support the judgment. The against-the-weight-of-the-evidence standard serves only as a check on a circuit court's potential abuse of power in weighing the evidence, and an appellate court will reverse only in rare cases, when it has a firm belief that the decree or judgment is wrong. When reviewing the record in an against- the-weight-of-the-evidence challenge, this Court defers to the circuit court's

6 findings of fact when the factual issues are contested and when the facts as found by the circuit court depend on credibility determinations. A circuit court's judgment is against the weight of the evidence only if the circuit court could not have reasonably found, from the record at trial, the existence of a fact that is necessary to sustain the judgment. When the evidence poses two reasonable but different inferences, this Court is obligated to defer to the trial court's assessment of the evidence. This Court rarely has reversed a trial judgment as against the weight of the evidence.

S.S.S. v. C.V.S., 529 S.W.3d 811, 815-16 (Mo. banc 2017) (internal quotations, citations, brackets, and ellipsis omitted). Missouri courts have provided a multi-step framework regarding how to raise a challenge that a judgment is against the weight of the evidence: [A]n against-the-weight-of-the-evidence challenge requires completion of four sequential steps:

(1) identify a challenged factual proposition, the existence of which is necessary to sustain the judgment;

(2) identify all of the favorable evidence in the record supporting the existence of that proposition;

(3) identify the evidence in the record contrary to the belief of that proposition, resolving all conflicts in testimony in accordance with the trial court's credibility determinations, whether explicit or implicit; and,

(4) demonstrate why the favorable evidence, along with the reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence, is so lacking in probative value, when considered in the context of the totality of the evidence, that it fails to induce belief in that proposition.

Houston v. Crider, 317 S.W.3d 178, 187 (Mo. App. S.D. 2010).

7 Section 453.030 3 provides that the trial court shall grant or withhold its approval of an adoption "as the welfare of the person sought to be adopted may, in the opinion of the court, demand." Section 453.005.1 provides that the "provisions of section 453.005 to 453.400 shall be construed so as to promote the best interests and welfare of the child in recognition of the entitlement of the child to a permanent and stable home." See also § 1.092 ("The child welfare policy of this state is what is in the best interests of the child."). Grandmother argues that the trial court's finding that adoption will promote the best interests and welfare of Child was against the weight of the evidence. In this matter, the evidence favorable to the trial court's finding included the testimony of Father and Stepmother, and detailed home studies, which indicated that Child would benefit from the adoption such that the adoption should be approved. The guardian ad litem likewise recommended that the trial court approve the adoption. The favorable evidence at trial certainly had probative force in support of the proposition that the adoption was in the best interests and welfare of Child. In support of Grandmother's contention that the trial court's finding was against the weight of the evidence, Grandmother cites to a number of pleadings in the prior litigation between the parties, and her own testimony at trial. Grandmother's trial testimony emphasized the close bond between Child and Grandmother as well as the close bond between Child and Grandmother's family, including his sister. Grandmother

3 Unless otherwise indicated, statutory references are to RSMo 2016, as updated.

8 also testified that the adoption would be devastating to Child. However, Grandmother's testimony provided no indication that Stepmother was not a suitable parent or that Stepmother's relationship is harmful to Child; rather, Grandmother's contentions appear to arise from her concern that the adoption will ultimately lead to the loss of contact between Child and Grandmother and her family. Such concerns appear to stem from the various positions the parties have taken in prior litigation. However, at trial, both Father and Stepmother testified that they recognized the strong bond between Child and Grandmother, and that they recognized that continuing the prior custody order was in Child's best interests such that they planned to continue to honor the prior custody order if adoption was granted. Ultimately, the law tasks the trial court with the role of weighing evidence and determining whether adoption should be granted based on the best interests and welfare of the child. See § 453.030.1; see also §§ 453.005.1, 1.092. Appellate courts defer to the trial court's assessment of the evidence unless the trial court could not have reasonably found the existence of a fact necessary to sustain the judgment. See S.S.S., 529 S.W.3d at

1. In this matter, the totality of the evidence presented at trial had sufficient probative

force from which the trial court could reasonably find that the adoption was in the best interests and welfare of Child. This is not the rare case in which the trial court's judgment was against the weight of the evidence. See id. Point one is denied.

9 Point Two In her second point on appeal, Grandmother argues that the trial court erred in determining that the Child's adoption would not impact the custody and visitation arrangement as ordered in the prior judgment. However, the record indicates that the trial court's declaration that the adoption would not impact the prior custody arrangement was made in accordance with a specific request made by Grandmother at trial. "[ A]n adoption proceeding is not a child custody determination wherein competing custodial rights to a child are weighed and determined by the court." In re Adoption of C.T.P., 452 S.W.3d 705, 716 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014). Rather, "an adoption proceeding requires a court to determine whether the creation of a parent-child relationship is in the best interests of a child." Id. Nevertheless, one legal consequence of an adoption proceeding is that the parent by adoption is entitled to custody of the adopted child. See § 453.090.3 ("The parent or parents by adoption . . . , if such child is a minor, shall be entitled to the services, wages, control and custody of such adopted child.") ; see also In re Adoption of R.S., 231 S.W.3d 826, 830 (Mo. App. S.D. 2007) ("While an adoption certainly entails the adoptive parents receiving both legal and physical custody of the child, it is different than just granting custody to a parent or a third party."). 4

4 Missouri courts have also recognized that the creation of a parent-child relationship will often carry implications for subsequent custody proceedings given the general understanding that parents have a primary right of custody when such custody is consistent with the best interests and welfare of the child. See C.T.P., 452 S.W.3d at 718 n.27 (citing In r e C.L.M., 625 S.W.2d 613, 617 (Mo. banc 1981)); see also K.L.C.B., 674 S.W.3d at 7. However, the welfare of the

10 This matter presented the circumstances in which a natural parent and a stepparent sought stepparent adoption even though the natural father did not have sole custody of the child to be adopted. Rather, there was a pre-existing custody order under which Father shared joint custody of Child with a third-party. When this prior custody order was entered, all parties and the trial court agreed that the joint custody arrangement was in the best interests of Child. The record in this matter reveals that all parties and the trial court agreed that the continuation of the joint custody arrangement is in the best interest of Child. In the current proceedings, Father and Stepmother testified that continuing the prior custody arrangement promotes the best interests of Child. Father and Stepmother each testified that they planned to continue to honor the prior custody arrangement if adoption was granted and indicated that they understood Stepmother's rights following the adoption would be the same as the rights and responsibilities held by Father. During closing argument, Grandmother objected to the adoption based on her co ncern that the adoption would be used to sever Child's contact with Grandmother and her family, which Grandmother testified would be harmful to Child. Grandmother then asked the trial court, in the event that the trial court did grant the adoption, to include in its judgment findings regarding the continuation of the prior custody arrangement: And we don't want to talk about this, but if it's granted, then the best interests of [Child] at least demand assurances of the joint custody

child is of overriding significance in such proceedings. C.T.P., 452 S.W.3d at 718 n.27; C.L.M., 625 S.W.2d at 617.

11 continuing, including the contact and involvement of [Grandmother] and her family through, again, that joint custody agreement.

Thus, from the record it is clear that Grandmother herself requested that the trial court include a statement in its judgment regarding how the adoption would impact the prior custody arrangement. The trial court found that "continuing the relationship between [Grandmother] and the child is in the child's best interest." The trial court expressly recognized that Grandmother shares joint legal and physical custody of Child as provided in the prior custody order. The trial court then indicated that the adoption would not impact the prior custody and visitation arrangement. The only party to challenge the trial court's judgment is Grandmother. However, the record reveals that the portion of the judgment with which Grandmother takes issue was a portion of the judgment that she specifically requested. Grandmother cannot now attempt to construe a portion of the judgment she requested as a misinterpretation of the law as a means to invalidate the judgment in its entirety. Although adoption does carry the legal consequence that the adopting parent be entitled to custody of the child to be adopted, see § 453.090.3, the trial court in this matter was also confronted with a scenario in which a third party held previously established custodial rights pursuant to a prior judgment. Under these circumstances, the trial court sought to clarify – at Grandmother's request – the operation of its judgment with respect to Grandmother's previously established custodial rights and with respect to

12 the prior custodial arrangement. The record indicates that all parties and the trial court understood that the continuation of the prior custodial arrangement was in the best interests of Child. The record also indicates an understanding between Father and Stepmother that Stepmother's custodial entitlement would be to share in the rights and responsibilities of Father rather than to upset the prior custodial arrangement that all parties agreed was in the best interests of Child going forward. On this record, we find no reason to understand that the trial court misinterpreted the law in attempting to add clarity to its judgment – at Grandmother's request – regarding whether the prior custodial arrangement was to continue. Even if Grandmother was not attempting to challenge a portion of the judgment that she herself requested, we see little basis to find that the trial court misinterpreted the law regarding the effect of adoption on the unique custodial situation before it, given that the trial court interpreted the law in a manner that we understand as giving effect to the legal consequences of adoption, see § 453.090, while also giving effect to the promotion of the best interests and welfare of Child in a manner consistent with the representations of the parties, the legal standard for adoption proceedings, see § 453.030.1, the intent of the General Assembly regarding the construction of adoption statutes, see § 453.005.1, and the child welfare policy of Missouri as provided by the General Assembly, see § 1.092. Point two is denied.

13 Conclusion The judgment is affirmed. ___________________________________ Thomas N. Chapman, Judge All concur.