St. Louis Injury Attorney Blog

The Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, recently upheld a trial court's judgment in G.C. v. Greene County Juvenile Office, that terminated a father's parental rights. The court held that the evidence showed that the father had anger issues, that the father did not recognize that the mother could not care for the child due to her mental illness, and that the father could not support the child since he chose to remain without a job. The court held it was in the child's best interest to terminate the parental rights of the father.

In Allen v. Allen, the mother was appealing the trial court's modification of child custody. The mother argued that the guardian ad litem that was appointed did not properly fulfill its duties, by not interviewing the child about alleged child abuse by his father. The appeals court held that the child had been interviewed too often, and any allegations of child abuse by the father had already been found to be not credible. The Southern District Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment.

Typically when a marriage ends in divorce in Missouri, a custody and visitation plan is entered by the court setting forth the rights of each parent. Often times, one parent stays in the family residence and one establishes another residence in the same area. Sometimes following a divorce, circumstances may change and a parent with custody of a child may wish to relocate along with the child. In Missouri, there are strict rules in place regarding child relocations.

Missouri has a statute that governs child relocation after a divorce, R.S.Mo. 452.377. That statute defines relocation as a change in a child's principal residence lasting 90 days or longer. The statute further states that notice of any proposed relocation must be given to anyone that has custody or visitation rights with respect to the child being relocated. Certain information must be contained in the notice, and the notice must be provided at least 60 days prior to the proposed relocation date. The child may then be relocated once the 60 day period expires, unless a parent files a motion with the court asking the court to prevent the proposed relocation. If such a motion is filed timely, then the court will decide whether the proposed relocation is in the best interest of the child.

If you are facing a situation involving a child relocation following divorce, please contact the attorneys at Ponder Zimmermann LLC.

Missouri child custody and visitation laws address what a parent must do in order to move residences with their child. Under RSMo Section 452.377, a parent who has custody or visitation of a child and wishes to relocate the residence of a child must give notice to any other party with custody or visitation rights, at least 60 days before the child can be relocated. The other party can move the court to prevent the relocation, in which case a hearing will be held. The parent seeking to relocate must show that the move is in the best interests of the child, and that they are not moving homes in an effort to disrupt or deprive visitation and custody with the other parent.

In Mantonya v. Mantonya, WD71368, the Missouri Court of Appeals upheld a trial court's decision that denied a mother a 15-mile relocation. The mother planned to move from Clinton, Missouri, to Ulrich, Missouri, 15 miles away. The mother gave proper notice to her ex-husband, and he moved to prevent the relocation. Mother wished to relocate the children 15 miles away so she could live with her soon to be husband. At the hearing, mother argued relocation was in the best interest of the children because it offered them a better, larger house to live in. Father argued it was not, because the school system was not as good. The court held that it was in the best interest of the children to deny the proposed relocation. Mother appealed.

Continue reading "Recent Missouri family law decision discusses relocation of children" »

St. Louis area family Jennifer and William McLaughlin, of Kirkwood, Missouri, have settled the custody battle they were involved in with Edward and Kerry Lambert of California. The McLaughlin's attorney simply stated that the couples have agreed to resolve this dispute in accordance with the parties' original agreement, and that all involved hope that the embryos will be raised with their siblings. It is unclear which couple is getting the embryos.

The McLaughlins obtained four frozen embryos from the Lamberts in 2009. The McLaughlins went on to have twins with two of the embryos in January 2010. The Lamberts filed a lawsuit in California, claiming that the McLaughlins breached their agreement by not returning the two unused embryos, because their agreement stated that if they did not use the embryos within a year they must be returned. The Lamberts wanted to give those embryos to another couple. The McLaughlins filed a lawsuit in St. Louis County, alleging that unique circumstances warranted them keeping the embryos. The McLaughlins were not sure at first if they wanted to use the remaining two embryos, but later decided they did want to expand their family and hoped to use those embryos to have more children. The McLaughlins currently have 7 children, two twins and five adopted children.

Continue reading "St. Louis area family settles custody dispute over frozen embryos" »

In Hightower v. Myers, No. 89951 (Mo. banc March 9, 2010), the Missouri Supreme Court considered issues relating to subject matter jurisdiction in a Missouri child custody case that spanned 3 states. The father lived in Missouri, the mother, who had custody of the child, in New Jersey. Over time, the mother had moved within New Jersey several times without proper notification to the father. She then intended to move to Georgia, and did so. The father filed for custody of the child in Missouri. In 2007, the trial court granted the transfer of custody to the father and ordered the mother to pay child support. The mother appealed, arguing that the Missouri court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. She also argued that there was not a continuous and substantial change in circumstances that warranted the transfer of custody.

The Missouri Supreme Court held that the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, which sets forth 4 circumstances where a court has the jurisdiction to hear a child custody case, is not a matter of subject matter jurisdiction, and can be waived. Subject matter jurisdiction can never be waived and can be raised at any time. Subject matter jurisdiction is vested in Missouri courts by the Missouri Constitution, not by statute, and because this was a civil case, the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction. Mother did not argue lack of jurisdiction under the UCCJA, so therefore, she waived it. The court further found that because the mother had moved without notification to the father, had moved to Georgia, and had not allowed the father to have proper visitation he was entitled to, the transfer of custody was warranted.