IN THE INTEREST OF GREENE COUNTY JUVENILE OFFICE v. W.D.P., Appellant. (2026)

W.D.P. (“Father”) appeals from a judgment terminating his parental rights in and to L.M.M. (“the Child”) on the grounds of parental unfitness (section 211.447.5(5)(a)), abuse and neglect (section 211.447.5(2)), and failure to rectify (section 211.447.5(3)).¹ Father solely contends the trial court erred in finding termination to be in the Child's best interest. We affirm.

Background

When the Child was 14-years-old she came under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court primarily due to allegations of Father's (1) failure to protect her from sexual abuse, (2) substance abuse; and (3) educational neglect. A reunification plan was developed and Father did not successfully participate in the plan. The Juvenile Office filed a petition to terminate Father's parental rights. The Child's natural mother consented to the termination of her parental rights and Father proceeded to trial.

At trial, testimony was received from the Child's counselor, Jenny Cooper, (“the counselor”) who recounted the Child disclosed that her paternal grandfather had sexually abused her more than once. The counselor and the Child called Father and advised him of the abuse. He did not believe the Child and said she was lying. The counselor testified Father did not exhibit any compassion for the Child. After the call the Child did not want to have any contact with Father. The counselor opined the Child did not view herself as having a parent-child relationship with Father.

The counselor also testified regarding the Child's educational history. The Child had not attended school since the fourth grade. She had some home-schooling, but no formal curriculum. After coming into care, she was placed in special education classes to achieve grade level proficiency. Also, while in care the Child developed a painful cyst and was scheduled for surgery. Father refused to consent to the procedure unless he could be present for the surgery. The Child did not want Father there and at the time of trial her condition remained unchanged.

The case manager, Rebekah Willis (“the case manager”), testified she was unable to do home visits at Father's home because Father was unwilling. He was also unwilling to participate in drug testing, psychological assessment, or counseling. Therefore, there were no additional services that could be provided to Father, which would likely enable Father to reunify with the Child within an ascertainable period of time. The case manager confirmed the Child did not want to have contact with Father. She reported the visits stopped with Father because of his reaction to the Child's disclosures about her grandfather's sexual abuse. Other than establishing a residence, Father did not make any progress toward reunification.

Father served as his own counsel at trial and was questioned by the trial court. When asked, “[w]hat have you done with your treatment plan,” Father responded, “[n]othing,” further stating “[b]ecause I didn't do nothing wrong.”

The Child's guardian ad item recommended termination of Father's parental rights.

The trial court issued a judgment making extensive factual findings and made findings on all the required factors pursuant to section 211.447.7. In summary, the trial court found the bond between Father and the Child was broken; Father inconsistently visited the Child, and did not write or send any letters; Father initially provided some financial support, but has since stopped all in-kind support; Father has not participated in any services, and there is no indication this would be changed by offering additional services; Father demonstrated a disinterest or lack of commitment to the Child when he failed to believe her and protect her from her abuser; Father had no prior felony convictions of a nature that would deprive the Child of a stable home; and Father deliberately exposed the Child to the home of her grandfather, a man accused of abusing children, and the Child was abused.

The trial court concluded that termination of his parental rights would be in the best interest of the Child and entered judgment. This appeal followed.

Standard of Review

The standard of review on appeal for a trial court's best interest finding is abuse of discretion. J.A.R. v. D.G.R., 426 S.W.3d 624, 632 (Mo. banc 2014). “A [trial] court abuses its discretion when a ruling is clearly against the logic of the circumstances then before it and is so arbitrary and unreasonable as to shock the sense of justice and indicate a lack of careful consideration.” Interest of D.N.D., 646 S.W.3d 748, 751 (Mo.App. 2022).

Discussion

Father argues the trial court abused its discretion in finding that the facts, as applied to the factors in section 211.447.7, supported the termination of his parental rights. Notably, Father does not argue against the statutory grounds supporting termination. He only appeals the trial court's finding it was in the best interest of the Child that his rights be terminated. In his abuse-of-discretion claim against the trial court's best interest finding he asks us to reweigh the evidence considered by the trial court.

When reviewing the record in an against-the-weight-of-the-evidence challenge, this Court defers to the [trial] court's findings of fact when the factual issues are contested and when the facts as found by the [trial] court depend on credibility determinations. A [trial] court's judgment is against the weight of the evidence only if the [trial] court could not have reasonably found, from the record at trial, the existence of a fact that is necessary to sustain the judgment. When the evidence poses two reasonable but different inferences, this Court is obligated to defer to the trial court's assessment of the evidence. This Court rarely has reversed a trial judgment as against the weight of the evidence.

Int. of D.N.D., 646 S.W.3d at 751–52.

There was ample evidence before the trial court to support the termination of Father's parental rights. Testimony at trial revealed Father knowingly exposed the Child to her grandfather who had a history of abusing other children, which resulted in the Child being abused. When the Child disclosed this abuse, Father did not believe her. Testimony at trial also revealed Father refused to complete any services offered to him by the case workers. Father refused to consent to the Child's medical procedure unless he could be present, which resulted in increased suffering for the Child. The Child continues to desire no contact with Father, and there is no likelihood she would want to be reunified with him. At best, Father's contentions on appeal merely dispute witnesses’ testimony and the trial court's weighing of evidence.

“A cogent and cognizable against-the-weight-of-the-evidence argument requires, among other steps, that the appellant identify the evidence in the record contrary to the belief of the challenged factual proposition, resolving all conflicts in testimony in accordance with the trial court's credibility determinations, whether explicit or implicit.” D.N.D., 646 S.W.3d at 753 (Mo.App. 2022) (internal quotation marks and italics omitted). “This Court defers on credibility determinations when reviewing an against-the-weight-of-the-evidence challenge because the [trial] court is in a better position to weigh the contested and conflicting evidence in the context of the whole case.” Adoption of K.M.W., 516 S.W.3d 375, 383 (Mo.App. 2017). Father fails to identify any contrary evidence supported by the record, and only disputes the testimony of other witnesses at trial. Because Father has failed to carry his burden that the trial court's best interest determination was against the weight of the evidence, we find no error in the trial court's judgment.

Conclusion

Father's point relied on is denied and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   All statutory references are to RSMo Cum. Supp. (2021).

BECKY J. WEST, J. – OPINION AUTHOR

JENNIFER R. GROWCOCK, C.J. – CONCURS JACK A. L. GOODMAN, J. – CONCURS