In the Interest of: B.W.R., Juvenile P.W.R., Jr. vs. Juvenile Officer

CORRECTED OPINION ISSUED 2/5/2026

IN THE INTEREST OF: B.W.R., ) ) Juvenile, ) ) P.W.R., JR., ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) WD87907 ) JUVENILE OFFICER, ) Opinion filed: December 30, 2025 ) Respondent. )

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MILLER COUNTY, MISSOURI THE HONORABLE ANDREW J. HARDWICK, JUDGE

Before Division One: Janet Sutton, Presiding Judge, Gary D. Witt , Judge and W. Douglas Thomson, Judge P.W.R., Jr. ("Father") appeals from the trial court's judgment terminating his parental rights to B.W.R. ("Son"). Father argues the trial court erred in failing to "consider and make required written findings on all of the statutory factors for the determination of termination of parental rights under [sections] 211.447.5(2), 211.447.5(3)(b), and 211.447.7 RSMo." 1 Because Father's sole claim of error was

1 All statutory references are to RSMo (2016), as updated by supplement through the date of the termination of parental rights petition unless otherwise noted.

2

not preserved for our review, in violation of Rule 78.07(c), it is denied. 2 Therefore, we affirm. Factual and Procedural History 3

Son is a minor child who was born in 2022. Son's natural mother is C.N. ("Mother"), and there is no dispute that his natural father is Father. Mother had previously given birth to Son's sibling in 2021 ("Sibling"). Sibling tested positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine, and marijuana at birth. Father tested positive for methamphetamine in December of 2021 and February of 2022, shortly before Son was born. Additionally, Mother and Father's place of residence had been deemed "not safe and appropriate for the juvenile." Thus, Sibling "was not able to be placed back in the home of the parents due to safety concerns" and was placed in protective custody. At the time of Son's birth, Mother tested positive for marijuana. Accordingly, two days after Son was born, he was placed in the protective custody of the Missouri Children's Division (the "Division"). Sibling continued to be in protective custody. On May 20, 2022, the juvenile division of the trial court found "that allegations of abuse and neglect had been proven by clear, cogent and convincing evidence" with continued placement with the Division. 4

2 All Rule references are to Missouri Court Rules, Volume I – State 2025 unless otherwise noted. 3 "When reviewing a judgment terminating parental rights, we view the facts and inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the judgment." In re E.R., 687 S.W.3d 174, 175 n.2 (Mo. App. W.D. 2024) (citation omitted). 4 Although the trial court took express notice of the underlying juvenile proceedings in this case, record of those proceedings has not been included in the record

3

On September 27, 2024, the Chief Deputy Juvenile Officer of the 26th Judicial Circuit (the "Juvenile Officer") filed a petition for termination of Mother's and Father's parental rights in, to, and over Son. 5 Relevant to Father, the Juvenile Officer alleged that his parental rights should be terminated due to Father's abuse or neglect, pursuant to section 211.447.5(2), due to Father's failure to rectify, pursuant to section 211.447.5(3), and due to Father's parental unfitness, pursuant to section 211.447.5(5). The termination of parental rights trial was held on January 24, 2025. The Division's "TPR Report" was admitted as an exhibit by the trial court and referred to extensively by witnesses. 6

The trial court received testimony from the Division and Son's guardian ad litem ("GAL"). This included testimony from the Division that "for quite an

on appeal. Thus, we rely on the trial court's recitation of the allegations in the juvenile case as reflected in the trial court's judgment. Regarding the Division's initial assumption of jurisdiction, only the limited information discussed herein was provided to this Court. Omissions from the record on appeal will be understood as supporting the trial court's judgment. Gross v. Schmitt, 709 S.W.3d 347, 354 (Mo. App. W.D. 2025). 5 The Juvenile Officer concurrently filed a petition for termination of Mother's and Father's parental rights regarding Sibling. The trials on the two petitions for termination were heard together. The trial court entered a separate judgment terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father regarding Sibling on February 7, 2025. Father filed a pro se notice of appeal regarding that judgment on March 11, 2025. Father's attorney, who represents him in the present appeal, never entered an appearance in the appeal from the judgment terminating Father's parental rights to Sibling. Neither did Father pursue that appeal himself. As a result, this Court dismissed that appeal for "failure to prosecute the appeal within the periods of time allowed under the Rules of Civil Procedure." In re P.W.R., IIII, No. WD87883 (Mandate issued June 9, 2025). 6 Although the TPR Report was admitted as an exhibit at trial, it is not contained in our record on appeal. Rule 81.16(a) tasks the appellant with the responsibility of filing exhibits necessary to the determination of any point relied on. "When exhibits necessary to the determination of a point on appeal are omitted from the record, 'such evidentiary omissions will be taken as favorable to the trial court's ruling and unfavorable to the appeal.'" In re D.T.H., 652 S.W.3d 738, 751 (Mo. App. W.D. 2022) (quoting City of Kan. City v. Cosic, 540 S.W.3d 461, 464 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018)).

4

extensive period of time," Father refused to submit to hair follicle tests, or any other drug testing, as required by the Division. The juvenile case had been open for more than fifteen months, during which no substantial progress towards reunification had been made by Father. Additionally, testimony was received that Father failed to complete his parenting classes, his "RPG" classes, 7 and was "hit and miss" with regard to attendance at visitation. There were no additional services the Division could provide Father to foster reunification. The Division explained that Father had not demonstrated appropriate housing to support reunification. There were also substantial concerns in regard to domestic assault involving Mother and Father that posed a risk to Son. This, along with his consistent refusal to perform drug testing, resulted in other barriers to reunification. Further, Father did not maintain consistent employment during the pendency of the underlying juvenile matter. Testimony from the GAL included that Mother and Father "have had a really tumultuous relationship, not only with each other but with sobriety and with the team over the course of this case. It doesn't seem likely to me that we're going to have any substantial changes out of either of them in the foreseeable future." The GAL also explained that it is in Son's best interest that Father's rights be terminated. The GAL confirmed that Father's employment had been inconsistent throughout the matter.

7 We are not clear what the acronym "RPG" represents in the transcript, though it appears to be some sort of counseling. Again, we note the TPR Report was not provided to this Court in the record on appeal.

5

On February 7, 2025, the trial court issued a judgment terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father regarding Son. 8 The trial court found Father "failed to make any significant progress towards reunification" during the pendency of the proceedings. Although Father had entered into a service agreement with the Division to promote reunification, he "failed to comply with many of the terms of such agreement." Accordingly, the efforts of the Division and the juvenile officer "failed due to [Father's] failure to fully participate, his failure to take advantage of such aid, and his failure to follow recommendations made to him." The trial court also found that Father had a chemical dependency which "may not be treated within a reasonable time." Further, for more than six months prior to trial, Father "continuously refused to submit to any [drug] testing even though he understands that such refusal may be considered to indicate he would be positive," and "has refused to take all steps necessary to address his addiction." Father's abuse of controlled substances continued "despite knowing that such use is a barrier to reunification." Finally, the trial court found that, although Father had "employment on occasions," he had "failed to make any significant contribution to the child's support." The Judgment concluded that three bases existed for terminating Father's parental rights: (1) Son has been neglected by Father pursuant to section 211.447.5(2); (2) Son has been under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court for at

8 Mother does not appeal the trial court's judgment terminating her parental rights in, to, and over Son.

6

least one year and the conditions which led to the assumption of that jurisdiction remain with little likelihood of being remedied shortly so as to return Son to Father pursuant to section 211.447.5(3); and (3) Father is unfit to be a party to the parent- child relationship pursuant to section 211.447.5(5). The Judgment then concluded that terminating Father's parental rights in, to, and over Son is in the best interest of Son. This appeal follows. Preservation In his sole Point, Father argues the trial court erred by failing to "consider and make required written findings on all of the statutory factors for the determination of termination of parental rights under [sections] 211.447.5(2), 211.447.5(3)(b), and 211.447.7[.]" "We must address the issue of preservation as a threshold matter to appellate review." L.K.B. ex rel. Bethel v. Salmon, 702 S.W.3d 88, 93 (Mo. App. W.D. 2024) (quoting Hays v. Dep't of Corr., 690 S.W.3d 523, 526 (Mo. App. E.D. 2024)). This claim, which pertains to the form or language of the Judgment, is not preserved for appellate review. Rule 78.07 provides the guidelines for determining when allegations of error are required to be included in an after-trial motion in order for those alleged errors to be preserved for appellate review. In particular, Rule 78.07(b) pertains to cases tried without a jury. The rule also provides, "In all cases, allegations of error relating to the form or language of the judgment, including the failure to make statutorily required findings, must be raised in a motion to amend the judgment in

7

order to be preserved for appellate review." Rule 78.07(c). "The purpose of Rule 78.07(c) is to ensure that complaints about the form and language of judgments are brought to the attention of the trial court where they can be easily corrected, alleviating needless appeals, reversals, and rehearings." In re A.M.R., 673 S.W.3d 864, 875-76 (Mo. App. W.D. 2023) (quoting Southside Ventures, LLC v. La Crosse Lumber Co., 574 S.W.3d 771, 788 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019)). "Rule 78.07(c) applies to termination of parental rights cases." J.A.R. v. D.G.R., 426 S.W.3d 624, 626 n.5 (Mo. banc 2014). For example, in In re K.N.D., a father appealed from the termination of his parental rights. 649 S.W.3d 54, 60 (Mo. App. W.D. 2022). One of his points on appeal argued "that the [trial] court's factual findings that refer to 'the children' are too 'vague' and 'generalized' to support termination because they do not specify which children." Id. at 63. This court applied Rule 78.07(c)'s requirement that "allegations of error relating to the form or language of the judgment, including the failure to make statutorily required findings, must be raise[d] in a motion to amend the judgment in order to be preserved for appellate review." Id. (quoting In re K.S., 561 S.W.3d 399, 407 n.3 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018)). Thus, because the father "did not file a motion to amend the judgments," this court was unable to address the merits of "his allegation of error concerning the clarity and sufficiency of the court's findings[.]" Id. No motion to amend pursuant to Rule 78.07 was filed in this case. Here, Father's claim, that the trial court erred by failing to provide required findings on

8

all of the statutory factors for the determination of termination of parental rights, is a claim which requires a Rule 78.07(c) motion to be filed in order to be preserved for appeal. Having failed to do so, Father has failed to preserve this issue for appeal. See In re D.L.S. III, 606 S.W.3d 217, 225 n.5 (Mo. App. W.D. 2020) ("Rule 78.07(c) requires a party to bring issues involving the form of a judgment (including the absence of required findings) to a trial court's attention as a condition of preserving a claim of error regarding those issues."). Although a trial court's failure to make statutorily required findings would be considered error, such error "is not preserved unless a motion [pursuant to Rule 78.07(c)] is filed . . . specifically challeng[ing] the failure to make statutorily mandated findings." In re E.B.R., 503 S.W.3d 277, 286 n.9 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016) (alterations in original) (quoting K.L.A. v. Aldridge, 241 S.W.3d 458, 462 (Mo. App W.D. 2007)). Because Father did not preserve the alleged error for appellate review, "all arguments pertaining to the form and language of [the] judgment, including the alleged failure to make required findings, are waived." See Interest of A.M.R., 673 S.W.3d at 876 (declining to review a point on appeal that claims the trial court failed to make required statutory findings because that claim was not preserved in a Rule 78.07(c) post-trial motion). As such, we are unable to reach the merits of Father's Point, and it is denied. 9

9 Ex gratia, we note that Father's insufficient record on appeal, in violation of Rule 81.12, also precludes a meritorious review of Father's Point. Thus, while we decline to review Father's Point due to its preservation issue, were that issue absent, this Court would still be unable to reach the merits of his appeal.

9 Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Father's appeal is denied. We affirm. _ _____________________________ W. D OUGLAS THOMSON, JUDGE All concur. Rule 81.12(a) directs that "[t]he record on appeal shall contain all of the record, proceedings and evidence necessary to the determination of all questions to be presented . . . to the appellate court for decision." Rule 81.12(a) continues, explaining that the record on appeal consists of both the transcript and the legal file. In the present case, Father did produce a transcript of the trial to this Court. However, as discussed above, the primary evidence supporting termination of Father's parental rights appeared to be the Division's "TPR Report" which was not furnished to this Court. Accordingly, Father's legal file failed to provide this Court with all of the proceedings and evidence necessary to the determination of the questions Father presents on appeal. "If there is no evidence from the record that will establish an appellant's claim, we do not convict a trial court of error." In re D.D.C., 351 S.W.3d 722, 736 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011) (citation omitted). Further, ex gratia, we note that while the trial court's findings are not rendered with precision and lack specific detail, the trial court was clear in identifying the reasons for its decision to terminate Father's parental rights. And, a review of the transcript indicates that had the trial court received a timely request pursuant to Rule 78.07(c), a more robust description of the statutory factors could have been made. Finally, in rejecting Father's argument, we emphasize that Father's brief challenges only the circuit court's failure to make explicit findings on particular statutory factors. Father's brief relies solely on alleged defects in the form of the judgment - defects which he failed to bring to the circuit court's attention at a time when the court could have cured any deficiencies. Importantly, Father does not separately argue that the evidence was insufficient to support the termination of his parental rights. And, as explained above, Father has failed to provide us with the record we would need to review the sufficiency of the evidence. While we recognize the severity of a judgment terminating a parent's parental rights over their children, and while we prefer to resolve appeals on the merits rather than based on procedural deficiencies, we cannot consider a sufficiency-of-the- evidence argument which Father fails to make.