Ott Law Firm

IN THE INTEREST OF L.A.M.M. Minor GREENE COUNTY JUVENILE OFFICE, Respondent vs. C.M.M., Appellant

Decision date: June 7, 2022SD37486

Judges

Trial Court Judge
Calvin R

Disposition

Reversed

Procedural posture: Appeal from judgment terminating parental rights

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.

Related Legal Help

Researching a similar family law issue?

This archive page is for legal research. For a practical overview of claims, deadlines, evidence, and next steps, start with the related practice page.

Opinion

IN THE INTEREST OF L.A.M.M., ) ) MINOR, ) ) GREENE COUNTY JUVENILE OFFICE, ) ) Respondent, ) ) vs. ) No. SD37486 ) C.M.M., ) ) Filed: June 7, 2022 Appellant. )

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GREENE COUNTY

Honorable Calvin R. Holden, Judge

REVERSED AND REMANDED

C.M.M. ("Mother") appeals from the judgment terminating her parental rights entered February 15, 2022. Although a transcript was filed with the Court on June 2, 2022, a significant portion thereof was missing. A certified transcriptionist with the Office of State Courts Administrator stated that the sound recording equipment malfunctioned for a period of nearly 90 minutes during trial. Both parties assert that a reversal and remand is required under such circumstances, and we agree. "Because it is unclear what evidence the trial court had before it, this [C]ourt may not speculate on the evidentiary basis for the trial court's decision." Johnson v.

2

Director of Revenue, 237 S.W.3d 291, 291 (Mo. App. S.D. 2007). Moreover, "[a]n appealing party is entitled to a full and complete transcript for the appellate court's review." Mandacina v. Pompey, 634 S.W.3d 631, 645 (Mo. App. W.D. 2021) (quoting State v. Middleton, 995 S.W.2d 443, 466 (Mo. banc 1999)). "Where a party is free from fault or negligence, has exercised due diligence in seeking to prepare the record on appeal, and his right of appeal is prejudiced because a transcript of the proceedings in the trial court cannot be prepared, a new trial should be granted." Jackson v. Director of Revenue, 60 S.W.3d 707, 708 (Mo. App. S.D. 2001) (quoting Dykes v. McNeill, 735 S.W.2d 213, 213-14 (Mo. App. S.D. 1987)); see also, In re A.J.M., 158 S.W.3d 866, 867 (Mo. App. S.D. 2005). "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. E.D. 2005) (quoting Oyler v. Director of Revenue, 10 S.W.3d 226, 228 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000)). Conclusion The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial on the record. MARY W. SHEFFIELD, C.J. – OPINION AUTHOR DON E. BURRELL, J. – CONCURS JENNIFER R. GROWCOCK, J. – CONCURS

Authorities Cited

Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.

Cases

Holdings

Issue-specific holdings extracted from the court's opinion.

AI-generated
  1. Issue: Whether a new trial is required when a significant portion of the trial transcript is missing due to equipment malfunction, preventing appellate review of the evidentiary basis for the trial court's decision.

    Yes; when a party is free from fault or negligence and the right of appeal is prejudiced because a transcript cannot be prepared, a new trial should be granted, and the appropriate remedy is to reverse and remand.

Related Opinions

Cases sharing legal topics and authorities with this opinion.

L.J.F. vs. J.F.G.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictMarch 10, 2026#WD87987

affirmed

The court affirmed the circuit court's renewal of a full order of protection against Father, which was made effective for his lifetime. The order prohibits Father from communicating with or coming within 100 feet of Mother, except for communications concerning their shared child, based on findings that Father engaged in stalking, harassment, and coercion that posed a serious danger to Mother's physical or mental health.

Family Lawper_curiam4,882 words
Read opinion

In re the Marriage of: Stacey L. Noble vs. Bradford R. Noble(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictFebruary 24, 2026#WD87485

affirmed

Wife appealed the trial court's dissolution judgment, challenging the court's failure to provide a remedy after independent investigation of facts, the use of normalized income to determine husband's maintenance obligation, and the finding that husband lacked ability to pay maintenance. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment in all respects.

Family Lawmajority8,056 words
Read opinion

The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's grant of third-party visitation to Smith under section 452.375.5(5)(a), holding that this statute does not create an independent cause of action for third-party visitation when custody is not at issue. The court determined that Smith lacked standing to seek visitation rights after Martinez was granted full parental rights through adoption.

Family Lawper_curiam3,296 words
Read opinion

State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Gerald R. Nytes, Appellant.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 17, 2026#ED113261

affirmed

Gerald Nytes appealed his conviction for violating a full order of protection, arguing the State failed to prove he had notice of the order as required by statute. The court affirmed, finding sufficient evidence of notice based on Nytes's presence at the contested order of protection hearing and his subsequent violation through phone calls made from jail to the protected party.

Criminal Lawper_curiam1,603 words
Read opinion

M.D.M, Appellant, v. A.W.S., Respondent.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 10, 2026#ED113141

affirmed

The court affirmed the circuit court's child custody and support judgment, rejecting Father's six points of error regarding the Form 14 calculations, denial of Line 11 credit despite equal visitation time, disproportionate attorney's and GAL fees, and exclusion of testimony on equitable abatement. The appellate court found that Father failed to meet the required analytical standards for challenging the judgment and that the circuit court properly exercised its discretion in denying the Line 11 credit and ruling against equitable abatement.

Family Lawmajority3,425 words
Read opinion