claims in the petition as they pertain to Mother’s parental rights under section211.447.2(2)(b), whether her consent was required under section 453.040(7), and theadoption of Child by S.M. and M.M.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
This Court views the evidence and permissible inferences drawn from theevidence in the light most favorable to the judgment.
Suffian v. Usher
, 19 S.W.3d 130,136 (Mo. banc 2000); Rule 73.01(c). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable tothe judgment, the evidence adduced at the trial was that Mother is a citizen of Guatemala.Mother entered the United States in 2006, when she was pregnant with Child. The fatherwas not involved with Mother at the time of Child’s birth. Mother never has revealed thename of Child’s biological father.During her pregnancy, she did not receive prenatal care. She did receiveeducational services from Laura Davenport, a parent educator for Parents As Teachers inCarthage.
Child was born October 17, 2006. A few days later, Ms. Davenport provideda crib for Child because Mother and Child were sleeping on the floor of the apartment of two acquaintances. Mother was not working at the time, and her roommates provided herwith food. The living conditions in the home were poor.
The parental rights of the putative father also were terminated under section211.447.2(2)(b), and the trial court found his consent to the adoption was not requiredunder section 453.040. Those provisions of the judgment were not the subject of Mother’s appeal and are affirmed.
Ms. Davenport is fluent in Spanish.