A.I.A.K. v. T.M.K.

695 S.W.3d 118

In re the Matter of: A.I.A.K. & E.H.K. by S.A.K. as Next Friend and S.A.K. Individually, Appellant,

v.T.M.K., Respondent,M.L.K., Respondent,R.J.R., Respondent.

WD 86240 (Consolidated with WD 86241)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Opinion filed: April 2, 2024

Application for Transfer to Supreme Court Denied July 9, 2024

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PLATTE COUNTY, MISSOURI, THE HONORABLE THOMAS FINCHAM, JUDGE

Jonathan Sternberg, Kansas City, MO, for Appellant.

Alyssa S. Hodges, Blue Springs, MO, for Respondent T.M.K.

R.J.R., Respondent Acting Pro Se.

M.L.K., Respondent Acting Pro Se.

Division Four: Gary D. Witt, Chief Judge, W. Douglas Thomson, Judge and Roger M. Prokes, Special Judge

W. DOUGLAS THOMSON, JUDGE

Appellant S.A.K., individually and on behalf of A.I.A.K. and E.H.K. (the "Children") appeals from the trial court’s judgment finding that Respondent T.M.K. is the natural parent of the Children. On appeal, Appellant argues that the trial court misapplied the law in finding that Respondent is the natural mother of the Children even when blood tests demonstrate that she is not biologically related to either Child. We affirm.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

We set forth the facts in this case in a previous appeal. See S.K., et al. v. T.K, M.K., and R.R., 665 S.W.3d 388 (Mo. App. W.D. 2023):

On multiple occasions in 2015 and 2016, M.K. donated semen to Appellant and Respondent, two females in a romantic relationship. Appellant and Respondent used M.K.’s semen to artificially inseminate Appellant. Prior to M.K.’s donations, Appellant, Respondent, and M.K. agreed that M.K. would have no claim or interest in any child that resulted from the insemination; that M.K. would have no contact or relationship with any resulting child; that M.K. would not be identified on any resulting child’s birth certificate; and that M.K. would consent to an adoption of any resulting child in the future, if necessary. One of the attempts of artificial insemination was successful. When Appellant and Respondent were married in October 2016, Appellant was pregnant with Daughter. Daughter was born in December 2016, and Appellant and Respondent were identified as Daughter’s parents on her birth certificate, despite none of Respondent’s genetic material being used to conceive Daughter.

During 2017, R.R. donated semen to Appellant and Respondent, and the couple used R.R.’s semen to artificially inseminate Appellant. Prior to R.R.’s donations, Appellant, Respondent, and R.R. agreed that R.R. would have no claim or interest in any child that resulted from the insemination; that R.R. would have no contact or relationship with any resulting child; that R.R. would not be identified on any resulting child’s birth certificate; and that R.R. would consent to an adoption of any resulting child in the future, if necessary. One of the attempts of artificial insemination was suc-cessful, and Son was born in October 2017. Appellant and Respondent were identified as Son’s parents on his birth certificate, despite none of Respondent’s genetic material being used to conceive Son.

Appellant and Respondent separated in July 2019, and Appellant filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in August 2019 in the Circuit Court of Platte County in case number 19AE-DR00305.[ ] The judge assigned to preside over the dissolution action apparently questioned her ability to address issues relating to the Children without a determination of the parties’ legal relationships to the Children. In response, Appellant filed a petition in the Circuit Court of Platte County seeking a declaration of paternity, child custody, parenting time, and child support on behalf of Daughter against Respondent and M.K., and a separate petition seeking the same on behalf of Son against Respondent and R.R. (collectively "Petitions").[ ] The Petitions each included: (1) a count asking the trial court to determine the parentchild relationship with the Children held by Respondent and the respective donors of genetic material; and (2) a count asking the trial court to award Appellant sole legal and sole physical custody of the Children, to designate Appellant’s address as the Children’s address, to adopt Appellant’s proposed parenting plan, to order that "the payor parent" pay "an adequate amount" for child support, and to order Appellant to provide the Children health insurance. The Petitions were assigned to a different judge than was presiding over the dissolution action.¹

The first hearing in the paternity actions took place on August 4, 2021, at which time the parties agreed that the three cases – the dissolution action and the two paternity actions – should be heard by the same trial judge. Following the August 4, 2021 hearing, the dissolution action was reassigned to the trial judge assigned to preside over the paternity actions ("trial court").

On November 22, 2021, the trial court held a docket call in the dissolution action and the paternity actions. The parties advised the court that they wanted to first "do the determination of paternity separate and apart," from all other issues in the cases. The trial court confirmed: "[I]t’s just going to be paternity only. We’re not going to do custody [I]t’s just going to be who’s dad and who’s not and all that, okay?" Based on that confirmation, the trial court set the paternity issues in the paternity actions for trial.

The parties appeared on January 19, 2022, for the trial to determine Daughter’s paternity, and on February 15, 2022, for the trial court to determine Son’s paternity.[ ] Following testimony from Appellant, Respondent, the guardian ad litem, and the putative fathers, the trial court took the matters under submission.

The trial court issued a judgment and order establishing parent-child relationships with respect to Daughter, and a separate judgment and order establishing parent-child relationships with respect to Son (collectively "Judgments") on April 13, 2022.[ ] The Judgments concluded that the evidence established that Daughter was the product of Appellant’s and M.K.’s genetic material, and thatSon was the product of Appellant’s and R.R.’s genetic material. The Judgments observed that the Children were born during the course of Appellant and Respondent’s marriage; that Appellant and Respondent were both identified as parents on the Children’s birth certificates; and that M.K. and R.R. each agreed with Appellant and Respondent prior to the Children’s respective conceptions that, as the biological fathers, they would have no claim or interest in any child that resulted from the attempts at artificially inseminating Appellant. The Judgments, relying on our Eastern District’s decision in Schaberg v. Schaberg, 637 S.W.3d 512 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021), concluded that to deny "Respondent the marital benefit of being the natural parent of [the Children] would be unconstitutional [because] being on birth certificates, child custody, and child support [are] benefits of marriage to which same-sex couples must have access." As such, the Judgments ordered that the Children were the natural children of Appellant and Respondent, and concluded that M.K. had no claim or interest in Daughter and that R.R. had no claim or interest in Son.

On May 11, 2022, Appellant filed a motion to amend each of the Judgments (collectively "Motions to Amend"). Appellant’s Motions to Amend argued that Missouri only recognizes natural parentage or parentage by lawful adoption, neither of which are implicated here with respect to Respondent. The Motions to Amend asserted that, in recognizing Respondent as a natural parent of the Children, the Judgments ignored section 210.834.4, which concerns the results of paternity testing, and section 210.824, which concerns artificial insemination. The Motions to Amend further asserted that the Judgments violated Appellant’s right to equal protection in that the trial court treated a same-sex couple differently than a similarly situated opposite-sex couple. Following a hearing on June 10, 2022, the trial court denied the Motions to Amend.

Appellant filed notices of appeal from the Judgments in the Missouri Supreme Court, asserting that the appeals concerned "[t]he validity of a statute or provision of the Constitution of Missouri." The Supreme Court ordered the appeals "transferred to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, where jurisdiction is vested." Upon transfer, we consolidated the appeals.

Id. at 390-92 (fourth, fifth, eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh alterations in original) (footnotes omitted).

We previously dismissed Appellant’s appeal for lack of a final judgment because Count II of Appellant’s petitions, which requested an order regarding child custody and child support, had not been addressed by the trial court. Id at 393-94. After we dismissed the appeal, Appellant moved to dismiss Count II of each petition without prejudice pursuant to Rule 67.02(b), which the trial court granted.

This appeal follows.

II. JURISDICTION

[1, 2] First, we must determine whether the Judgments are now final for purposes of appeal. Complete Constr., LLC v. Frog Eyes, LLC, 655 S.W.3d 274, 277 (Mo. App. W.D. 2022). As we previously pointed out:

The existence of a final judgment is a prerequisite for appellate review pursuant to section 512.020(5). A judgment is final if it both: (1) is a judgment in that it "fully resolve[s] at least one claim in a lawsuit and establish[es] all the rights and liabilities of the parties with respect to that claim"; and (2) is final in that it"disposes of all claims (or the last claim) in a lawsuit, or has been certified for immediate appeal pursuant to Rule 74.01(b)." Complete Constr., LLC, 655 S.W.3d at 277 (quoting Wilson v. City of St. Louis, 600 S.W.3d 763, 771 (Mo. banc 2020)). If a judgment does not meet both of those criteria, then we must dismiss the appeal. Id.

S.K., 665 S.W.3d at 392 (alterations in original).

Respondent argues that the trial court’s dismissal...