In the Interest of M. W.
Decision date: UnknownWD56401
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
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion Missouri Court of Appeals Western District Case Style: In the Interest of M. W. Case Number: WD56401 Handdown Date: 01/04/2000 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Jackson County, Hon. Jay A. Daugherty, Judge Counsel for Appellant: Dennis Owens Counsel for Respondent: Katherine Rodgers and Dale Nathan Godfrey Opinion Summary: K. W. appeals the circuit court's judgment terminating her rights to parent her daughter, M. W. DISMISSED. Division holds: K. W.'s failure to submit a transcript prevents the court from determining whether K. W.'s four evidentiary arguments have any merit and whether the circuit court's findings are supported by "clear, cogent and convincing evidence." Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: Spinden, P.J., Lowenstein and Ulrich, JJ., concur. Opinion:
PER CURIAM
K. W. appeals the circuit court's judgment terminating her rights to parent her daughter, M. W. She avers four points in contending that the circuit court erred in terminating her parental rights: (1) "the evidence in support of termination was distorted by the monitoring process itself and the mother's lack of opportunity to bond with her child;" (2) the circuit court "implicitly presum[ed] that [K. W.] was guilty of the murder of her child even though she was neither
charged with nor convicted of any crime;" (3) the circuit court did not address M. W.'s best interests in that it "failed to determine whether [K. W.] could provide [M. W.] with a happy, loving, permanent home;" and (4) the circuit court "ignored evidence of [K. W.'s] testimony regarding her strong desire to remain the mother of [M. W.]." The circuit court ruled: Pursuant to Section 211.447.2(6) [RSMo. Supp. 1998,] the Court finds by clear, cogent and convincing evidence that [K. W.] is unfit to be a party to the parent and child relationship. [K. W.] has committed a specific abuse, child abuse, or drug abuse before the child or has subjected the child to specific conditions which directly relate to the parent and child relationship which renders the parent unable, for the reasonably foreseeable future, to care appropriately for the ongoing physical, mental or emotional needs of the child. [K. W.'s] parental rights to one or more other children were involuntarily terminated within the past three years under Section 211.447 or under the similar law in another state. Specifically, [K. W.'s] parental rights to three other children were terminated by this court in Cause Number TR96-00099, In the Interest of [S. W.], Cause Number TR96-00098, In the Interest of [T. W.], and in Cause Number TR95-00145, In the Interest of [D. W.], on May 9, 1997. The Court further finds by clear, cogent and convincing evidence the following factors as specified in Section 211.447.3 RSMo.:
- No additional services would be likely to bring about lasting parental adjustment enabling a
return of the child to the parent within an ascertainable period of time. The Court further finds by clear, cogent and convincing evidence that it is in the best interests of the child, [M. W.], that all parental rights of [K. W.] . . . in, to and over the child, [M. W.], be terminated. Because no transcript has been filed in this case, we have no means for determining whether these findings of fact are supported by "clear, cogent and convincing" evidence, and we have no means for determining whether the matters of evidence raised by K. W. in her points relied on have any merit. The burden was on K. W. to compile and to file a transcript--Rule 81.12(c) and (d)--and she did not do so. Having no means for reviewing her claims on appeal, we dismiss her appeal. Faith Baptist Church of Berkeley, Inc. v. Heffner, 956 S.W.2d 425, 426 (Mo. App. 1997). Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
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