In the Interest of: M.H., N.H., and J.H. Juvenile Officer, Respondent, v. R.H. (Natural Mother), Appellant, M.H. (Natural Father), Defendant.

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.H., N.H., and J.H. Juvenile Officer, Respondent, v. R.H. (Natural Mother), Appellant, M.H. (Natural Father), Defendant. Case Number: 56569 Handdown Date: 02/16/1999 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Jackson County, Hon. Jay A. Daugherty Counsel for Appellant: G. Spencer Miller Counsel for Respondent: Kathleen A. Jeanetta Opinion Summary: R.H. appeals from the "judgments" of the family court commissioner finding that her children were in need of care and treatment pursuant to section 211.031 and placing them in the custody of their paternal grandmother, under the supervision of the Division of Family Services. The appellant first claims that the juvenile court erred in asserting jurisdiction over her children pursuant to section 211.031 because the statute was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. She also claims that there was insufficient evidence to support the finding of the juvenile court that her children were in need of care and treatment. DISMISSED. Division One holds: An appellate court only has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a final judgment. A final judgment requires a writing, signed by a judge, and denominated "judgment." Here, the judgment was entered by a family court commissioner, not a circuit judge. As such, there was no final judgment entered from which an appeal could be taken. The Court dismisses for lack of jursidiction. Citation: Opinion Author: Edwin H. Smith, Judge Opinion Vote: DISMISSED. Spinden, P.J., and Riederer, JJ., concur. Opinion:

R.H. (the mother) appeals from the "judgments" of the family court commissioner finding that her children, M.H., N.H. and J.H., were in need of care and treatment pursuant to section 211.031(FN1) and placing them in the custody of F.H., their paternal grandmother, under the supervision of the Division of Family Services (DFS). The appellant raises two points on appeal. In her first point, she claims that the juvenile court erred in asserting jurisdiction over her children pursuant to section 211.031 because the statute was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. In her second point, she claims that the evidence was insufficient to support the finding of the juvenile court that her children were in need of care and treatment based on her alleged failure to provide them with proper care, custody and support because the allegations were not proved by clear and convincing evidence. We dismiss for a lack of jurisdiction. Facts R.H. is the natural mother of M.H., born February 19, 1995; N.H., born March 23, 1989; and J.H., born January 30, 1996. On November 7, 1997, she was arrested, along with several other people, at the site of a suspected methamphetamine laboratory. M.H. was with her mother at the time of her arrest. On November 8, 1997, the Juvenile Officer filed a petition in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, asking the court to exercise jurisdiction over M.H. On November 18, 1997, the Juvenile Officer filed a first amended petition alleging that M.H. was in need of care and treatment for the following reasons: The child is without proper care, custody, and support in that the child's mother placed the child in a potentially life-threatening situation by taking the child into a small camper on or about November 7, 1997, which contained a methamphetamine lab, thus exposing the child to the substances used in the production of methamphetamine which are poisonous, highly inflammable, and potentially explosive. The camper belonged to the mother's paramour, [P.G.]. The mother does not have stable housing for the child and her two siblings, and the child was suffering from head lice. Further, the father has a history of drug abuse and served 29 months in prison on a drug related charge. The father was released from prison in June 1997, and is placed on home confinement until December 23, 1997. The Juvenile Officer also filed petitions asking the court to exercise jurisdiction over N.H. and J.H. alleging that the mother had placed M.H. in a potentially life-threatening situation, that M.H. and J.H. were suffering from head lice, and that N.H. had lived with his paternal grandmother since January 1997. The petitions also made identical allegations with respect to the children's father. The petitions were heard on March 17, 1998, before Family Court Commissioner John F. Payne. The mother denied the allegations of the petitions. The father admitted the allegations of the petitions and does not appeal the decision of the juvenile court. At the conclusion of the Juvenile Officer's presentation of evidence, the commissioner

determined that a prima facie showing had been made that the children were in need of care and treatment. The mother, natural father, and the court-appointed guardian ad litem declined to present any evidence. As a result, the commissioner determined that there was clear, cogent and convincing evidence to sustain the petitions. On March 18, 1998, Commissioner Payne entered his "Judgments" that the children were in need of care and treatment and ordered that they remain in the custody of F.H., under the supervision of DFS, and that the mother complete a parenting skills assessment, submit to random urinalysis, and maintain stable housing and employment for a period of at least six months as a condition precedent to reunification. On March 31, 1998, the mother filed motions as to all three petitions for rehearing before a circuit judge pursuant to Rule 127.05.(FN2) These motions were denied on April 7, 1998, by the Honorable Jay A. Daugherty. The cases were consolidated for purposes of appeal, and on May 14, 1998, the mother filed her notice of appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court pursuant to Mo. Const., art. V, section 3. However, on November 10, 1998, the Missouri Supreme Court ordered the cause transferred to this court pursuant to Mo. Const., art. V, section 11. This appeal follows. Discussion Before we can address the merits of the mother's claims, we are first required to determine, sua sponte, our appellate jurisdiction. Burch Food Servs., Inc. v. Division of Employment Sec., 945 S.W.2d 478, 481 (Mo. App. 1997). Under Rule 81.04(a), a final judgment must be entered before the right to appeal arises. City of St. Louis v. Hughes, 950 S.W.2d 850, 852-53 (Mo. banc 1997). To be a final judgment for purposes of appeal, there must be a writing that is signed by a judge and denominated a "judgment." Id. at 853; Rule 74.01. Although the orders at issue in the present case were in writing and were denominated "judgment," they were not signed by a circuit judge, but by a family court commissioner. "An appellate court does not have jurisdiction to consider an appeal from a circuit court commissioner's decision." In re J.H., 966 S.W.2d 385, 387 (Mo. App. 1998) (citing Slay v. Slay, 965 S.W.2d 845, 845 (Mo. banc 1998)). The mother did file motions as to each petition for rehearing of the findings of the commissioner before a circuit judge, which was denied. However, the denial of her motions for rehearing are not reviewable as judgments because they were not designated as such. Id. at 387 n.1. Moreover, even if they had been, it is doubtful they could be construed as a review and adoption of Commissioner Payne's decisions because they simply recite that R.H.'s motions for rehearing were denied. Id. at 387 n.1. As such, there was never a final appealable order entered below, depriving us of appellate jurisdiction. Id. at 387.

Conclusion For the reasons stated, we dismiss this appeal for a lack of jurisdiction and remand the cause to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. All concur. Footnotes: FN1.All statutory references are to RSMo 1994, unless otherwise indicated. FN2.All rule references are to the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure, unless otherwise indicated. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.