In the Interest of: P.S.A.

Springfield, Missouri family law lawyer represented the defendant in a parental termination rights case.

Following a trial, the trial court entered a judgment terminating parental rights of C.R.A. ("Father") to his child, P.S.A. ("Child"), on the grounds of parental unfitness, neglect, and failure to rectify, and determined termination was in Child's best interest.[1]The language in the trial court's judgment was identical to the language in the proposed judgment submitted by Missouri Children's Division ("CD"). Father appeals from the trial court's judgment in a single point. Father raises no issues with the trial court's determination of the statutory grounds for termination nor that termination was in the best interest of the Child. Instead, Father's sole point on appeal attacks the form of the trial court's judgment, arguing the trial court's verbatim adoption of the proposed judgment constitutes error because the trial court "did not exercise independent discretion and consideration of the evidence." This type of claim, that the form of the judgment is defective, must be raised in a post-trial motion in order to be preserved for appellate review. See Rule 78.07(c).[2] Father failed to preserve this claim as he did not raise it in a post-trial motion, so we may only review for plain error. Because Father's claim makes no facial showing of manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice, we decline to grant such review.

The judgment is affirmed.

P.S.A. v. C.R.A., SD38461 (Mo. App. Sep 06, 2024)