Section 21 Jurisdictionand Proof

• Library: Juvenile Law 2011

The juvenile or family court has exclusive original jurisdiction
in child neglect proceedings. Section 211.031.1(1)(a), RSMo Supp. 2010. Only the juvenile officer may file a neglect petition under
this section. See, e.g., State ex rel. Dubinsky v. Weinstein, 413 S.W.2d 178, 182 (Mo. banc 1967). The court’s neglect finding “need not be based on direct evidence”; the court may draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence and may base its finding on these inferences. In re D.D.H., 875 S.W.2d 184, 186 (Mo. App. S.D. 1994). “[T]he paramount consideration is the welfare of the child.” In re N.B., 64 S.W.3d 907, 915 (Mo. App. S.D. 2002); cf. §§ 1.092 and 211.011, RSMo 2000 (“The child welfare policy of this state is what is in the best interests of the child.”).

Caselaw yields a number of operative principles. In light of its child protective purpose, neglect jurisdiction attaches even in the absence of an allegation that the child has been, or is likely to be, directly harmed; reasonable belief that circumstances might cause harm sustains jurisdiction. See, e.g., In re K.H., 652 S.W.2d 166, 166 (Mo. App. E.D. 1983). “[T]he state need not wait until an unfortunate incident occurs to find a parent poses a risk of harm to his or her child.” T.J. v. Mo. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., Children’s Div., 305 S.W.3d 469, 475 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010).

The juvenile or family court may exercise neglect jurisdiction even without finding that a dangerous situation presently exists. “When faced with a potentially harmful situation, the juvenile court need not wait until harm is done before it can act.” B.T.O. v. M.O., 91 S.W.3d 745, 749 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002) (neglect was found when the mother, using methamphetamines, left her child with others for weeks at a time, visiting the child only sporadically, and collected Aid to Families with Dependent Children payments that she did...