Case Summary for March 11, 2014

Your Missouri Courts - Supreme Court

Home

Case Summary for March 11, 2014

THE FOLLOWING DOCKET SUMMARIES ARE PREPARED BY THE COURT'S STAFF FOR THE INTEREST AND CONVENIENCE OF THE READER. THE SUMMARIES MAY NOT INCLUDE ALL ISSUES PENDING BEFORE THE COURT AND DO NOT REFLECT ANY OPINION OF THE COURT ON THE MERITS OF A CASE. COPIES OF ALL BRIEFS FILED WITH THE COURT ARE AVAILABLE AT THE SUPREME COURT BUILDING, COURT EN BANC DIVISION. SUMMARIES ARE UNOFFICIAL AND SHOULD NOT BE QUOTED OR CITED.

Attached to the following docketed cases are electronic copies of briefs filed by the parties. These electronic briefs have been converted to PDF to accommodate various word processors. If you do not already have Acrobat reader, which is necessary to open the PDFs, you may obtain it free at the Adobe website. (A set of free tools that allow visually disabled users to read documents in Adobe PDF format is available from access.adobe.com.) These briefs do not reflect any opinion of the Court about the appropriateness of the format of the briefs or the merits of the case, nor are they official court records. Copies of all briefs filed with the Court are available at the Supreme Court Building in the court en banc division.

The attachments below may not reflect all briefs filed with the Court, the complete filing or the format of the original filing. Appendices and other attachments generally will not be posted here. To see what documents have been filed in a particular case, visit Case.net.

DOCKET SUMMARIES
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI

9:30 a.m. Tuesday, March 11, 2014

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

SC93649
In the interest of: J.A.R., D.K.R., and A.E.R., children under seventeen years of age, Greene County Juvenile Office v. D.G.R.
Greene County
Termination of parental rights

Listen to the oral argument:

The father was represented during arguments by Kristoffer R. Barefield of Mann, Walter, Bishop & Sherman in Springfield, and the juvenile office was represented by Brittany O'Brien of the Greene County Juvenile Office in Springfield.

Three minor children were taken into state custody following allegations that their mother failed to properly supervise them, committed physical abuse and abused illegal substances. At the time the children were taken into custody, their biological father resided in the state of California, where he was on probation for a domestic violation against the children’s mother. The father indicated an intention to take custody and was placed on a treatment plan by the juvenile office, but his probation prevented him from leaving California. In therapy, the children indicated they did not wish to speak or meet with their father because he had disappointed them in the past. The Greene County juvenile office filed a petition to terminate the father’s parental rights, alleging he abandoned, abused and neglected his three children. The circuit court terminated the father’s rights. The father appeals.

The father argues the trial court erred in terminating his parental rights. He contends the evidence was insufficient to prove he abandoned his children or did not try to visit or communicate with them. The father asserts he sent money as parental support for the children. He argues he did not neglect the children and stayed in contact with the children, social workers, juvenile officers and guardian ad litem. The father contends that he tried to rectify the situation by following his treatment plan and that he moved to Missouri to be with the children. He asserts his social worker found him capable to parent. The father argues the circuit court’s judgment misapplies the law and is against the weight of the evidence. He contends it was not in the children’s best interest to terminate his parental rights.

The juvenile office responds the circuit court correctly terminated the father’s parental rights. It argues it provided clear, rational and convincing evidence that the father abandoned his children. The juvenile office contends there is sufficient evidence that the father abused and/or neglected his children. It asserts that the children have been in the care of the state for more than a year and that the father has failed to rectify the conditions that led to their placement. The juvenile office argues that harmful conditions exist that prevent the children from being returned to their father in the near future. It contends that terminating the father’s parental rights is in the best interest of the children.

SC93677
In the interest of: Q.A.H., juvenile officer, C.W.M. and C.D.M. v. M.H. (mother)
Jackson County
Termination of parental rights

Listen to the oral argument:

The mother was represented during arguments by Casey P. Murray of Spencer Fane Britt & Browne LLP in Kansas City, and the juvenile office was represented by James M. Smart Jr. of Kansas City.

While suffering from a mental delusion, a mother took her daughter to the hospital and the daughter was placed in state custody. The mother entered counseling and regained custody but failed to allow the father visitation and lost custody again. Following the Missouri court’s determination of custody for the daughter, the mother had a son in Kansas. The Kansas courts determined she was competent to have custody of her son, despite the Missouri court’s determination. The juvenile office then filed a petition to terminate her parental rights to her daughter, which the circuit court granted. The mother appeals.

The mother argues the circuit court erred in terminating her parental rights. She contends there was insufficient evidence for the circuit court to determine that she has a mental condition that renders her unable to care for her daughter. The mother asserts the court only considered her past behavior in determining that she had not tried to fix the problems leading to her daughter’s placement in state custody. She argues that a statement made during the biological father’s termination hearing one year prior regarding the mother’s potential for future custody evidences that the circuit court decided to terminate her parental rights at that time. The mother contends the circuit court failed to consider her current conduct and functioning at her own termination hearing. She asserts she never harmed her daughter and does not have the potential to cause future harm. The mother argues there was insufficient evidence to terminate her parental rights.

The juvenile office responds the circuit court correctly terminated the mother’s parental rights. It argues the mother cannot argue improper conduct by the circuit court in regards to the statement made at the biological father’s termination hearing because she did not raise the argument previously. The juvenile officer contends the circuit court made necessary findings regarding the mother’s current condition. It asserts there was sufficient evidence to determine the mother had the potential to cause future harm to her daughter. The juvenile office argues the circuit court acted in its discretion in choosing not to follow a Kansas court’s decision regarding the mother’s other child. It contends the mother also failed to provide financial support for her daughter while in state custody despite her ability to do so.

SC93652
State ex rel. Patrick J. O'Basuyi v. The Honorable David Lee Vincent III
St. Louis County
Motion for separate trial on counterclaims

Listen to the oral argument:

O'Basuyi was represented during arguments by Steven Koslovsky, a private practitioner in St. Louis, and the business associates were represented by R. Thomas Avery of Blitz, Bardgett & Deutsch LC in St. Louis.

Patrick O’Basuyi claims he performed consulting and campaigning work for Rodney Thomas, TriStar Property Developments and several other business associates in relation to a development in the Berkeley neighborhood of St. Louis known as North Park. The business associates sought to acquire property for an industrial development. O’Basuyi filed this action alleging the associates breached an oral contract to pay him 25-percent consideration, failed to compensate him for work and transferred property in violation of his rights as a creditor. The business associates filed counterclaims alleging O’Basuyi maliciously prosecuted the business associates in response to actions the associates successfully filed against him. O’Basuyi filed a motion for a separate trial on the counterclaims, which the circuit court overruled. O’Basuyi seeks review of the circuit court’s ruling.

O’Basuyi argues the circuit court erred in overruling his motion for a separate trial on counterclaims. He contends the circuit court exceeded its jurisdiction and abused its discretion. O’Basuyi asserts the business associates’ counterclaims cannot be considered unless the circuit court rules on his claims first. He argues a separate trial on the counterclaims is proper.

The business associates respond the circuit court correctly overruled O’Basyui’s motion for a separate trial. They argue that when one claim may be determined only after another claim has been litigated, the two claims may be joined. The business associates contend that as long as relief for the claims is granted in accordance with all parties’ substantive rights, a counterclaim is permissible. They assert the counterclaims properly were joined and the circuit court did not violate O’Basyui’s rights.

SC93706
In re: Anissa Faye Whittle Bluebaum
Christian County
Attorney discipline

Listen to the oral argument:

Disciplinary Counsel was represented during arguments by Sam S. Phillips of the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel in Jefferson City, and Bluebaum was represented by Peter Bender, a private practitioner in Springfield.

Anissa Bluebaum is an attorney with offices in Republic and Ozark consisting of herself, an associate attorney and two administrative assistants. Bluebaum held a meeting with her staff to discuss the firm’s future financial status. She then sent her staff an e-mail recommending they hang out at the courthouse and look for people who appear uncertain of the legal process and who may be representing themselves. Her secretary resigned and filed a disciplinary complaint, enclosing a copy of that e-mail. In a separate matter, Bluebaum represented a client in several cases for which he failed to pay her attorney fees. He requested his file but, after nearly five months, he still had not paid his bill or received his file. The client sued Bluebaum. Two months later, Bluebaum withdrew from the representation, and the client filed a disciplinary complaint. A disciplinary hearing panel investigated and determined that Bluebaum had violated Rules 4-1.16(d), regarding terminating or declining representation; 4-5.3, regarding responsibility to non-lawyer assistants; 4-7.3, regarding direct contact with prospective clients; and 4-8.4 (a), (c) and (d), involving misconduct. The chief disciplinary counsel asks this Court to discipline Bluebaum’s law license.

The chief disciplinary counsel argues Bluebaum violated multiple rules of professional conduct by soliciting legal business in person. The disciplinary counsel asserts she also caused others to engage in solicitation for legal business, directing non-lawyer assistants to violate the professional rules of conduct. Counsel argues Bluebaum deceived the public by directing her employees to assist people at the courthouse for the purpose of soliciting business. The disciplinary counsel contends Bluebaum also violated Rule 4-1.16(d) by failing to return a client’s file within six months. Counsel asks this Court to suspend Bluebaum’s license, stay the suspension and place her on probation, asserting this is the proper discipline because Bluebaum may be able to remedy her misconduct through probation.

Bluebaum responds that she should not be disciplined. She argues she did not violate Rule 4-7.3 because the plain language of the rule requires her to have initiated in-person solicitation. Bluebaum contends neither she nor her employees initiated in-person solicitation with any prospective clients. She asserts she did not violate the rules of professional conduct by sending her staff an e-mail encouraging them to be available, helpful and responsive to other persons at the courthouse. Bluebaum argues an e-mail communication is not equivalent to directing staff to engage in conduct that violates the rules of professional conduct. She contends her e-mail is protected speech under the Missouri and United States constitutions. Bluebaum asserts she did not violate Rule 1.16(d) because she took the proper steps to return her client’s file to him but he did not make an attempt to pick it up. She argues that if this Court determines that she has violated a rule of professional conduct, then an admonition is appropriate.

SC93743
In re: Heather R. Smith
Clay County
Attorney discipline

Note: This case was removed from the docket prior to argument.