IN THE INTEREST OF: B.P., JUVENILE OFFICER, vs. H.P.(MOTHER)

This is an ongoing juvenile case. It began in October 2016 when the Juvenile Officer filed

a delinquency petition alleging that twelve-year-old B.P. committed the class D felony of

tampering with a motor vehicle and the class B misdemeanor of property damage. An adjudication

and disposition hearing was held in January 2017, and B.P. admitted the allegations. The circuit

2



court entered judgment assuming jurisdiction over B.P. pursuant to section 211.031.1,1 making

B.P. a ward of the court, placing him in the custody of Mother under the supervision of Mother

and the Juvenile Officer, placing him on formal probation, and ordering B.P. to abide by the special

conditions of intensive supervision services, community service, and counseling as arranged by

his parents.

In March 2017, the Juvenile Officer filed a motion to modify the order of disposition

alleging that B.P. committed the class B misdemeanor of property damage in January 2017. The

Juvenile Officer further alleged neglect and failure to support by Mother. Specifically, it alleged

that Mother is unable to provide proper supervision as B.P. repeatedly absconds from home for

extended periods of time, Mother refuses to assist Juvenile Officer or law enforcement when B.P.

absconds from home, Mother has been unable to provide counseling for B.P. as ordered by the

court, Mother has failed to follow through with proper procedures for homeschooling, and Mother

has failed to report the child as a runaway on multiple occasions. The circuit court entered an

order of protective custody ordering B.P. immediately delivered to the legal and physical custody

of the Children’s Division with visitation to Mother as agreed by the Children’s Division, the

Guardian Ad Litem, and the Juvenile Officer.

An adjudication and disposition hearing was held the next month. Following the hearing,

the circuit court entered judgment on April 21, 2017, finding that all of the allegations regarding

Mother in the motion to modify were proven by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence and

assuming jurisdiction over B.P. pursuant to section 211.031.1(1) and making him a ward of the

court. It placed B.P. in the legal and physical custody of the Children’s Division with the

conditions that the Children’s Division provides efforts toward reunification and visitation with

1 All statutory references are to RSMo 2016 as updated by the 2017 Supplement.

3



Mother as agreed by the Children’s Division, Guardian Ad Litem, and Juvenile Officer. Mother

filed a motion to reconsider the judgment six days later.

On June 13, 2017, the Juvenile Officer filed a motion to temporarily suspend contact with

Mother alleging that B.P. expressed that he doesn’t want contact with Mother, post interaction

with Mother, B.P. displays an escalation of negative behaviors, and Mother verbally expressed her

unwillingness to comply with the family support team’s written service agreement including

individual therapy and appropriate verbal interaction with B.P. On June 20, 2017, a hearing was

held on the motion to suspend contact along with the Guardian Ad Litem’ motion to change of

placement seeking immediate placement of B.P. with his father on a trial home placement. That

day, the circuit court granted the motion to temporarily suspend contact with Mother and the

motion for trial home placement with B.P.’s father pending outcome of a background check

through the Children’s Division.

The next day, June 21, 2017, Mother filed her notice of appeal appealing the April 21, 2017

judgment.

Thereafter, in three case review hearings on July 11, 2017, August 8, 2017, and September

5, 2017, the circuit court continued trial home placement of B.P. with his father in conjunction

with no contact with Mother.2

On December 5, 2017, the circuit court conducted a permanency hearing and entered an

order finding that the permanency plan is reunification. It found that B.P. remains placed in the

legal and physical custody of the Children’s Division and his father with continuation of trial home

placement with his father. The court further ordered that the Children’s Division provide efforts

2 The circuit court also denied Mother’s motion for reconsideration on July 11, 2017.

4



toward reunification and reinstated visitation with Mother as agreed by the Children’s Division,

Guardian Ad Litem, and Juvenile Officer.

Later that month, the Juvenile Officer filed a motion to modify the previous order of

disposition alleging that B.P.’s father refuses to provide proper care, custody, or control of B.P.

and has requested he be removed from his home. The circuit court entered an order of protective

custody ordering B.P. immediately delivered to the legal and physical custody of the Children’s

Division with visitation to Mother as agreed by the Children’s Division, the Guardian Ad Litem,

and the Juvenile Officer.

On January 5, 2018, Mother filed a motion for reconsideration of placement seeking

placement of B.P. with her. A hearing was held on the motion on February 6, 2018. The circuit

court ordered that B.P. is continued as a ward of the court and released him into the physical

custody of Mother. It further ordered GPS monitoring of B.P. and that Mother enroll B.P. in school

and B.P. attend school. The Juvenile Officer dismissed its December 2017 motion to modify.

On February 28, 2018, the Juvenile Officer filed a motion to modify the previous order of

disposition alleging that B.P. committed two counts of the class B misdemeanor of peace

disturbance on February 20, 2018. An adjudication hearing is scheduled for April 2018.

Point on Appeal

In her sole point on appeal, Mother contends that the circuit court erred in granting the

Juvenile Officer’s motion to temporarily suspending her contact with her son on June 20, 2017,

because substantial evidence did not support the order. Mother’s appeal, however, must be

dismissed.

Under Rule 81.04(a), a notice of appeal must specify “the judgment, decree, or order

appealed from.” See also Powell v. City of Kansas City, 472 S.W.3d 219, 229 (Mo. App. W.D.

5



2015)(discussing the previous version of the rule numbered 81.08(a)). An appellate court is

“confined to review the decision identified in the notice of appeal.” Powell, 472 S.W.3d at 229

(internal quotes and citation omitted). The notice of appeal in this case refers only to the April 21,

2017 adjudication and disposition judgment. It does not mention the June 20, 2017 order, which

clearly modified the April 21 judgment granting Mother visitation with B.P. In addition, the April

21, 2017 judgment was the only judgment or order attached to the notice of appeal. Because

Mother failed to reference the June 20, 2017 order temporarily suspending her contact with her

son in her notice of appeal or attach that order to her notice, her claim on appeal related thereto is

not properly preserved for review and, therefore, must be dismissed. Id.

Furthermore, even if Mother’s claim had properly been preserved for appellate review, it

is moot. “A cause of action is moot when the question presented for decision seeks a judgment

upon some matter which, if the judgment was rendered, would not have any practical effect upon

any then existing controversy. When an event occurs which renders a decision unnecessary, the

appeal will be dismissed.” Mo. Mun. League v. State, 465 S.W.3d 904, 906 (Mo. banc

2015)(internal quotes and citation omitted). An event rendering a decision unnecessary may occur

at any time, including on appeal. Id. “Even a case vital at inception of the appeal may be mooted

by an intervenient event which so alters the position of the parties that any judgment rendered

merely becomes a hypothetical opinion.” Id. (internal quotes and citation omitted).

As noted above, the underlying juvenile case is ongoing. Six months after Mother filed

her notice of appeal, the circuit court conducted a permanency hearing and entered an order finding

that the permanency plan is reunification. It continued the trial home placement with B.P.’s father

and reinstated visitation with Mother as agreed by the Children’s Division, Guardian Ad Litem,

and Juvenile Officer. In February of 2018, upon Mother’s motion for reconsideration of

6



placement, the circuit court released B.P. into her physical custody. At oral argument in this

appeal, the parties acknowledged that B.P. remained in Mother’s custody. Consequently,

resolution by this court of Mother’s assertion of error regarding the temporary suspension of her

contact with B.P. in June 2017 would not have any practical effect upon any existing controversy.

The issue in Mother’s point on appeal is moot, and this court will not address it.

PThe appeal is dismissed.