In the Interest of: K.R.
Decision date: Unknown
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.
Opinion
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District Case Style: In the Interest of: K.R. Case Number: 71843 Handdown Date: 12/16/1997 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Lewis County, Hon. Fred J. Westhoff Counsel for Appellant: C. Todd Ahrens Counsel for Respondent: Wallace Trosen and Dennis W. Smith Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Crahan, C.J., Crandall, Jr., J., and Crist, Sr.J., concur. Opinion: ORDER J.R.(FN1) (Father) appeals from the judgment terminating his parental rights to K.R. (Child) pursuant to Section 211.447, RSMo 1994. We remand with directions. The juvenile court took jurisdiction of Child on May 12, 1995, after it determined Child had been sexually abused and neglected by Father. The juvenile officer filed a petition to terminate Father's rights on May 1, 1996. The trial court terminated Father's rights on November 18, 1996. Father appealed, raising three points on appeal. We find his second point dispositive of the appeal. In his second point, Father contends the trial court erred in terminating his parental rights because it failed to make specific findings on each of the four areas listed in Section 211.447.2(2)(a)-(d). We agree with Father and remand Father's case so that the trial court may enter the appropriate findings for each subparagraph. In the Interest of K.E., 947 S.W.2d 468 (Mo. App. E.D. 1997); In the Interest of D.T.B., 944 S.W.2d 321 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997); In the Interest of
K.D.C.R.C.B.-T., 928 S.W.2d 905 (Mo. App. E.D. 1996). Because remand is necessary, we do not address the merits of Father's appeal. Footnote: FN1.On the court's own motion, the parties' initials have been used in the caption and body of the opinion. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Related Opinions
John Doe, Jane Doe, Jan Doe, Janet Doe, and Judy Doe, Individually and On Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated vs. Meritas Health Corporation and Board of Trustees of North Kansas City Hospital(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictMarch 3, 2026#WD87830
The court reversed the circuit court's grant of sovereign immunity dismissal, finding that plaintiffs' common-law claims against the hospital board could proceed. However, the court affirmed dismissal of statutory claims for computer tampering and identity theft, and remanded the case for further proceedings on the remaining claims.
Samantha Bordas, Appellant, vs. FedEx Freight, Inc. and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictSeptember 30, 2025#ED113329
Jayla Chairse, Appellant, vs. Division of Employment Security, Respondent.(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictSeptember 16, 2025#ED113189
Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, Appellant, vs. Missouri Charter Public School Commission and Missouri State Board of Education, Respondents.(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictApril 22, 2025#ED112985
MARK EDWARD HOOD, Petitioner-Appellant v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent(2024)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictDecember 17, 2024#SD38450