In the Interest of: R.C., Juvenile Officer, Respondent, v. J.C. (Natural Father), Appellant.
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 Western District Case Style: In the Interest of: R.C., Juvenile Officer, Respondent, v. J.C. (Natural Father), Appellant. Case Number: 52860 Handdown Date: 02/03/1998 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Jackson County, Hon. John F. Payne Counsel for Appellant: Howard L. Lotven Counsel for Respondent: Robert M. Schieber Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Howard, P.J., Breckenridge and Hanna, J.J., concur. Opinion: ORDER J.C. (Father) appeals from the juvenile court's order sustaining a petition filed by the juvenile officer pursuant to section 211.031.1(1), RSMo 1994, alleging that the minor child, R.C. (Daughter), was without proper care, custody and support. In the petition, the juvenile officer alleged that Father sexually molested Daughter on numerous occasions and raped her once. The trial court sustained the petition and placed Daughter in the custody of her maternal grandparents. On appeal, Father contests the trial court's order on two grounds. First, he contends that the trial court erred by prohibiting him from questioning Daughter's veracity, truthfulness and motive through cross-examination. Second, Father alleges that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the petition because the only evidence to support the allegations was Daughter's testimony and there was no physical examination report or corroboration by an independent witness. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b). Separate Opinion: None
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Related Opinions
Ronald Wuebbeling, Respondent, vs. Jill Clark, f/k/a Jill Wuebbeling, Appellant.(2016)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictAugust 9, 2106#ED103501
L.J.F. vs. J.F.G.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictMarch 10, 2026#WD87987
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.
In re the Marriage of: Stacey L. Noble vs. Bradford R. Noble(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictFebruary 24, 2026#WD87485
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.
In re the matter of: A.L.P. and S.H.P., minors; Alicia Smith, Respondent, vs. Lora Martinez, Appellant.(2026)
Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101121
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.
M.D.M, Appellant, v. A.W.S., Respondent.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 10, 2026#ED113141
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.