M.P., Respondent v. Missouri Department of Social Services, Division of Family Services, Appellant. A.W., Respondent v. Missouri Department of Social Services, Division of Family Services, Appellant. C.S., Respondent v. Missouri Department of Social Services, Division of Family Services, Appellant. F.A., Respondent v. Missouri Department of Social Services, Division of Family Services, Appellant.

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion

Case Style: M.P., Respondent v. Missouri Department of Social Services, Division of Family Services, Appellant. A.W., Respondent v. Missouri Department of Social Services, Division of Family Services, Appellant. C.S., Respondent v. Missouri Department of Social Services, Division of Family Services, Appellant. F.A., Respondent v. Missouri Department of Social Services, Division of Family Services, Appellant. Case Number: SC85834, SC85835, SC85836 and SC85837 Handdown Date: 10/26/2004 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Cole County, Hon. Richard Callahan Counsel for Appellant: Joel E. Anderson and Mark A. Gutchen Counsel for Respondent: Timothy Belz and Al W. Johnson Opinion Summary: As a result of an investigation by the division of family services, four individuals were placed on the division's "central registry," which identifies perpetrators of child abuse or neglect or both. The individuals sought review in the circuit court, which concluded there was no evidence supporting the allegations of abuse or neglect and ordered the division to remove and expunge the names from the central registry. The court also found the statutory scheme mandated by chapter 210, RSMo 2000, to be unconstitutional on its face. The division appeals only the portion of the judgment finding the chapter to be unconstitutional. No party appeals the court's orders specifically regarding the individuals and their placement on the registry. A FFIRMED IN PART; VACATED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART. Court en banc holds: (1) Because no party appeals the court's findings that the evidence did not support allegations of abuse or neglect or the court's orders that the division remove and expunge the individuals' names from the central registry, this portion of the judgment is affirmed. (2) Several provisions of chapter 210 were changed in August 2004 when legislative changes passed during the 2004 legislative session became effective. Because the statute on which the individuals appeal has been superseded and because their names have been ordered removed and expunged from the central registry, that portion of their appeal is

moot, and the portion of the judgment pertaining to the chapter's constitutional validity is vacated. (3) The portion of the judgment assessing costs against the division is reversed. The parties do not contest that the circuit court should not have assessed such costs, and there is no authority applicable to this case that permits such costs to be assessed against the division. Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REVERSED IN PART. White, C.J., Wolff, Stith, Price, Teitelman and Limbaugh, JJ., and Blackmar, Sr.J., concur. Russell, J., not participating. Opinion: M. P., A. W., C. S., and F. A. were subject to an investigation by the division of family services. As a result of the administrative investigation, they were included in the division's "central registry," which identifies perpetrators of either child abuse or neglect or both. Upon judicial review of the administrative action, the trial court concluded there was no credible or believable evidence to support the allegations of abuse or neglect. Upon the basis of its conclusion, the court ordered the division to remove and expunge the names from the central registry. Because no party appeals this portion of the judgment, it is affirmed. In addition to seeking removal of their names from the central registry, respondents allege that the child abuse act, sections 210.110 et seq., RSMo 2000, is unconstitutional. The trial court examined the issue and found the statutory scheme mandated by chapter 210 was unconstitutional on its face. However, several provisions of chapter 210, RSMo 2000, are changed by Conference Committee Substitute for Senate Substitute for Senate Committee Substitute for House Substitute for House Committee Substitute for House Bill No. 1453, 92nd General Assembly, effective August 28, 2004. Where a new enactment supersedes the statute on which the litigants rely to define their rights, the appeal no longer represents an actual controversy, and the case is moot. Committee for Educational Equality v. State, 878 S.W.2d 446, 454 (Mo. banc 1994). Furthermore, once the court ordered the division to remove and expunge the respondents' names from the central registry, the respondents received complete relief. For these reasons, the portion of the judgment relating to the constitutional validity of chapter 210 is vacated. The trial court also assessed costs against the division. The parties do not contest that this is incorrect. The law is well

established that costs cannot be assessed against state agencies or state officials absent express statutory authority. Richardson v. State Highway & Transp. Comm'n, 863 S.W.2d 876, 882 (Mo. banc 1993). No such authority applicable to this case is found. That portion of the judgment assessing costs against the division is reversed. Judgment affirmed in part, vacated in part, and reversed in part. Separate Opinion: This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.