IN THE INTEREST OF: J.M.H. and A.M.E.H., Minors R.J.L. AND T.N.L., Petitioners/Respondents, vs. G.M.H., Respondent, and J.D.H., Respondent/Appellant.
Decision date: April 6, 2017SD34636
Slip Opinion Notice
This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.
Syllabus
1
IN THE INTEREST OF: ) J.M.H. and A.M.E.H., Minors ) ) R.J.L. AND T.N.L., ) ) Petitioners/Respondents, ) ) vs. ) No. SD34636 ) G.M.H., ) Filed April 6, 2017 ) Respondent, ) ) and ) ) J.D.H., ) ) Respondent/Appellant. )
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JASPER COUNTY
Honorable Joseph L. Hensley
Before Lynch, P.J., Scott and Francis, J.J.
REVERSED AND REMANDED
PER CURIAM. Appellant, J.D.H., appeals the termination of his parental rights to two
children. Because the trial was unrecorded, we must reverse the judgment and remand the case for a new trial.
2
Petitioners, R.J.L. and T.N.L., filed a Petition for Termination of Parental Rights and Adoption in the Circuit Court of Jasper County on April 21, 2015. Count I of the Petition sought the termination of the parental rights of Appellant and G.M.H. to minor children J.M.H. and A.M.E.H. That count was tried to the court on July 21, 2016. On July 28, 2016, the trial court entered its judgment terminating Appellant's and G.M.H.'s parental rights to both children. Appellant filed a notice of appeal on September 2, 2016. After the notice of appeal was filed, Appellant's counsel requested a transcript of the July 21, 2016 trial for the record on appeal. Upon reviewing its records, the trial court discovered that there was no recording of the trial from which a transcript could be prepared. The court formally documented this finding in a docket entry dated October 3, 2016, stating: "DUE TO EQUIPMENT FAILURE OF THE FTR GOLD PROGRAM THERE IS NO RECORD OF THE JULY 21, 2016 HEARING." Subsequently, Appellant filed a motion in this court asking that the case be remanded to the trial court for a new trial. The motion argues that "it is impossible to prepare an appeal on behalf of Appellant" in the absence of a trial transcript. Respondents have not filed a response to Appellant's motion. Based on Appellant's motion, we directed the clerk of the trial court to provide us with a certified copy of the trial court's sound recording log sheet for the July 21, 2016 trial. According to the log sheet, the proceedings on July 21, 2016, included the testimony of multiple witnesses and the admission of numerous exhibits. The log sheet concludes with the entry: "AFTER HEARING EVIDENCE- COURT FINDS GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS- CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE." As applicable here, Rule 81.12(a), Missouri Court Rules (2016), provides that "[t]he record on appeal shall contain all of the record, proceedings and evidence necessary to the
3
determination of all questions to be presented . . . to the appellate court for decision." "The appropriate remedy when 'the record on appeal is inadequate through no fault of the parties' is to reverse and remand the case to the trial court." Goodman v. Goodman, 165 S.W.3d 499, 501-02 (Mo. App. 2005) (quoting Oyler v. Director of Revenue, 10 S.W.3d 226, 228 (Mo. App. 2000)); see also In re C.J.D., 479 S.W.3d 648, 649 (Mo. App. 2016); Lyytinen v. Lyytinen, 244 S.W.3d 798, 800 (Mo. App. 2008); In re A.J.M., 158 S.W.3d 878, 879 (Mo. App. 2005); Jackson v. Director of Revenue, 60 S.W.3d 707, 708 (Mo. App. 2001). Here, it is through no fault or negligence of Appellant that a transcript cannot be prepared. Further, we find that the complete lack of a transcript of the trial in this matter is prejudicial to Appellant's right of appeal. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for a new trial. All concur.
Related Opinions
AIG Agency, Inc., d/b/a Associated Insurance Group, Appellant, vs. Missouri General Insurance Agency, Inc., Jim Baxendale and Mitch O'Brien, Respondents.(2015)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictNovember 3, 3015#ED102096
Christopher Hanshaw, Appellant, vs. Crown Equipment Corp., et al., Respondents.(2026)
Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101091
The court affirmed the circuit court's decision to exclude Hanshaw's expert witness testimony and grant summary judgment to Crown Equipment in a product liability case involving an allegedly defectively designed forklift. The expert's opinions were properly excluded because they were not supported by reliable methodology, as the expert performed no tests and failed to demonstrate how cited research and data supported his conclusions.
Mouna Apperson, f/k/a Nicholas Apperson, Appellant, vs. Natasha Kaminsky, et al., Respondents.(2026)
Supreme Court of MissouriJanuary 23, 2026#SC101020
The court affirmed the directed verdict as to four counts against Norman based on agency but vacated and remanded the defamation counts against Kaminsky and one count against Norman, finding that the circuit court erred in requiring independent evidence of reputational damage beyond the plaintiff's own testimony when the evidence of harm was substantial and directly resulted from the defendants' statements.
K.A.C. by and through, ASHLEY ACOSTA, NEXT FRIEND, and MICHAEL CRITES, JR., Appellants v. MISSOURI STATE HIGHWAY PATROL, ET AL., Respondents(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictJanuary 12, 2026#SD38943
Appellants sought damages for a wrongful death resulting from a motor vehicle collision involving a pursued driver, alleging the Missouri State Highway Patrol's pursuit was negligent and proximately caused the collision. The court affirmed summary judgment for MSHP, finding that Appellants failed to produce sufficient facts demonstrating that MSHP's actions were the proximate cause of the collision, which is a necessary element of their case.
Mark and Sherry Davis, and David and Denise Kamm; Kevin Laughlin vs. City of Kearney, Missouri(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictDecember 16, 2025#WD87389