In the Matter of: K.S. and L.S., Plaintiffs/Appellants, vs. J.D., Minor Child, D.D. and M.C., Defendants/Respondents.
Decision date: April 16, 2013ED99115
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
IN THE MATTER OF: ) No. ED99115 K.S. AND L.S. ) ) Plaintiffs/Appellants, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court of ) Warren County vs. ) ) Honorable Thomas Frawley J.D., MINOR CHILD, D.D. AND M.C. ) ) Defendants/Respondents. ) Filed: April 16, 2013
K.S. ("Father") appeals pro se from the trial court's judgment ordering him, as the biological father, to pay his portion of the birthing, medical expenses, care, and maintenance for the minor child J.D. ("Child") to D.D. ("Mother") pursuant to Section 452.340.1 RSMo 2000. Father contends the trial court erred in awarding Mother $36,450 because the evidence was insufficient to support an award for costs incurred and expended in caring for the child and the court abused its discretion in awarding this amount to Mother. We dismiss the appeal for lack of an adequate record. Pursuant to Rule 81.12, the appellant has the duty to order the transcript and compile the record on appeal for the reviewing court to determine the questions presented; without the required documents, this Court has nothing to review. State v. Unganisha, 253 S.W.3d 108, 109 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008); D.B. v. D.H., 348 S.W.3d 179, 180 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011) (citing Davis v. Davis, 222 S.W.3d 335, 336 (Mo. App. W.D.
2 2007)); Rule 81.12(a), (c) 20. 1 Pro se litigants must meet the same standards as attorneys, including compliance with the rules of procedure. State v. Logan, 46 S.W.3d 590, 591 (Mo. App. E.D. 2001). Failure to comply with the rules of procedure is grounds for dismissal. Id. Here Father has failed to provide this Court with a transcript of the hearing, leaving the record on appeal incomplete. Nor does he claim the trial court failed to make a record of the hearing. Cf . Vogel v. Dir. of Revenue, 804 S.W.2d 432 (Mo. App. S.D. 1991) (circuit court's failure to make a record required remand for hearing). To review Father's claims of error we must review the record to determine whether evidence exists to support the judgment or whether the court abused its discretion. Although the court's Judgment notes that Mother testified at the hearing, without a transcript we are unable to determine what evidence was adduced, whether evidence adduced would support the judgment or whether the trial court erred in issuing a judgment that was contrary to the weight of the evidence. A transcript is necessary to adjudicate the merits of Father's points on appeal. In the absence of the required transcript, there is nothing for us to review because we are unable to determine whether the trial court erred. The appeal is dismissed.
_______________________________ Lisa S. Van Amburg, Judge
Kathianne Knaup Crane, P.J. and Mary K. Hoff, J., Concur.
1 All references are to Missouri Supreme Court Rules 2012.
Related Opinions
Rodney Lee Lincoln, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.(2014)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictDecember 2, 2104#ED100987
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. James McGregory, Appellant.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictMarch 10, 2026#ED113080
McGregory appealed his convictions for domestic assault in the third degree and property damage in the second degree, raising unpreserved claims of error regarding evidence admissibility and the Crime Victims' Compensation Fund judgment amount. The court affirmed the convictions but modified the CVC judgment amount, finding the trial court entered a judgment in excess of that authorized by law.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. RUSSELL KENNETH CLANCY, Appellant(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictFebruary 25, 2026#SD38782
The court affirmed Clancy's conviction for second-degree assault against a special victim after a jury trial. The evidence was sufficient to prove that Clancy punched an elderly civilian in the face and struck a police officer during an altercation at a laundromat, supporting the conviction under Missouri statute § 565.052.3.
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. James Willis Peters, Appellant.(2026)
Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101218
James Willis Peters appealed his conviction for driving while intoxicated as a chronic offender, challenging whether the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that all four of his prior offenses were intoxication-related traffic offenses. The court found the state failed to sufficiently prove his 2002 offense was an IRTO and therefore vacated the judgment and remanded for resentencing.
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Deandre D. Walton, Appellant.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 17, 2026#ED112976
Appellant Deandre Walton appealed his convictions for two counts of first-degree murder, two counts of armed criminal action, and unlawful possession of a firearm, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements and admitting evidence of his statements at trial. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, finding no error in the trial court's denial of the suppression motion.