211.459. Dispositional hearing, when held — procedure — immunity for certain persons — privileged communication not to constitute grounds for excluding evidence. — 1. Within thirty days after the juvenile officer and the court have met pursuant to section 211.455, the court shall hold the dispositional hearing where the juvenile officer and any person on whom summons and the petition were served shall have the right and power to subpoena witnesses and present evidence. The court may require any and all investigating division personnel connected with the particular case to testify without privilege and subject to the rules of cross-examination. Such witnesses shall receive as compensation the witness fee and mileage provided in civil cases.
2. Stenographic notes or an authorized recording of the hearing shall be required as in civil actions in the circuit court.
3. Any person, official or institution participating in good faith in the making of a report, the taking of photographs or the making of radiological examinations pursuant to sections 210.110 to 210.165, or the removal or retention of a child pursuant to sections 210.110 to 210.165 shall have immunity from all civil liability which might arise by reason of such actions. All such persons, officials and institutions shall have the same immunity with respect to participation in any judicial proceeding resulting from a report made pursuant to sections 210.110 to 210.165.
4. No legally recognized privileged communication, except that between priest, minister, or rabbi and parishioner, and attorney client, shall constitute grounds for excluding evidence at any proceeding for the termination of parental rights.
Notes of Decisions
In re the Adoption of J.A.D., 417 S.W.3d 327 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 6× “455 meeting between the juvenile office and the trial court, as required by section 211.459. 1 Because Appellant failed to raise this claim in the trial court 2 and thereby preserve it for appellate review, we affirm.”
In re the Adoptions of J.L.D., C.M.D., M.J.D., & H.E.D., JASPER Cnty. Juv. Off., Petitioner-Respondent v. N.M.D., Nat. Mother, 444 S.W.3d 550 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 16× “Discussion In her sole point on appeal, Mother argues “the trial court erred in terminating Mother’s parental rights, because the trial court failed to comply with the mand[a]tory provisions of Mo.Rev.Stat. § 211.459, in that the dispositional hearing did not take place within…”
Taylor v. Taylor, 47 S.W.3d 377 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).
“1), dis-positional hearings (§ 211.459), and the right to counsel despite inability to pay (§ 211.”
Schleisman v. Schleisman, 989 S.W.2d 664 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “444, the court must conduct a dispositional hearing, § 211.459, RSMo 1994, a guardian ad litem must be appointed to represent the children, § 211.”
Missouri Dep't of Soc. Servs., Child.'s Div. v. B.T.W., 422 S.W.3d 381 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 3× “Points Related to Pre-trial Rulings in the Termination Case In Point IV, Father argues that the circuit court committed reversible error by not conducting a hearing within thirty days after the juvenile officer and the court met, as mandated by section 211.459, RSMo. He notes…”
In Interest of BLG, 731 S.W.2d 492 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 2× “Section 211.459. 1. Within thirty days after the juvenile officer and the court have met pursuant to section 211.”
In Re Ah, 169 S.W.3d 152 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “Section 211.459 refers to section 211.455, stating, in part: "1.”
Allstun v. C.J.G.H., 731 S.W.2d 492 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 2× “Section 211.459. 1. Within thirty days after the juvenile officer and the court have met pursuant to section 211.”
In the Interest of: T.D. (Mo. Ct. App. 2022).
“is not supported by substantial evidence, or any evidence for that matter, and is against the weight of the evidence.”
Hammers v. R.R., 26 S.W.3d 364 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “The juvenile court, 2 after hearing evidence per § 211.459, RSMo 1994, entered judgment as prayed.”
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.