Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 210
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 210.720 (2026)

Court-ordered custody

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

  210.720.  Court-ordered custody — written report of status required for court review, when — permanency hearing when, purpose. — 1.  In the case of a child who has been placed in the custody of the children's division in accordance with subdivision (17) of subsection 1 of section 207.020 or another authorized agency by a court or who has been placed in foster care by a court, every six months after the placement, the foster family, group home, agency, or child care institution with which the child is placed shall file with the court a written report on the status of the child.  The court shall review the report and shall hold a permanency hearing within twelve months of initial placement and at least annually thereafter.  The permanency hearing shall be for the purpose of determining in accordance with the best interests of the child a permanent plan for the placement of the child, including whether or not the child should be continued in foster care or whether the child should be returned to a parent, guardian or relative, or whether or not proceedings should be instituted by either the juvenile officer or the division to terminate parental rights and legally free such child for adoption.

  2.  In such permanency hearings the court shall consider all relevant factors including:

  (1)  The interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child's foster parents, parents, siblings, and any other person who may significantly affect the child's best interests;

  (2)  The child's adjustment to his or her foster home, school and community;

  (3)  The mental and physical health of all individuals involved, including any history of abuse of any individuals involved.  If the child is in the care of an authorized agency based on an allegation that the child has abused another child and the court determines that such abuse occurred, the court shall not return the child to or permit the child to reside in any residence located within one thousand feet of the residence of the abused child, or any child care facility or school that the abused child attends, until the abused child reaches eighteen years of age.  The prohibitions of this subsection shall not apply where the alleged abuse occurred between siblings; and

  (4)  The needs of the child for a continuing relationship with the child's parents and the ability and willingness of parents to actively perform their functions as mother and father for the needs of the child.

  3.  The judge shall make written findings of fact and conclusions of law in any order pertaining to the placement of the child.

­­--------

(L. 1982 H.B. 1171, et al., A.L. 1990 H.B. 1370, et al., A.L. 1998 H.B. 1822 merged with S.B. 674, A.L. 2005 S.B. 155, A.L. 2014 H.B. 1299 Revision)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1985–2024 · leading case: In Interest of M.J. v. Greene Cnty. Juv. Off., 66 S.W.3d 745 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Interest of M.J. v. Greene Cnty. Juv. Off., 66 S.W.3d 745 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 8× “See § 210.720, RSMo 1994. [2] The petition to terminate parental rights of both parents was filed April 15, 1999.”
In the Interest of: S.R.R., D.J.R., & T.L.R. Juv. Officer v. T.R. (Father), 489 S.W.3d 926 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 12× “The juvenile officer filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that the April 20, 2015, hearing was a permanency-planning review under section 210.720 and that the order was not appealable.”
In the Interest of: O.J.B., Juv. Officer v. E.B. & T.B., 436 S.W.3d 726 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 5× “Pursuant to Section 210.720, RSMo Cum. Supp.2013, permanency hearings are statutorily required to be held by the court and are for the purpose of determining, in accordance with the best interests of the child, a permanent plan for the placement of the child.”
Juv. Officer v. K.C., 94 S.W.3d 420 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 11× “The Juvenile Officer for Saline County filed a motion for permanency hearing, pursuant to § 210.720, RSMo, concerning Layla in November 2001.”
In the Interest of T.G.O., 360 S.W.3d 355 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 14× “(Father) appeals from the circuit court’s entry of a permanency plan pursuant to Section 210.720 1 denying Father’s request for custody of Child.”
Interest of D.D.C. v. B.C., 817 S.W.2d 940 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 4× “Finally, the appellant contends it was error to terminate her parental rights because the juvenile court failed to hold a dispositional hearing as required by § 210.720, RSMo (1990). D.C. was born August 6, 1985, and E.”
Juv. Officer v. D.M.M., 789 S.W.2d 818 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 4× “alleges that the trial court erred in terminating her parental rights because the Juvenile court failed to hold yearly dispositional hearings pursuant to § 210.720, RSMo 1986. D.M.’s reliance on this section is misplaced.”
C.L.B. v. Greene Cnty. Juv. Off. (In re Interest of C.E.B.), 565 S.W.3d 207 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “With respect to the timing of a permanency hearing, § 210.720 specifies only that the court "hold a permanency hearing within twelve months of initial placement[.”
Juv. Officer v. S.M.H., 151 S.W.3d 425 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 6× “, is not supported by substantial evidence, and is contrary to section 210.720 RSMo 2000. Respondent Juvenile Officer, relying upon this court’s opinion in In re L.”
In the Interest of: A.n.l., B.r., Intervenor-appellant v. Maries Cnty. Juv. Off., Petitioner-respondent, & Missouri Dept. of Soc. Servs., Child.'s Div., 484 S.W.3d 328 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “There, a father requested custody during a § 210.720 permanency hearing in a juvenile proceeding.”
In the Interest of D.L.D., 701 S.W.2d 152 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “Section 210.720 requires a dispositional hearing eighteen months after placement.”
In Interest of L____ E____ E____, 839 S.W.2d 348 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 5× “It avers the juvenile court erred "in failing to hold dispositional hearings as required by [§ 210.720, RSMo Cum.Supp.1991] to allow [Appellant] to present evidence that children should be returned to her home.”
Show all 26 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.