The juvenile court’s judgment was supported by substantial evidence that B.J. violated a condition of his previously ordered court supervision and probation. B.J. further asserts that in the event he prevails on his point on appeal then Int. of J.R.K., 643 S.W.3d 141 (Mo. App. W.D: 2022) requires a remand for a new hearing even if there is sufficient evidence to support the additional allegations of violation of his probation, including leaving home without permission, failing to enter drug treatment, and possession of a firearm. We disagree because J.R.K. is distinguishable.
In these circumstances, where the circuit court's dispositional order was based both on determinations it had jurisdiction to make, and determinations which were outside its jurisdiction, " ‘we cannot be sure that it was not [the juvenile court's determination that D.C. violated federal law, and the conditions of his probation for that offense] that tipped the scales’ in the circuit court's choice of an appropriate disposition." P.L.S. , 651 S.W.3d at 892 (quoting Int. of J.R.K. , 643 S.W.3d 141, 146 (Mo. App. W.D. 2022) ). Accordingly, we vacate the circuit court's dispositional order, and remand for the court to consider D.C.’s appropriate disposition anew, based solely on the two state-law violations the court previously found to have been proven.
We agreed and reversed the juvenile court's determination that J.R.K. violated Section 544.665. Interest of J.R.K. , 643 S.W.3d 141, 146 (Mo. App. 2022). In June 2021, the Juvenile Officer filed a motion to modify the previous order of disposition, informing the court that J.R.K. completed the program at the Buchanan County Academy.