OTT LAW

In the Matter of: K.W. and J.W. a/k/a K.W. T.E.S. and B.J.S., Appellants, v. D.J.L., Jr., and R.D.L., Respondents.

Decision date: UnknownWD57176

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 Matter of: K.W. and J.W. a/k/a K.W. T.E.S. and B.J.S., Appellants, v. D.J.L., Jr., and R.D.L., Respondents. Case Number: WD57176 Handdown Date: 12/05/2000 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Grundy County, Hon. James T. Holcomb Counsel for Appellant: Bradley P. Grill Counsel for Respondent: N. William Phillips Opinion Summary: Foster parents of two young girls filed a petition for adoption of the girls. Grandparents then filed their own separate petition for transfer of custody and adoption of the girls. No motions to intervene were filed in the two cases. The grandparents appealed the trial court's granting of the foster parents' petition, and this Court found in a separate case handed down concurrently with this case, In the Matter of K.W. and J.S., ___ S.W.3d ___ (Mo. App. W.D. 2000) (WD 57175), that they lacked standing to appeal. They also appealed the trial court's denial of their petition for adoption, which was the subject of this appeal. DISMISSESD. Division holds: Having found that the grandparents lack standing to appeal the trial court's granting of adoption to the foster parents, the grandparents' appeal of the denial of their petition for adoption becomes moot. Citation: Opinion Author: Victor C. Howard, Judge Opinion Vote: DISMISSESD. Spinden, C.J., concurs. Holliger, J., concurs in separate opinion. Opinion: This case involves the adoption of two young girls. The girls' foster parents (hereinafter "the foster parents") filed

a petition for adoption of the girls in the Circuit Court of Grundy County, Missouri, on November 5, 1997. Their maternal grandfather and his wife, the girls' step-grandmother, (hereinafter "the grandparents") filed a petition for transfer of custody and adoption of the girls in the Circuit Court of Harrison County, Missouri, on November 12, 1997. That case was subsequently transferred to Grundy County. On March 22, 1999, the court entered a judgment granting the foster parents' petition for adoption. Then, on March 23, 1999, the court entered a judgment denying the grandparents' petition. This opinion involves the grandparents' appeal from the trial court's denial of their petition. In a separate opinion, handed down concurrently with this opinion, this court found that the grandparents lacked standing to appeal the trial court's judgment granting the foster parents' petition. In the Matter of K.W. and J.S., S.W.3d (Mo. App. W.D. 2000) (WD 57175). In accordance with that decision, we find that the grandparents' points on appeal in this matter are moot. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal. Mootness of Appeal In In the Matter of K.W. and J.S., supra, we dismissed the grandparents' appeal from the trial court's granting of the foster parents' petition for adoption of the girls. We found that the grandparents lacked standing to bring an appeal in the foster parents' case. Thus, this court lacked jurisdiction to hear their appeal in that case. Id. Given that the adoption of the children by the foster parents is now legally and finally binding as a result of that decision, we do not review the denial of the grandparents' petition for adoption. Even assuming, arguendo, we found that the grandparents' petition was wrongly denied, we could not reverse and remand, because the trial court's granting of the foster parents' petition is final. Having found that the grandparents lack standing to appeal the trial court's granting of adoption to the foster parents, the grandparents appeal of the denial of their petition for adoption becomes moot. Hall v. Missouri Bd. of Probation and Parole, 10 S.W.3d 540, 545 n.3 (Mo. App. W.D. 1999) (explaining that this court can dismiss for mootness sua sponte, because if there is not an actual and vital controversy upon which to grant relief, this court does not have jurisdiction). There remains no actual and vital controversy upon which we can grant relief. Accordingly, the grandparents' points on appeal are moot. We note, however, that we have read the record on appeal in the grandparents' case. Had we reviewed the case, our standard of review would have dictated that unless we found that the record contained no substantial evidence to support the judgment denying the grandparents' petition, that the judgment was against the weight of the evidence or that the trial court erroneously declared or misapplied the law, we would have to affirm the trial court's judgment. In re Adoption of H.M.C., 11 S.W.3d 81, 86 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000). The record revealed no reversible error in the trial court's judgment denying the grandparents' petition for adoption.

Conclusion The grandparents' appeal from the judgment denying their petition for adoption is moot. Thus, we dismiss the appeal. Separate Opinion:

Concurring Opinion by Judge Holliger: I concur in the result but write separately to emphasize the potential

problems created when competing adoption petitions are not consolidated or the respective parties do not obtain intervention in the competing actions. The reasons for my concern are more fully expressed in my concurrence to the companion decision handed down simultaneously In the Matter of K.W. and J.S., ___ S.W.3d ___ (Mo. App. 2000) (WD 57175). 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

affirmed
family-lawmajority5,654 words

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

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

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

reversed

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

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