WAYNE COUNTY JUVENILE OFFICE v. S.J.K., Respondent-Appellant. (2026)

S.J.K., Natural Father (“Father”), appeals the Circuit Court of Wayne County, Missouri's (“trial court's”) judgment terminating his parental rights in, to, and over his child, K.O.K. (“Child”), on the grounds of abuse or neglect, failure to rectify, and parental unfitness. See § 211.447.5(2), (3), (5), RSMo Cum. Supp. 2021. In one point on appeal, Father argues that the trial court erred in terminating his rights pursuant to § 211.447.5(3) – failure to rectify – because the Missouri Department of Social Services, Children's Division (“Children's Division”) failed to assist him with reunification with Child and failed to provide him with services. We disagree and affirm the judgment.

Factual Background and Procedural History

Father is the biological father of Child, a male child born on March 9, 2022. At the time of trial in this case, Child had been in the legal and physical custody of the Children's Division since March 11, 2022, two days after his birth. At the time of Child's birth, his siblings were already under the jurisdiction of the Children's Division due to unsafe living conditions in the home and Father's and natural mother's (“Mother's”) drug use.¹ At Child's birth, Father and Mother were not making significant progress in their social service plan, and the Children's Division determined it was not safe to allow Child to be released into their care.

Father had two different case workers during the pendency of his case: Catherine Desanto (“Desanto”) and Melinda Davis (“Davis”). Davis testified at trial that Father did not keep in contact with her and frequently changed phones without providing his new contact information. Desanto testified that Father maintained regular communication up until the last couple of months. Once Child was born, Desanto added Child to the social service plan with Father that had been developed for Child's siblings. That plan required, in part, that Father complete a psychological evaluation and parenting classes, complete a drug assessment and follow the recommendations, attend visits with Child, attend court hearings and conferences, attend family support team meetings in person, and attend an anger management course. Davis created a new plan for Father in 2024, which required him to complete the services previously made available to him, go to individual therapy, and have another psychological evaluation.

After hearing the evidence in the case,² the trial court determined that Father suffered from a chemical dependency that prevented him from consistently providing the necessary care, custody, and control of Child. Father had tested positive for methamphetamine (“meth”) on October 24, 2022. Due to the positive drug test, the Children's Division requested that Father complete drug testing and participate in random drug screens. While Father participated in some of the requested drug screens (with either positive results for marijuana only or negative for all substances), he failed to report for several of them, which is considered an automatic fail under the rules of the Children's Division. Father completed the requested substance abuse evaluation but did not follow through with the recommended outpatient treatment. Aside from stints in and out of various drug treatment programs from 2022 to 2024, which were ordered to be completed in a separate criminal case,³ Father did not participate in any other drug treatment programs related to this case. Father tested positive for meth again on March 25, 2025.

The Children's Division also requested that Father complete an anger management course because of ongoing issues between he and Mother, but Father failed to complete the course. The Children's Division further recommended that Father go to therapy and have a psychological evaluation before Child was returned. While Father did attend treatment and counseling services through Southeast Missouri Behavioral Health, he was discharged in 2023 for noncompliance before he resumed treatment again in February 2024.

Father also failed to maintain a stable residence. During the pendency of the case, he initially lived in a home where he used marijuana, and knives and uncovered electrical box fixtures were accessible to children in the home. Father then moved to an apartment but failed to provide the address to the Children's Division; Mother ultimately provided the Children's Division with the address. While Father was living in a clean and appropriate house at the time of the trial, Desanto testified that Father was not living there under his own lease and could therefore lose it at any time. Father also had safety concerns for the neighborhood where he lived and had a friend watch over his home while he was gone.

Father visited Child only sporadically during the case and ceased visits around October of 2023. Father provided diapers, wipes, and formula for Child, but he did not provide monetary support.

After hearing all the evidence, the trial court terminated Father's rights on the grounds of abuse or neglect, parental unfitness, and failure to rectify. Father appeals.

Analysis

In one point on appeal, Father argues that the trial court erroneously declared or applied the law in terminating his parental rights pursuant to § 211.447.5(3) and finding that he failed to rectify for a period in excess of one year the conditions which led to the assumption of jurisdiction, and also finding that there is little likelihood that those conditions will be remedied in the future, because the Children's Division failed to assist him with reunification and failed to provide him with services.⁴ We disagree.

Standard of Review

This Court will affirm a trial court's decision to terminate parental rights unless no substantial evidence supports the decision, the decision is against the weight of the evidence, or the trial court erroneously declares or applies the law. S.L.C. v. M.A.C., 675 S.W.3d 758, 760 (Mo. App. S.D. 2023) (citing Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976)).

Termination of parental rights is a two-step procedure pursuant to § 211.447.6. Id. First, there must be clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that one or more statutory grounds for termination exist. Id. Once the first step is satisfied, the second step requires a preponderance of the evidence determination that termination of parental rights is in the child's best interests. Id. (citing Int. of K.A.M.L., 644 S.W.3d 14, 20 (Mo. App. E.D. 2022)). We review this determination for an abuse of discretion. Id. We view conflicting evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, and we defer to the trial court's credibility determinations. Id. at 760-61.

Discussion

In Missouri, a trial court may terminate parental rights on the grounds of failure to rectify when it finds by clear and convincing evidence that:

(3) The child has been under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court for a period of one year, and the court finds that the conditions which led to the assumption of jurisdiction still persist, or conditions of a potentially harmful nature continue to exist, that there is little likelihood that those conditions will be remedied at an early date so that the child can be returned to the parent in the near future, or the continuation of the parent-child relationship greatly diminishes the child's prospects for early integration into a stable and permanent home. In determining whether to terminate parental rights under this subdivision, the court shall consider and make findings on the following:

(a) The terms of a social service plan entered into by the parent and the division and the extent to which the parties have made progress in complying with those terms;

(b) The success or failure of the efforts of the juvenile officer, the division or other agency to aid the parent on a continuing basis in adjusting his circumstances or conduct to provide a proper home for the child;

(c) A mental condition which is shown by competent evidence either to be permanent or such that there is no reasonable likelihood that the condition can be reversed and which renders the parent unable to knowingly provide the child the necessary care, custody and control;

(d) Chemical dependency which prevents the parent from consistently providing the necessary care, custody and control over the child and which cannot be treated so as to enable the parent to consistently provide such care, custody and control[.]

Section 211.447.5(3).

The trial court must consider and make findings on subsections (a) through (d), though the factors themselves are not separate grounds but rather categories of evidence, and evidence supporting just one of these four factors is sufficient to terminate parental rights. Int. of S.R.W., 717 S.W.3d 373, 383-84 (Mo. App. E.D. 2025).

We first note that Father's point only challenges the trial court's termination of his rights pursuant to § 211.447.5(3). The trial court terminated Father's parental rights on two additional grounds – abuse or neglect and parental unfitness – both of which Father has failed to challenge on appeal. Father's failure to challenge those two additional bases for termination is fatal to his appeal. See Int. of H.P., 738 S.W.3d 132, 135 (Mo. App. S.D. 2026) (mother's failure to challenge the statutory bases relied on by the trial court in terminating her parental rights was fatal to her appeal); Int. of M.C., 717 S.W.3d 770, 774 (Mo. App. W.D. 2025) (quoting Int. of C.E.A., 646 S.W.3d 419, 429 (Mo. App. S.D. 2022) (“[I]f an appellant fails to challenge each of the ․ grounds [for termination of parental rights] found by the trial court, it is unnecessary for the appellate court to address the specific ground[s] that [are] challenged.”).

Furthermore, Father's arguments with respect to § 211.447.5(3) – that the Children's Division failed in its duties to assist Father in reunification with Child and failed to offer Father the necessary services to aid his reunification with Child – are of no avail. The Children's Division must make reasonable efforts to reunify Child with Father and to fulfill its responsibility under the court-ordered service plan. Int. of A.O.B., 666 S.W.3d 295, 303 (Mo. App. E.D. 2023). Father's argument fails to consider that the trial court found that the Children's Division had been working with Father since 2019, and Father had failed to take advantage of any services that the Children's Division had to offer to change his circumstances. At the time of trial in this case in April of 2025, Father had tested positive for meth one month prior, failed to maintain a stable residence, and failed to follow through with the recommendations of his psychological evaluation and drug and alcohol assessment. The trial court did not misapply the law when it concluded that Father had failed to achieve progress towards completing his social service plan despite the Children's Division's reasonable efforts and that he had not corrected the issues that brought Child or his siblings into care. See S.R.W., 717 S.W.3d at 385 (finding sufficient evidence to terminate father's rights on failure to rectify where father had failed to achieve progress towards completion of his social-service plan and a dangerous condition was left uncorrected as a result).

Furthermore, the trial court also found Father had limited participation in his social service plan under subsection (a) and suffered from a chemical dependency under subsection (d), as Father had again tested positive for meth in March of 2025.⁵ Given that evidence supporting just one factor is sufficient to terminate parental rights under the failure to rectify portion of the statute, K.A.M.L., 644 S.W.3d at 23, the trial court did not err in terminating Father's parental rights on that ground. For multiple reasons discussed herein, Father's point is denied, and the trial court's judgment is affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Mother executed a consent to the termination of her parental rights on November 7, 2023, and the trial court subsequently entered its judgment terminating Mother's parental rights on April 26, 2024; therefore, her parental rights are not at issue in this appeal.

2.   The trial court initially entered its judgment terminating Father's parental rights on April 26, 2024. However, the trial court set that judgment aside on August 28, 2024, and held a second trial – the trial at issue in this appeal – in April 2025. That second trial resulted in the judgment at issue which terminated Father's parental rights on the three enumerated grounds.

3.   Father testified related to the criminal case that he chose to hide from his legal issues to avoid an outstanding warrant for his arrest instead of taking care of the warrant and working services to get Child returned to his care. Instead, he stopped going to court, would not allow the Children's Division in the home, and stopped participating in services.

4.   Father's point alleges two bases for error and is therefore multifarious and in violation of Rule 84.04(d). Int. of E.B.R. v. E.R., 503 S.W.3d 277, 281 n.4 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016). While this Court generally will not review a multifarious point, we may relax the requirements in cases relating to children's welfare if we can ascertain the issues being raised. Id. We elect to do so here.

5.   The trial court did not find any evidence that Father suffered from a mental condition under subsection (c).

JENNIFER R. GROWCOCK, J. – OPINION AUTHOR

JEFFREY W. BATES, J. – CONCURS JOSEPH L. HENSLEY, J. – CONCURS