Background
R.P.’s child entered protective custody in February 2024 after attending only 11 full days and 25 partial days out of 98 school days, despite services offered to address the attendance problem. The juvenile court placed the child in the Missouri Children’s Division’s custody and ordered R.P. to meet requirements concerning financial support, housing, employment, visitation, drug testing, psychological evaluation, parenting education, and therapy.
After a three-day bench trial, the circuit court terminated R.P.’s parental rights on three statutory grounds: abuse or neglect, failure to rectify, and parental unfitness. It also found termination to be in the child’s best interests. R.P. appealed, challenging the evidentiary support for the statutory grounds and the best-interests determination.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. Although R.P.’s briefing did not properly develop her substantial-evidence challenges under Missouri appellate standards, the court exercised its discretion to reach the merits because termination of parental rights is an exceptionally serious judicial act.
The court held that substantial evidence supported termination for failure to rectify. R.P. failed to challenge independent findings concerning her failure to adjust her circumstances and her chemical dependency, and the record also showed that she had not made meaningful progress on most court-ordered services. Evidence included her failure to pay support, establish stable housing and verifiable employment, complete required drug testing, install a drug patch, finish parenting education, verify individual therapy, and meaningfully engage with the child during visits. Because one statutory ground was sufficient, the court did not address the other termination grounds.
The court also found no abuse of discretion in the determination that termination served the child’s best interests. Evidence supported findings that the child did not view R.P. as a parental figure, visits involved little interaction beyond using a tablet, R.P. paid no court-ordered support, and further services were unlikely to produce lasting parental adjustment within an ascertainable time.
Key Takeaways
- An appellate challenge asserting that a termination judgment lacks substantial evidence must identify the necessary factual proposition, acknowledge all favorable evidence, and explain why that evidence lacks sufficient probative force.
- Only one proven statutory ground is necessary to affirm termination of parental rights when termination is also in the child’s best interests.
- Regular attendance at hearings and visits did not outweigh R.P.’s failure to make meaningful progress on services designed to permit reunification.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that partial participation is not necessarily meaningful progress toward reunification. Courts may consider whether a parent has addressed the underlying conditions, complied with services, demonstrated stability and sobriety, and used visitation to sustain a genuine parental relationship.
It also warns appellate counsel that deficient briefing can forfeit substantial-evidence challenges, even though courts may sometimes review the merits because of the fundamental rights at stake in termination proceedings.