{"disclaimer":"This is a summary of public court records and is not legal advice. Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.","topic":{"slug":"child-custody","label":"Child Custody","description":null,"totalCases":224,"relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"}]},"trend":[{"year":2018,"count":21},{"year":2019,"count":28},{"year":2020,"count":25},{"year":2021,"count":24},{"year":2022,"count":16},{"year":2023,"count":29},{"year":2024,"count":36},{"year":2025,"count":38},{"year":2026,"count":7}],"cases":[{"caseId":"mo:sc101121:2026-02-24","opinionId":"1179f428-c8b5-526a-9ec3-046c64e80091","slug":"in-re-the-matter-of-alp-and-shp-minors-alicia-smith-respondent-v-lora-mar-101121","caseName":"In re the matter of: A.L.P. and S.H.P., minors; Alicia Smith, Respondent, vs. Lora Martinez, Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC101121","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2026-02-24","year":2026,"display_summary":"Alicia Smith sought third-party visitation rights for minor children A.L.P. and S.H.P. after Lora Martinez, the children's adoptive parent, was granted parental rights in a separate adoption proceeding. The circuit court granted Smith visitation, and Martinez appealed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that section 452.375.5(5)(a) does not create an independent cause of action for third-party custody or visitation when custody is not already at issue in an underlying proceeding, such as a divorce or paternity action. Consequently, Smith's claim for visitation and her subsequent family access motion failed.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=231454","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-the-matter-of-alp-and-shp-minors-alicia-smith-respondent-v-lora-mar-101121","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113141:2026-02-10","opinionId":"63188eef-feae-5cf6-bb09-a1f9fba94b76","slug":"mdm-appellant-v-aws-respondent-113141","caseName":"M.D.M, Appellant, v. A.W.S., Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113141","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2026-02-10","year":2026,"display_summary":"Appellant M.D.M. (Father) appealed the circuit court's child custody and support judgment, raising six points of error concerning the Form 14 income calculation, Line 11 credit, allocation of guardian ad litem and attorney's fees, and the abatement of child support. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, noting that Father's failure to preserve issues for appeal subjected all points to plain error review. The court found no manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice in the circuit court's rulings, including its denial of a Line 11 credit due to Father's non-exercise of visitation and its fee awards.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=230834","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mdm-appellant-v-aws-respondent-113141","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87887:2025-12-16","opinionId":"09fd7f9b-a2be-5246-b8a4-7480de898839","slug":"in-the-interest-of-jh-kh-th-juveniles-juvenile-officer-v-jms-d87887","caseName":"In the Interest of: J.H., K.H., T.H., Juveniles; Juvenile Officer\nvs.\nJ.M.S.","caseNumber":"WD87887","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-12-16","year":2025,"display_summary":"Mother J.M.S. appealed the termination of her parental rights to her three children, J.M.H., K.M.H., and T.M.H., by the Jackson County Circuit Court. The trial court based its decision on findings of abuse and neglect, and parental unfitness, concluding termination was in the children's best interest. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no error in the trial court's determination that Mother committed severe and recurrent physical abuse, and that termination was in the children's best interest.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=228558","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-jh-kh-th-juveniles-juvenile-officer-v-jms-d87887","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":6,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113129:2025-11-25","opinionId":"478a621b-29d7-5577-bc30-99f4bd038c26","slug":"matthew-j-callow-respondent-v-danielle-n-callow-appellant-113129","caseName":"Matthew J. Callow, Respondent, v. Danielle N. Callow, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113129","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-11-25","year":2025,"display_summary":"Danielle Callow (Mother) appealed the circuit court's judgment dissolving her marriage to Matthew Callow (Father). Mother challenged the denial of maintenance, the child support calculation, the division of marital property and uninsured medical bills, and the denial of her motion for newly discovered evidence. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment on all points, finding no abuse of discretion.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","child-custody","civil-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227780","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/matthew-j-callow-respondent-v-danielle-n-callow-appellant-113129","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113155:2025-10-21","opinionId":"632f5857-980c-54fa-a985-a3743e8e026e","slug":"cml-et-al-appellants-v-srb-f-respondent-113155","caseName":"C.M.L., et al., Appellants, v. S.R.B.-F., Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113155","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-10-21","year":2025,"display_summary":"Paternal grandparents C.L. and N.L. appealed the circuit court's judgment granting sole physical and legal custody of their grandson K.J.L. to his mother, S.R.B.-F. The grandparents argued the circuit court misapplied the law by finding a change in circumstances based on unpled issues and by conflating change of circumstance requirements with best interest factors. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the circuit court properly determined a substantial change in circumstances occurred due to the grandparents' flagrant pattern of willful denial of the mother's visitation rights.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=226617","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/cml-et-al-appellants-v-srb-f-respondent-113155","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87412:2025-10-07","opinionId":"f08b95a0-4367-5baf-8f68-625a87e95e0b","slug":"in-re-the-marriage-of-nathan-goodpasture-v-sandy-goodpasture-d87412","caseName":"In RE the Marriage of: Nathan Goodpasture\nvs.\nSandy Goodpasture","caseNumber":"WD87412","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-10-07","year":2025,"display_summary":"Mother, Sandy Goodpasture, appealed the trial court's judgment of modification concerning child custody and support. She raised eight points on appeal, challenging the striking of her pleadings, the handling of domestic violence allegations, child support calculations, interpreter competency, religious beliefs, and the guardian ad litem. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, denying several of Mother's points due to significant briefing deficiencies and finding no error in the trial court's application of law regarding the striking of pleadings and child support imputation.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225656","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-the-marriage-of-nathan-goodpasture-v-sandy-goodpasture-d87412","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38913:2025-09-26","opinionId":"6317ac10-5021-5ce4-91a9-f5930b90078e","slug":"in-the-interest-of-jhb-and-jab-minor-children-greene-county-juvenile-offi-d38913","caseName":"In the Interest of:  J.H.B. and J.A.B, minor children, GREENE COUNTY JUVENILE OFFICE, Petitioner-Respondent\nv.\nJ.E.B., JR., Natural Father, Respondent-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38913","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-26","year":2025,"display_summary":"Father appealed the juvenile court's judgments of adjudication and disposition that placed his children under the care and control of the juvenile court and Children's Division. The juvenile court found the children in need of care and treatment based on Father's criminal history, but rejected allegations of domestic violence. The appellate court vacated the judgments, holding that the juvenile officer failed to present substantial evidence linking Father's past criminal history to a likelihood of future harm to the children, and that the juvenile court improperly relied on evidence against the Mother to the detriment of the Father.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","civil-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225253","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-jhb-and-jab-minor-children-greene-county-juvenile-offi-d38913","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":24,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38618:2025-07-29","opinionId":"5b1d7f2f-0dcf-5bbb-9cac-edd9f4234e76","slug":"in-the-interest-of-djz-a-minor-child-under-seventeen-years-of-age-missour-d38618","caseName":"IN THE INTEREST OF D.J.Z., a minor child under seventeen years of age, \nMISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, CHILDRENS DIVISION, and, CRAWFORD COUNTY JUVENILE OFFICE, Petitioners-Respondent\nv.\nD.Z., Respondent-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38618","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"Father D.Z. appealed the judgment terminating his parental rights to his son, D.J.Z., based on grounds of abuse and neglect, including a mental condition, severe physical abuse, and failure to protect the child. Father challenged the denial of his motion to reopen evidence, alleged failure to provide a social study, the findings of abuse and neglect, and the determination that termination was in the child's best interest. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in its rulings on any of Father's seven points on appeal.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","appellate-procedure","evidence","child-custody","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222673","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-djz-a-minor-child-under-seventeen-years-of-age-missour-d38618","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87506:2025-07-15","opinionId":"c2996b71-6ead-5350-bfba-1d6e687c8694","slug":"jerry-carl-and-beth-elizabeth-steele-v-jordan-hartman-d87506","caseName":"Jerry Carl and Beth (Elizabeth) Steele\nvs.\nJordan Hartman","caseNumber":"WD87506","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-07-15","year":2025,"display_summary":"Grandparents Jerry and Elizabeth Steele sought visitation rights with their granddaughter after the child's mother died and the child was adopted by the father's new wife. The trial court denied Father's motions to dismiss, and the parties subsequently entered into a consent judgment awarding Grandparents monthly visitation. Father appealed the consent judgment, arguing the Grandparents lacked standing. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that a party who consents to a judgment is not \"aggrieved\" under section 512.020, RSMo, and therefore lacks statutory authority to appeal.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","family-law","child-custody"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222155","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jerry-carl-and-beth-elizabeth-steele-v-jordan-hartman-d87506","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113100:2025-07-08","opinionId":"f25eac20-31b4-5dad-8f1e-7e1799f460dd","slug":"sps-by-their-next-friend-ews-and-ews-individually-respondents-v-kae-appel-113100","caseName":"S.P.S., by their next friend, E.W.S., and E.W.S., individually, Respondents, vs. K.A.E., Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113100","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-08","year":2025,"display_summary":"K.A.E. (Mother) appealed the trial court's judgment of paternity, custody, and child support, which adopted E.W.S.'s (Father's) parenting plan designating Father's home as the child's primary residence for educational purposes. Mother argued the judgment was against the weight of the evidence and lacked substantial evidence for certain best-interest factors, particularly after her recent relocation. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, deferring to its custody determination and finding that the judgment was supported by substantial evidence and not an abuse of discretion.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221977","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/sps-by-their-next-friend-ews-and-ews-individually-respondents-v-kae-appel-113100","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113380:2025-07-01","opinionId":"6e0a69fd-c617-5f21-934e-24305707b6ca","slug":"larry-kinman-et-al-appellants-v-christopher-donahoo-respondent-113380","caseName":"Larry Kinman, et al., Appellants, v. Christopher Donahoo, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113380","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-01","year":2025,"display_summary":"Larry and Stacie Kinman (Grandparents) appealed the circuit court's judgment that set aside a default judgment against Christopher Donahoo (Father), sustained Father's motion for a change of judge, and dismissed the underlying petition for child custody. Grandparents argued that Father's motion for a change of judge was untimely because a motion to set aside a default judgment is not an independent action. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, holding that a motion to set aside a default judgment is indeed an independent action, making the motion for a change of judge timely. The court also found Grandparents abandoned their second point on appeal by failing to cite supporting authority.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","child-custody"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221815","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/larry-kinman-et-al-appellants-v-christopher-donahoo-respondent-113380","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112725:2025-06-24","opinionId":"9d243e69-e528-55d3-aa26-0d48e943ac59","slug":"caw-respondent-v-nkd-appellant-112725","caseName":"C.A.W., Respondent, vs. N.K.D., Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112725","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-06-24","year":2025,"display_summary":"Father appealed the trial court's judgment ordering him to pay $1,583.00 in monthly child support. The trial court had rejected its own Form 14 calculations, which were based on evidence presented at trial, and instead relied on a four-year-old pendente lite order. The appellate court found this to be a misapplication of law, reversed the child support award, and, pursuant to Rule 84.14, entered judgment for child support in the amount of $472.00 per month, consistent with the trial court's post-trial Form 14.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221538","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/caw-respondent-v-nkd-appellant-112725","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87182:2025-06-17","opinionId":"057653d4-1062-56ca-b707-803f24be654c","slug":"felisha-despain-v-nathan-despain-and-brandi-judah-guardian-ad-litem-rose-d87182","caseName":"Felisha DeSpain\nvs. \nNathan DeSpain and Brandi Judah, Guardian ad litem; Rose C. Brisco","caseNumber":"WD87182","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-06-17","year":2025,"display_summary":"Attorney Rose Briscoe appealed sanctions imposed by the circuit court in a dissolution of marriage case, stemming from her use of audio recordings made by the parties' son during sessions with the guardian ad litem (GAL) and a court-appointed therapist. The circuit court had found that Briscoe violated attorney-client privilege, work product protection, and therapist-patient privilege. The appellate court reversed the sanctions, holding that none of these privileges or protections applied to the communications at issue. The case was remanded for the circuit court to reconsider whether sanctions were warranted on other grounds, independent of privilege claims.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","civil-procedure","evidence","child-custody","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221297","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/felisha-despain-v-nathan-despain-and-brandi-judah-guardian-ad-litem-rose-d87182","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112622:2025-06-17","opinionId":"56b89145-6755-5f09-9c85-1d4ae00c6aa0","slug":"in-the-interest-of-srw-112622","caseName":"In the Interest of:  S.R.W.","caseNumber":"ED112622","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-06-17","year":2025,"display_summary":"Mother and Father appealed the termination of their parental rights to Child, S.R.W. The trial court found grounds for termination based on failure to rectify conditions and parental unfitness, and that termination was in the Child's best interest. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the termination of both parents' rights and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Father's motion to reopen evidence or in its best interest determination.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221415","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-srw-112622","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":6,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87157:2025-05-27","opinionId":"7d98d6e9-3eda-5308-ba08-526d176e7cac","slug":"in-the-interest-of-srw-juvenile-janet-rogers-juvenile-officer-v-tw-d87157","caseName":"In the Interest of: S.R.W., Juvenile, Janet Rogers-Juvenile Officer\nvs. \nT.W.","caseNumber":"WD87157","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-05-27","year":2025,"display_summary":"Mother appealed the trial court's judgment terminating her parental rights to Child. The appellate court dismissed the appeal due to Mother's failure to comply with mandatory appellate court requirements. Specifically, Mother failed to provide a transcript of the termination hearing and her brief was deficient in its points relied on, statement of facts, and argument section, violating Rules 81.12 and 84.04.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","family-law","child-custody"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220817","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-srw-juvenile-janet-rogers-juvenile-officer-v-tw-d87157","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87406:2025-04-22","opinionId":"9d900eb3-606b-5ea9-9f93-dbaf54e04b96","slug":"in-re-the-matter-of-alp-and-shp-minors-alicia-smith-v-lora-martinez-d87406","caseName":"In Re the Matter of: A.L.P. and S.H.P., Minors; Alicia Smith\nvs.\nLora Martinez","caseNumber":"WD87406","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-04-22","year":2025,"display_summary":"Alicia Smith sought third-party visitation rights with two children adopted by Lora Martinez, based on a settlement agreement. Martinez appealed the circuit court's judgment, arguing Smith lacked standing under § 452.375.5(5) and that she had not consented to the entry of judgment. The appellate court affirmed both the judgment awarding visitation and the judgment granting Smith's family access motion. The court held that Smith had standing because adoption proceedings do not determine child custody, and Martinez's agreement to the visitation schedule at the time of submission was binding despite later objections.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","civil-procedure","contracts","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=219793","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-the-matter-of-alp-and-shp-minors-alicia-smith-v-lora-martinez-d87406","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38536:2025-04-03","opinionId":"45d78f0f-be4a-5c83-97d6-b1fbc4304edb","slug":"in-the-matter-of-arh-a-minor-jmj-and-blnj-respondents-v-ert-jr-appellant-d38536","caseName":"IN THE MATTER OF A.R.H., a minor, J.M.J. and B.L.N.J., Respondents\nvs.\nE.R.T., Jr., Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38536","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-04-03","year":2025,"display_summary":"Father appealed the circuit court's judgment granting the guardians' petition to adopt Child, arguing his trial counsel was ineffective. Father contended counsel failed to object to a due process violation in an underlying juvenile proceeding and failed to properly prepare for the adoption hearing. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the due process claim lacked record support and was unmeritorious, and that counsel's performance, while imperfect, did not amount to being \"effectively absent\" or deny Father a meaningful hearing.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","child-custody","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=219154","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-matter-of-arh-a-minor-jmj-and-blnj-respondents-v-ert-jr-appellant-d38536","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38576:2025-03-27","opinionId":"2921edd7-6315-5828-a4e6-dd98ac1f9674","slug":"in-re-the-marriage-of-jj-petitioner-appellant-v-dj-respondent-respondent-d38576","caseName":"In Re: The Marriage of J.J., Petitioner-Appellant\nv.\nD.J., Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38576","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-03-27","year":2025,"display_summary":"Mother appealed the trial court's denial of her motion to modify a dissolution judgment, in which she sought joint legal and sole physical custody of the minor child. Mother argued the trial court's analysis of statutory factors under §452.375.2 was flawed because it considered \"touching incidents\" at the child's school outside of the enumerated factors. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the trial court properly considered all relevant factors, and there is no prescribed format for how those factors must be presented in the judgment.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218933","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-the-marriage-of-jj-petitioner-appellant-v-dj-respondent-respondent-d38576","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38474:2025-03-20","opinionId":"26b48f5e-3f2b-5a78-91ce-d8a1f87e9e31","slug":"in-the-interest-of-kgk-and-ark-missouri-department-of-social-services-chi-d38474","caseName":"In the Interest of K.G.K. and A.R.K., \nMISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, CHILDREN'S DIVISION, Respondent\nv.\nS.J.K., Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38474","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-03-20","year":2025,"display_summary":"Father S.J.K. appealed from a judgment terminating his parental rights to Child K.G.K. and from a judgment denying his Rule 74.06(b) motion for relief from the termination judgment. He raised seven claims of error, including procedural issues, challenges to findings of grounds for termination, and the best interest finding. The Southern District of Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed both judgments, finding no error in the trial court's decisions regarding the social study, the denial of a continuance, parental unfitness, or the best interest of the child.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218635","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-kgk-and-ark-missouri-department-of-social-services-chi-d38474","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112335:2025-03-04","opinionId":"89ac8160-570b-5197-ac27-e9b05fb2a418","slug":"melissa-m-carter-respondent-v-drew-b-carter-appellant-112335","caseName":"Melissa M. Carter, Respondent, vs. Drew B. Carter, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112335","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-03-04","year":2025,"display_summary":"Drew B. Carter (Husband) appealed the dissolution of marriage judgment, challenging the calculation of spousal maintenance, imputation of his income for child support, the order to pay private school tuition, and the characterization of a trust account as marital property. The appellate court reversed the trial court's calculation of Wife's net income for maintenance, agreeing that it was incorrectly reduced by itemized deductions and a child tax credit. However, the court affirmed the trial court's decisions regarding Husband's imputed income, the private school tuition order, and the classification of the trust account as marital property. The case was remanded for recalculation of maintenance and child support consistent with the corrected income.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","child-custody","civil-procedure","trusts"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218056","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/melissa-m-carter-respondent-v-drew-b-carter-appellant-112335","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112716:2025-02-25","opinionId":"ef858d96-5f48-5f64-853d-792d9cbb8371","slug":"cmg-petitionerappellant-v-bmc-respondentrespondent-orc-minor-and-state-of-112716","caseName":"C.M.G., Petitioner/Appellant, vs. B.M.C., Respondent/Respondent, O.R.C., Minor, and State of Missouri, Dept. of Social Services, Family Support Division, Respondent/Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112716","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-02-25","year":2025,"display_summary":"C.M.G. appealed the dismissal of his petition seeking a declaration of non-paternity and to set aside his acknowledgment of paternity and a resulting child support judgment. He alleged a material mistake of fact, claiming he knew the mother was pregnant by another man before they dated or had sexual intercourse, but signed the paternity affidavit anyway. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal, holding that C.M.G.'s own allegations negated any claim of a material mistake of fact, as he had full knowledge of the circumstances when he acknowledged paternity.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","child-custody","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=217799","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/cmg-petitionerappellant-v-bmc-respondentrespondent-orc-minor-and-state-of-112716","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38517:2025-02-24","opinionId":"30c35966-8595-5c26-8623-3eff453f8da9","slug":"in-re-the-marriage-of-brian-flood-and-holly-jessica-flood-brian-flood-res-d38517","caseName":"IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF BRIAN FLOOD and HOLLY JESSICA FLOOD, \nBRIAN FLOOD, Respondent\nv.\nHOLLY JESSICA FLOOD, Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38517","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-02-24","year":2025,"display_summary":"Appellant Holly Jessica Flood (Wife) appealed the trial court's judgment dissolving her marriage to Respondent Brian Flood (Husband), raising four points on appeal concerning marital property, debt, child support, and child custody. The appellate court dismissed Wife's appeal, finding that each of her points relied on violated Rule 84.04(d) by combining multiple allegations of error and failing to explain why the legal reasons supported the challenge in the context of the case. Consequently, the court held that Wife's points preserved nothing for appellate review.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","family-law","divorce","child-custody"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=217775","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-the-marriage-of-brian-flood-and-holly-jessica-flood-brian-flood-res-d38517","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87136:2025-01-08","opinionId":"79691373-4b2a-576d-8e36-fddee3f408a3","slug":"frank-chan-v-elizabeth-chan-d87136","caseName":"Frank Chan\nvs.\nElizabeth Chan","caseNumber":"WD87136","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-01-08","year":2025,"display_summary":"Frank Chan (Father) appealed the circuit court's judgment modifying a parenting plan, arguing that the court erred by not awarding him exactly equal parenting time with his two minor children, despite a statutory presumption for equal or approximately equal parenting time. Father also contended the court failed to give proper weight to his testimony as a doctor regarding the children's medical treatment. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the statute does not mandate exactly equal parenting time and that the circuit court's findings, supported by substantial evidence, were based on the children's best interests and proper weighing of evidence.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=216374","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/frank-chan-v-elizabeth-chan-d87136","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111927:2024-12-24","opinionId":"bab1b882-3582-5120-ab12-7d72057b275c","slug":"aylicia-d-mickow-appellant-v-cody-f-mickow-respondent-111927","caseName":"Aylicia D. Mickow, Appellant, vs. Cody F. Mickow, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED111927","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-12-24","year":2024,"display_summary":"Aylicia Mickow (Wife) appealed the trial court's judgment dissolving her marriage to Cody Mickow (Husband), challenging the joint legal and physical custody order for their two minor children and the valuation of two marital properties. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the trial court adequately addressed all relevant best-interest-of-the-child factors and that the custody order was not against the weight of the evidence. Additionally, the court found the property valuations were supported by the record and within the trial court's discretion.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","child-custody","property-real-estate","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=215954","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/aylicia-d-mickow-appellant-v-cody-f-mickow-respondent-111927","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112324:2024-12-10","opinionId":"5e2026c9-24a9-567f-9a7d-85404611f19c","slug":"in-the-matter-of-gh-112324","caseName":"In the Matter of:  G.H.,","caseNumber":"ED112324","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-12-10","year":2024,"display_summary":"Maternal Grandmother and Step-Grandfather appealed a circuit court judgment that appointed Maternal Grandmother as sole guardian and conservator for a minor child, excluded Maternal Step-Grandfather as co-guardian, and awarded visitation to Paternal Grandmother. The appellate court reversed the visitation award, finding Paternal Grandmother lacked standing under § 452.402, RSMo. It affirmed Maternal Grandmother's sole guardianship but remanded the case for the circuit court to reconsider Maternal Step-Grandfather's petition for co-guardianship, instructing the court to apply only the factors enumerated in § 475.045.3, RSMo.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","child-custody","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=215296","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-matter-of-gh-112324","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112549:2024-11-26","opinionId":"36866c37-b947-5f79-a1d5-465da0318bbb","slug":"timothy-wells-appellant-v-department-of-social-services-family-support-di-112549","caseName":"Timothy Wells, Appellant, vs. Department of Social Services Family Support Division, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED112549","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-11-26","year":2024,"display_summary":"Timothy Wells (Father) appealed the circuit court's denial of his petition for review of an order from the Department of Social Services Family Support Division (FSD) that denied his request for administrative modification of child support. While the administrative review was pending, Father filed a judicial motion to modify his support obligations, which resulted in a judgment retroactively modifying child support. The appellate court dismissed Father's appeal as moot, concluding that the subsequent judicial modification superseded the administrative proceeding and rendered the FSD order without practical effect.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","appellate-procedure","administrative-law","child-custody"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214921","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/timothy-wells-appellant-v-department-of-social-services-family-support-di-112549","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112626:2024-11-19","opinionId":"dbae2cdc-355f-5e9a-92a5-7499ae0908e4","slug":"in-the-interest-of-adg-and-b-jj-112626","caseName":"In the Interest of A.D.G. and B-J.J.","caseNumber":"ED112626","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-11-19","year":2024,"display_summary":"Mother E.R.G. appealed the circuit court's judgment terminating her parental rights to her two children, A.D.G. and B-J.J. She argued there was insufficient evidence for both the grounds for termination and the finding that termination was in the children's best interests. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, finding substantial evidence supported both the termination grounds, specifically failure to rectify due to untreatable chemical dependency, and the best interests determination.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214642","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-adg-and-b-jj-112626","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":6,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86648:2024-11-19","opinionId":"cea48b2a-93d8-5e57-b854-41122f2d9a59","slug":"ron-elliott-irving-individually-and-idaa-minor-child-by-next-friend-ron-e-d86648","caseName":"Ron Elliott Irving, Individually, and I.D.A.A., Minor Child, by Next Friend, Ron Elliott Irving\nvs.\nJenny Anne Angstrom","caseNumber":"WD86648","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-11-19","year":2024,"display_summary":"Ron Irving (Father) filed a paternity action against Jenny Angstrom (Mother) seeking to be declared the father of their minor child, I.D.A.A., and for custody, visitation, and child support. The circuit court found Father to be the natural father, awarded joint physical and legal custody, designated Father's address for mailing and educational purposes, awarded Mother child support, and ordered the child's surname changed to Father's. Mother appealed, challenging the joint legal custody, name change, address designation, and child support calculation. The appellate court reversed the award of joint legal custody and remanded for further proceedings on that issue, but affirmed the remainder of the circuit court's judgment.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","child-custody","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214614","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/ron-elliott-irving-individually-and-idaa-minor-child-by-next-friend-ron-e-d86648","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86704:2024-11-12","opinionId":"6b1e9338-d96b-5499-81fe-5ec0bcc68393","slug":"in-re-the-matter-of-hg-by-their-next-friend-kb-and-kb-individually-v-cg-d86704","caseName":"In Re the Matter of: H.G., By Their Next Friend, K.B., and K.B., Individually\nvs.\nC.G.","caseNumber":"WD86704","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-11-12","year":2024,"display_summary":"K.B. (Father) initiated a paternity action against C.G. (Mother) concerning their child, H.G.B., seeking to be declared the natural father and requesting orders for child support and custody. The circuit court adopted the parties' agreed parenting plan and ordered the child's surname to be changed to a hyphenated name including both parents' surnames. Mother appealed, arguing the name change constituted an abuse of discretion. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in ordering the hyphenated surname.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","child-custody","standard-of-review","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214453","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-the-matter-of-hg-by-their-next-friend-kb-and-kb-individually-v-cg-d86704","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38520:2024-10-24","opinionId":"509694fe-1ed0-5232-932e-16305eaa13ed","slug":"in-the-interest-of-zrlc-greene-county-juvenile-office-respondent-v-craw-a-d38520","caseName":"In the Interest of Z.R.L.C., GREENE COUNTY JUVENILE OFFICE, Respondent\nvs.\nC.R.A.W., Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38520","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-10-24","year":2024,"display_summary":"C.R.A.W., the father of Z.L.R.C., appealed the circuit court's judgment terminating his parental rights. The child had been in foster care for a significant portion of his life, and the father was incarcerated for felony convictions, unable to participate in reunification services or support the child. The appellate court affirmed the termination, rejecting the father's arguments that the parental unfitness statute was unconstitutionally vague as applied to incarcerated parents and that the burden of proof was unlawfully shifted. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the determination that termination was in the child's best interest.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=213933","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-zrlc-greene-county-juvenile-office-respondent-v-craw-a-d38520","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112115:2024-10-15","opinionId":"695ee791-5213-5802-bdde-62f7b1967e7e","slug":"evita-tolu-appellant-v-robert-j-stientjes-respondent-112115","caseName":"Evita Tolu, Appellant, vs. Robert J. Stientjes, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112115","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-10-15","year":2024,"display_summary":"Evita Tolu (Mother) appealed the trial court's judgment modifying child support, raising thirteen points. The appellate court found the trial court erred in determining Mother waived her personal jurisdiction challenge, but affirmed that personal service was proper. The court also affirmed the trial court's discretion regarding child support abatement for college enrollment and its parental income calculations. The judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for recalculation of retroactive child support to the date of personal service.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=213656","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/evita-tolu-appellant-v-robert-j-stientjes-respondent-112115","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38461:2024-09-06","opinionId":"60c82374-e900-5a98-8910-580f864c9407","slug":"in-the-interest-of-psa-a-minor-child-under-seventeen-years-of-age-greene-d38461","caseName":"IN THE INTEREST OF: P.S.A., a minor child under seventeen years of age, GREENE COUNTY JUVENILE OFFICE, Respondent\nv.\nC.R.A., Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38461","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-09-06","year":2024,"display_summary":"Father appealed the termination of his parental rights to his child, P.S.A., arguing the trial court erred by adopting the juvenile office's proposed judgment verbatim. The appellate court noted that Father failed to preserve this claim by not raising it in a post-trial motion, thus limiting review to plain error. Finding no facial showing of manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice, the court declined plain error review. The judgment terminating parental rights was affirmed.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","appellate-procedure","child-custody"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=211253","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-psa-a-minor-child-under-seventeen-years-of-age-greene-d38461","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38151:2024-09-05","opinionId":"04d2d3d5-e475-547c-abbd-acb7b01b8ce3","slug":"in-re-the-marriage-of-brittany-m-smith-respondent-v-patrick-a-smith-respo-d38151","caseName":"IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF BRITTANY M. SMITH, Respondent\nv.\nPATRICK A. SMITH, Respondent and GOLDIA M. KRANAWETTER, Proposed Intervenor/Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38151","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-09-05","year":2024,"display_summary":"Goldia Kranawetter, the maternal grandmother, sought to intervene in her grandchild's parents' dissolution modification proceeding to obtain visitation rights. The trial court denied her motion, finding she failed to show she had been unreasonably denied visitation for 90 days. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court erred by denying the motion to intervene on the merits of the visitation claim rather than on the statutory criteria for intervention. The court remanded with instructions to grant intervention and conduct an evidentiary hearing on the visitation merits.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","child-custody","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=211194","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-the-marriage-of-brittany-m-smith-respondent-v-patrick-a-smith-respo-d38151","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38173:2024-08-29","opinionId":"1fdb4afc-7859-52bd-a210-15cd1cc1ce54","slug":"brandon-schiesswohl-appellant-v-bobbi-spain-respondent-d38173","caseName":"BRANDON SCHIESSWOHL, Appellant\nv.\nBOBBI SPAIN, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38173","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-08-29","year":2024,"display_summary":"Brandon Schiesswohl (Father) appealed the denial of his motion to modify a child custody decree, which sought changes to the parenting schedule and final decision-making authority over Child's healthcare. The trial court had applied a \"substantial change in circumstances\" standard. The appellate court reversed, holding that the proper standard for modifying a custody arrangement (like parenting schedule or decision-making authority within joint custody) is a \"change in circumstances,\" not a \"substantial\" one, as Father was not seeking to change the custody designation. The case was remanded for the trial court to apply the correct legal standard.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=210973","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/brandon-schiesswohl-appellant-v-bobbi-spain-respondent-d38173","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37815:2024-08-27","opinionId":"4593e6ad-ecb0-5f8e-af03-fbad090d2077","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-chaz-d-lewis-appellant-d37815","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent\nv.\nCHAZ D. LEWIS, Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37815","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-08-27","year":2024,"display_summary":"Chaz D. Lewis was convicted of unlawful transfer or surrender of custody of his minor daughter after leaving her with her grandparents while he served a 60-day jail sentence for contempt in a family court case. Lewis appealed, arguing insufficient evidence because his actions did not constitute a permanent transfer or surrender of custody under section 453.110. The appellate court agreed, reversing the judgment of conviction and entering a judgment of acquittal, holding that the statute does not apply to temporary care where the parent retains the right to supervise and resume custody.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","child-custody","criminal-procedure","standard-of-review","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=210933","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-chaz-d-lewis-appellant-d37815","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38005:2024-06-17","opinionId":"e7e0e0e8-e8be-5469-8a0c-f77aec1b07a9","slug":"cdg-a-minor-child-by-and-through-next-friend-casey-green-and-casey-green-d38005","caseName":"C.D.G., a minor child, by and through Next Friend, CASEY GREEN, and CASEY GREEN, Individually, Petitioners-Respondents\nv.\nTARA JONNE GREEN, Respondent-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38005","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-06-17","year":2024,"display_summary":"Tara Jonne Green (Mother) appealed a judgment of paternity, child custody, and child support entered in favor of Casey Green (Father) concerning their minor child. Mother argued the trial court erred by entering the judgment without providing her notice of the trial or an opportunity to respond to Father's petition, and because no next friend had been appointed to represent the child. The appellate court vacated the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, agreeing with Mother on both points.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=209033","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/cdg-a-minor-child-by-and-through-next-friend-casey-green-and-casey-green-d38005","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:parent-208293","opinionId":"7e469571-68b2-5ee9-ac97-84816c7373bc","slug":"in-the-interest-of-ars-jds-jes-lks-and-tes-missouri-department-of-social-d38292","caseName":"IN THE INTEREST OF A.R.S., J.D.S., J.E.S., L.K.S., and T.E.S.,\nMISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, CHILDREN'S DIVISION, Respondent\nvs.\nG.D.S., Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38292","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-05-22","year":2024,"display_summary":"G.D.S. (Mother) appealed the circuit court's judgment terminating her parental rights over her five minor children. Mother contended that the circuit court failed to strictly comply with section 211.455.3, which requires an investigation and social study. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding that the circuit court's later order appointing the \"Department of Social Services, Children's Division\" was satisfied by the report prepared by an employee of that division who worked in the relevant circuit, thus demonstrating no lack of strict compliance.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=208293","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-ars-jds-jes-lks-and-tes-missouri-department-of-social-d38292","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86175:2024-05-14","opinionId":"7d416847-d875-53c9-b4a7-76c8de792e25","slug":"in-the-interest-of-kkss-v-juvenile-officer-d86175","caseName":"In the Interest of: K.K.S.S.\nvs.\nJuvenile Officer","caseNumber":"WD86175","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-05-14","year":2024,"display_summary":"Father K.D. appealed the Family Court's judgment placing his child, K.K.S.S., in the custody of the Children's Division based on a finding of abuse. He argued the court erred by denying his motion to continue the adjudication hearing and by failing to inquire about court-appointed counsel after his retained counsel withdrew. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the continuances due to Father's serial efforts to delay the proceedings by changing counsel. It also held that the Family Court had adequately informed Father of his right to counsel, and his self-representation was a consequence of his own actions.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=207995","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-kkss-v-juvenile-officer-d86175","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38026:2024-05-06","opinionId":"36d62536-7ba8-500c-8c2a-d91f65188ff6","slug":"christopher-j-gardner-appellant-v-cathy-j-gardner-respondent-d38026","caseName":"CHRISTOPHER J. GARDNER, Appellant\nv.\nCATHY J. GARDNER, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38026","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-05-06","year":2024,"display_summary":"Christopher J. Gardner (Husband) appealed from an amended judgment dissolving his marriage to Cathy Jo Gardner (Wife), challenging the child support order, the valuation of his business, and the exclusion of certain debts. Husband filed post-trial motions seeking a new trial based on his oldest child's emancipation and to reopen evidence regarding the emancipation and two SBA loans, which were denied. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no merit in Husband's seven points on appeal, including the denial of his post-trial motions and the valuation of marital property and debt.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","divorce","child-custody","civil-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=207913","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/christopher-j-gardner-appellant-v-cathy-j-gardner-respondent-d38026","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38078:2024-04-30","opinionId":"09ed7247-6e53-5a63-9c9a-fb643a77c624","slug":"in-re-the-matter-of-osm-a-minor-by-next-friend-ntm-and-ntm-individually-p-d38078","caseName":"In Re: The Matter of: O.S.M., a minor, by Next Friend N.T.M. and N.T.M., Individually, Plaintiff-Appellant\nv.\nC.N.M., Defendant-Respondent\n\nIn Re: The Matter of: N.S.M., a minor, by Next Friend C.N.M. and C.N.M., Individually, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nN.T.M., Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38078","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-04-30","year":2024,"display_summary":"Father appealed a paternity judgment, challenging the circuit court's custody and child support provisions. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding that Father failed to preserve his claims for review. This failure stemmed from not presenting specific claims of error to the circuit court and not including the required preservation statement in his opening brief, as mandated by Rule 84.04(e). The court emphasized that generic assertions in a post-trial motion are insufficient to preserve issues for appeal.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","family-law","child-custody"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=207733","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-the-matter-of-osm-a-minor-by-next-friend-ntm-and-ntm-individually-p-d38078","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111647:2024-04-23","opinionId":"fffb88d0-4814-51b0-ad25-b3e82652dd24","slug":"derek-maxwell-respondent-v-christina-maxwell-appellant-111647","caseName":"Derek Maxwell, Respondent, vs. Christina Maxwell, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111647","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-04-23","year":2024,"display_summary":"Mother appealed the trial court's judgment granting Father sole legal and physical custody of their three minor children. Mother contended the trial court erred by failing to enter judgment upon her consent to the custody arrangements in Father's original petition and by proceeding with trial, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that a trial court has an independent duty to determine custody in the best interests of the children, even if parties have previously consented, and that the parties were no longer in agreement at the time of trial.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=207499","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/derek-maxwell-respondent-v-christina-maxwell-appellant-111647","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86240:2024-04-02","opinionId":"a0c139c7-f786-5e53-bb92-c8e81b6f3139","slug":"in-re-the-matter-of-aiak-ehk-by-sak-as-next-friend-and-sak-individually-v-d86240","caseName":"In Re the Matter of: A.I.A.K. & E.H.K. by S.A.K. as Next Friend and S.A.K. Individually\nvs.\nT.M.K., M.L.K., R.J.R.","caseNumber":"WD86240","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-04-02","year":2024,"display_summary":"Appellant S.A.K., individually and on behalf of her children, appealed the trial court's judgment finding Respondent T.M.K. to be the natural parent of the children, despite blood tests showing no biological relation. The children were conceived via artificial insemination during Appellant and Respondent's marriage, using third-party donors. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the Uniform Parentage Act must be read gender-neutrally, allowing the trial court to weigh conflicting presumptions of parentage (marital vs. biological) based on policy and logic. The court clarified that blood tests are conclusive for nonpaternity when a party seeks to disclaim a biological relationship, but not to prevent a spouse from being declared a natural parent, and that non-compliance with artificial insemination procedures does not preclude a finding of natural parentage.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","child-custody","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=206862","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-the-matter-of-aiak-ehk-by-sak-as-next-friend-and-sak-individually-v-d86240","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86314:2024-03-19","opinionId":"69a17c93-c02d-5d84-a63b-10a5b0063ebd","slug":"in-the-interest-of-kal-juvenile-officer-v-hl-d86314","caseName":"In the Interest of: K.A.L.; Juvenile Officer\nvs.\nH.L.","caseNumber":"WD86314","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-03-19","year":2024,"display_summary":"The Juvenile Officer appealed the circuit court's judgment denying the petition to terminate the parental rights of H.L. (Father) concerning Child K.A.L. The Juvenile Officer argued the trial court misapplied the law, that its judgment was not supported by substantial evidence regarding statutory grounds for termination, and that it abused its discretion concerning the child's best interest. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no error in the trial court's application of the law and concluding that its findings denying termination were supported by substantial evidence.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=206476","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-kal-juvenile-officer-v-hl-d86314","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38023:2024-03-06","opinionId":"e1c5a1c2-cce0-5b56-8a71-1eaed95b7307","slug":"state-of-missouri-department-of-social-services-kimberly-leavell-responde-d38023","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES\nKIMBERLY LEAVELL, Respondents\nv.\nERIC ADAMS, Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38023","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-03-06","year":2024,"display_summary":"Father Eric Adams appealed a circuit court order finding he had a child support obligation of $1,000 per month since 2017, based on a default administrative modification order. Father argued the circuit court erred in determining he was required to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial review by filing a motion to modify. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Father's failure to request an administrative hearing constituted a failure to exhaust administrative remedies, thus precluding judicial review of the administrative order. The court also clarified the distinction between a judicial motion to modify and a petition for judicial review of an administrative order.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","family-law","child-custody","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=206234","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-department-of-social-services-kimberly-leavell-responde-d38023","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111391:2024-03-05","opinionId":"5173ef82-3dae-5509-93c6-854355d42a06","slug":"katey-l-gipson-respondent-v-joseph-l-gipson-appellant-111391","caseName":"Katey L. Gipson, Respondent, vs. Joseph L. Gipson, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111391","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-03-05","year":2024,"display_summary":"Joseph L. Gipson appealed the trial court's judgment dissolving his marriage to Katey L. Gipson, challenging the division of marital assets and debts, and the denial of child support. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's findings regarding the designation of marital debt and the denial of child support. However, the court reversed the marital property division, finding it inequitable, and exercised its authority to amend the judgment by reducing Husband's equalization payment.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","civil-procedure","child-custody","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=207293","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/katey-l-gipson-respondent-v-joseph-l-gipson-appellant-111391","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111658:2024-02-27","opinionId":"d915ca34-0433-5bf6-9bd9-bddcc9810142","slug":"in-the-interest-of-alr-111658","caseName":"In the Interest of: A.L.R.","caseNumber":"ED111658","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-02-27","year":2024,"display_summary":"The Juvenile Officer of St. Charles County appealed the juvenile court's dismissal of petitions alleging three minor children were in need of care and treatment due to parental abuse and neglect. The juvenile court had found an older sibling required protection but dismissed the petitions for the three children. The appellate court affirmed the juvenile court's judgment, finding that the dismissal was a final appealable order and that the judgment was supported by substantial evidence and not against the weight of the evidence.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=205835","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-alr-111658","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86165:2024-01-23","opinionId":"4e978e7d-3ecf-51f6-93a7-d1c2ab2b82af","slug":"in-the-interest-of-sf-juvenile-officer-v-nf-as-d86165","caseName":"In the Interest of: S.F., Juvenile Officer\nvs.\nN.F., A.S.","caseNumber":"WD86165","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-01-23","year":2024,"display_summary":"N.F. (Father) appealed the trial court's judgment placing his juvenile child, S.F., in the legal and physical custody of the Children's Division, arguing the judgment was not supported by substantial evidence. The appellate court affirmed, finding substantial evidence that the child was abused or neglected and in need of care and treatment under Section 211.031.1(1)(a). The court noted the parents' consistent failure to obtain consistent therapy for the child despite multiple medication overdoses and their choice to keep the child in a problematic environment.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=204773","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-sf-juvenile-officer-v-nf-as-d86165","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100136:2024-01-09","opinionId":"31d0c70b-fa8d-5d99-8f73-8549d41ccca4","slug":"in-the-interest-of-eg-v-juvenile-officer-100136","caseName":"In the Interest of: E.G. v. Juvenile Officer","caseNumber":"SC100136","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2024-01-09","year":2024,"display_summary":"Father appealed the circuit court's judgment terminating his parental rights to Child, E.G. The Juvenile Officer had petitioned for termination based on Father's prior felony convictions under chapter 566 involving child victims. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, declining to address Father's first two points regarding statutory interpretation and constitutionality due to lack of preservation. The Court found sufficient evidence to terminate Father's parental rights under section 211.447.2(4) and that termination was in the child's best interest.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","child-custody","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=204354","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-eg-v-juvenile-officer-100136","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38058:2023-12-06","opinionId":"a16d43f1-35ee-5f2b-8f56-e8c9902dd958","slug":"in-the-interest-of-jwc-missouri-department-of-social-services-childrens-d-d38058","caseName":"IN THE INTEREST OF J.W.C.,\nMISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, CHILDREN'S DIVISION, Respondent\nv.\nJ.W.C., Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38058","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-12-06","year":2023,"display_summary":"Father appealed the judgment terminating his parental rights to Child, raising four points concerning the admission of drug tests and an ICPC letter, and challenging the statutory ground of abandonment. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no merit in Father's evidentiary challenges. It concluded that Father failed to demonstrate prejudice from the admitted evidence, which was cumulative, and that his points on appeal were procedurally defective. The court declined to review the abandonment claim because other unchallenged statutory grounds supported the termination.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=203354","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-jwc-missouri-department-of-social-services-childrens-d-d38058","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37972:2023-12-05","opinionId":"58e625db-69af-5ec0-9c9d-f47636be2a40","slug":"rose-marie-lemmo-petitioner-respondent-v-timothy-lloyd-nobles-respondent-d37972","caseName":"ROSE MARIE LEMMO, Petitioner-Respondent\nv.\nTIMOTHY LLOYD NOBLES, Respondent-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37972","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-12-05","year":2023,"display_summary":"In a child-custody-modification case, ex-Husband appealed the circuit court's \"Order Amending Modification Judgment,\" which added a payment deadline and awarded additional attorney fees to ex-Wife. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. It held that the challenged order was not a final, appealable judgment or decree because it was not denominated as such under Rule 74.01(a).","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","child-custody","family-law"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=203274","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/rose-marie-lemmo-petitioner-respondent-v-timothy-lloyd-nobles-respondent-d37972","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85942:2023-12-05","opinionId":"0e86d0d4-1049-5e12-95a2-e022be4d6849","slug":"in-re-jaf-juvenile-juvenile-officer-and-department-of-social-services-chi-d85942","caseName":"In Re: J.A.F., Juvenile; Juvenile Officer and Department of Social Services, Children's Division\nvs.\nJ.J.J.F.","caseNumber":"WD85942","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2023-12-05","year":2023,"display_summary":"J.J.J.F., the father of J.A.F., appealed a circuit court judgment that maintained J.A.F.'s placement with a non-relative foster family and continued the permanency plan of reunification with the mother. Father argued the judgment modified placement, triggering a right to interlocutory appeal under § 211.261.2(2). The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the statute only permits appeals from orders that change or modify a child's placement, not those that merely maintain the existing placement. The court also noted that permanency hearing orders under § 210.720 are generally not appealable.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","child-custody","family-law"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=203233","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-jaf-juvenile-juvenile-officer-and-department-of-social-services-chi-d85942","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110935:2023-11-21","opinionId":"083fbdda-efde-5f4a-9643-1db1709bfef0","slug":"matthew-w-hagen-respondent-v-jamie-l-harris-appellant-110935","caseName":"Matthew W. Hagen, Respondent, vs. Jamie L. Harris, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED110935","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-11-21","year":2023,"display_summary":"Mother appealed the circuit court's judgment regarding paternity, custody, and child support. She contended the circuit court erred in its Form 14 child support calculation and in denying her motion to reopen the case to consider new evidence of Father's alcohol-related charges. The appellate court reversed the child support award, finding an error in the Line 11 custody credit calculation, and remanded for recalculation. However, the court affirmed the denial of the motion to reopen, concluding the circuit court did not abuse its discretion.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=202925","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/matthew-w-hagen-respondent-v-jamie-l-harris-appellant-110935","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85717:2023-11-07","opinionId":"00093b64-eb1b-5e12-923a-2b899dbdac22","slug":"elaina-marie-fulton-sansone-v-jeffrey-jay-fulton-d85717","caseName":"Elaina Marie (Fulton) Sansone\nvs.\nJeffrey Jay Fulton","caseNumber":"WD85717","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2023-11-07","year":2023,"display_summary":"Elaina Marie Sansone appealed the modification of child support, arguing the trial court erred in abating payments from Jeffrey Jay Fulton during the eight months their child attended college. Sansone contended she had ongoing expenses not covered by the college expense payments, thus making the abatement an erroneous application of the law. The Western District affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion as the evidence supported a finding of redundancy between Husband's direct payments for college and other expenses and his child support payments.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=202535","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/elaina-marie-fulton-sansone-v-jeffrey-jay-fulton-d85717","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110868:2023-10-24","opinionId":"49aa3226-809e-59bf-9c55-1d6ac0a43f69","slug":"dana-l-girgis-respondent-v-mark-s-girgis-appellant-110868","caseName":"Dana L. Girgis, Respondent, v. Mark S. Girgis, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED110868","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-10-24","year":2023,"display_summary":"Mark Girgis (Father) appealed the circuit court's judgment modifying his child support payments to Dana Girgis (Mother). The appellate court found the circuit court erred in its Form 14 calculation regarding the number of nights the children spend with Father, which impacted the visitation credit. Consequently, the court reversed that portion of the judgment and modified Father's child support obligation. The judgment was affirmed in all other respects, including the calculation of Father's income and Mother's health insurance costs, the latter being unpreserved for appeal.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","child-custody","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=202259","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/dana-l-girgis-respondent-v-mark-s-girgis-appellant-110868","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37865:2023-10-17","opinionId":"19ee96fe-7c9d-5071-b4dd-6cadcb7234b7","slug":"in-the-interest-of-mmb-reynolds-county-juvenile-office-respondent-v-sdb-a-d37865","caseName":"IN THE INTEREST OF M.M.B., \nReynolds County Juvenile Office, Respondent\nvs.\nS.D.B., Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37865","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-10-17","year":2023,"display_summary":"Father appealed the denial of his motion to set aside a judgment terminating his parental rights, arguing his due process rights were violated due to insufficient notice of the termination trial date. The appellate court found that the record indeed lacked evidence that Father received notice of the trial date. Consequently, the court reversed the circuit court's denial of Father's Rule 74.06(b) motion and remanded the case with instructions to set aside the termination judgment.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=202155","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-mmb-reynolds-county-juvenile-office-respondent-v-sdb-a-d37865","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111017:2023-09-12","opinionId":"867be15c-6a2a-580f-b191-01a566629f26","slug":"jrm-j-by-and-through-her-next-friend-sj-and-sj-individually-respondents-v-111017","caseName":"J.R.M.-J., By and Through Her Next Friend, S.J., and S.J., Individually, Respondents, v. R.T.M., Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111017","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-09-12","year":2023,"display_summary":"Mother appealed the circuit court's judgment awarding Father sole physical and legal custody of their child and granting Father attorney's fees. Mother argued the custody determination was based on stale evidence and against the weight of the evidence, and that the attorney's fee award was an abuse of discretion. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, finding no error in the custody modification or the attorney's fee award.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=203033","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jrm-j-by-and-through-her-next-friend-sj-and-sj-individually-respondents-v-111017","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85773:2023-07-25","opinionId":"54fc9478-b7f4-588d-ba75-153920b364c4","slug":"in-re-the-matter-of-yrh-by-and-through-her-next-friend-jnh-v-mjs-d85773","caseName":"In Re The Matter Of: Y.R.H. by and through her next friend J.N.H.\nvs.\nM.J.S.","caseNumber":"WD85773","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2023-07-25","year":2023,"display_summary":"Father appealed the trial court's judgment establishing paternity, child custody, and child support, specifically challenging the adoption of a parenting plan that provided for alternating weekly parenting time. Father contended that the trial court's finding that this schedule was in the child's best interests was not supported by substantial evidence and was against the weight of the evidence. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding that the trial court's parenting plan was supported by substantial evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence, distinguishing a prior case where an unusual annual rotation plan lacked evidentiary support.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=197835","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-the-matter-of-yrh-by-and-through-her-next-friend-jnh-v-mjs-d85773","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37933:2023-07-18","opinionId":"40f481bc-ec93-5029-9ddc-fde35e577a81","slug":"in-interest-of-wjjw-greene-county-juvenile-office-respondent-v-maw-appell-d37933","caseName":"IN INTEREST OF W.J.J.W.,\nGREENE COUNTY JUVENILE OFFICE, Respondent\nvs.\nM.A.W., Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37933","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-07-18","year":2023,"display_summary":"Mother M.A.W. appealed the circuit court's judgment terminating her parental rights over Child W.J.J.W., asserting she was denied due process due to insufficient notice of the termination hearing. The Greene County Juvenile Office conceded the notice was deficient. The appellate court reversed the judgment, holding that the certificate of service failed to state the mailing address and that reasonable efforts were not made to ensure Mother received notice, rendering the judgment irregular. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=197633","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-interest-of-wjjw-greene-county-juvenile-office-respondent-v-maw-appell-d37933","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37928:2023-07-18","opinionId":"a0ecdd98-6081-58ae-9751-83ef7c154457","slug":"in-the-interest-of-wjjw-a-minor-child-under-seventeen-years-of-age-greene-d37928","caseName":"IN THE INTEREST OF W.J.J.W., A minor child under seventeen years of age,\nGREENE COUNTY JUVENILE OFFICER, Petitioner-Respondent\nv.\nM.P.W., Respondent-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37928","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-07-18","year":2023,"display_summary":"M.P.W. (Father) appealed the termination of his parental rights to W.J.J.W. (Child), arguing he was not provided sufficient notice of the termination hearing. The Greene County Juvenile Officer agreed with Father's claims. The appellate court vacated the judgment terminating Father's parental rights and remanded the case for further proceedings, finding that the lack of notice violated Father's due process rights and rendered the judgment \"irregular\" under Rule 74.06(b)(3).","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=197634","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-wjjw-a-minor-child-under-seventeen-years-of-age-greene-d37928","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37900:2023-06-27","opinionId":"8751e7ef-2b6f-55ac-b2ff-133e2b24250c","slug":"in-the-interest-of-smle-and-wwle-minor-children-under-seventeen-years-of-d37900","caseName":"IN THE INTEREST OF: S.M.L.E. and W.W.L.E., minor children under seventeen years of age\nGREENE COUNTY JUVENILE OFFICE, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nS.W.E., Natural Father, Respondent-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37900","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-06-27","year":2023,"display_summary":"S.W.E. (Father) appealed the circuit court's judgment terminating his parental rights to his two minor children, S.M.L.E. and W.W.L.E. Father contended the court abused its discretion by finding termination of his rights was in the children's best interest without also terminating the Mother's rights. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no merit in Father's claim and noting that Missouri law allows for the termination of one parent's rights while leaving the other's intact, and the circumstances of this case were distinguishable from the cases Father cited.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","standard-of-review","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=196993","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-smle-and-wwle-minor-children-under-seventeen-years-of-d37900","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37725:2023-06-26","opinionId":"123cf218-70b1-56f8-8b65-92bc5cdd1ba3","slug":"in-re-the-marriage-of-alexander-schiele-petitioner-appellant-v-corinne-du-d37725","caseName":"IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF:\nALEXANDER SCHIELE, Petitioner-Appellant\nv.\nCORINNE DURNAL, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD37725","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-06-26","year":2023,"display_summary":"Father appealed an amended judgment in a child support modification case, arguing the trial court erred by entering it as a nunc pro tunc judgment to add a child support amount. The prior judgment had ordered child support but did not specify a dollar amount. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the prior judgment was interlocutory because it failed to dispose of all issues, specifically the dollar amount of child support. Therefore, the trial court retained jurisdiction to enter a final judgment, making the nunc pro tunc argument inapplicable.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=196933","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-the-marriage-of-alexander-schiele-petitioner-appellant-v-corinne-du-d37725","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111200:2023-06-06","opinionId":"e9e8793f-ff83-5b34-9d0e-a9ad9884cd21","slug":"emilee-d-williams-nka-emilee-corey-respondent-v-jason-jai-williams-appell-111200","caseName":"Emilee D. Williams, n/k/a Emilee Corey, Respondent, v. Jason Jai Williams, Appellant, and Katherine Tyler, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED111200","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-06-06","year":2023,"display_summary":"Jason Williams (Father) appealed a judgment that granted in part motions to modify custody filed by Emilee Williams (Mother) and for third-party custody filed by Katherine Tyler (Intervenor). The appellate court dismissed Father's appeal because he failed to file a transcript as required by Rule 81.12 and his brief violated multiple provisions of Rule 84.04. These deficiencies substantially impeded appellate review of all his points relied on, preventing the court from reaching the merits of the custody dispute.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","family-law","child-custody"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=196281","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/emilee-d-williams-nka-emilee-corey-respondent-v-jason-jai-williams-appell-111200","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37852:2023-05-25","opinionId":"ac594e05-c874-53ad-95dd-fcd3e9113a82","slug":"in-the-interest-of-kac-and-eag-minor-children-under-seventeen-years-of-ag-d37852","caseName":"IN THE INTEREST OF:\nK.A.C. and E.A.G., minor children under seventeen years of age.\nGREENE COUNTY JUVENILE OFFICE, Petitioner-Respondent\nv.\nJ.R.M., Respondent-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37852","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-05-25","year":2023,"display_summary":"J.R.M. (Mother) appealed the termination of her parental rights to her two minor children, K.A.C. and E.A.G. She contended the trial court erred by denying her motions for change of judge, arguing they were timely under Rule 121.02(a). The appellate court affirmed the judgments, holding that Mother's motions were untimely because the timeliness requirement of Rule 121.02 incorporates the deadlines established by Rule 51.05.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","child-custody","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=195953","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-kac-and-eag-minor-children-under-seventeen-years-of-ag-d37852","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85534:2023-05-23","opinionId":"4b3955af-3406-5be0-b391-86ba203606a4","slug":"jessica-lynne-johnson-nka-jessica-l-gould-v-isaiah-ben-johnson-d85534","caseName":"Jessica Lynne Johnson, n/k/a Jessica L. Gould\nvs.\nIsaiah Ben Johnson","caseNumber":"WD85534","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2023-05-23","year":2023,"display_summary":"Jessica Gould appealed a civil contempt judgment finding she willfully disobeyed a child custody modification order by withholding her minor child from Isaiah Johnson. The trial court ordered compensatory time for Father and required Mother to pay therapy costs and Father's legal fees. The appellate court dismissed Mother's appeal as untimely, holding that the contempt judgment became final and appealable on the date its remedial enforcement mechanisms commenced, and Mother failed to file her notice of appeal within the subsequent ten-day period.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","child-custody","family-law","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=195663","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jessica-lynne-johnson-nka-jessica-l-gould-v-isaiah-ben-johnson-d85534","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110596:2023-05-16","opinionId":"5f713b95-ae54-53b2-9683-efec5c484668","slug":"brian-scott-lewis-respondent-v-sara-marie-hartsock-lewis-appellant-110596","caseName":"Brian Scott Lewis, Respondent, vs. Sara Marie (Hartsock) Lewis, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED110596","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-05-16","year":2023,"display_summary":"Mother appealed the trial court's judgment modifying child custody and child support, specifically challenging the parenting plan's failure to designate custody for two statutorily required holidays. The Eastern District affirmed the judgment in part, but reversed and remanded the portion of the parenting plan concerning holiday custody. The court held that the omission of Martin Luther King Day and Presidents' Day from the parenting plan constituted reversible plain error, requiring modification on remand.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=195437","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/brian-scott-lewis-respondent-v-sara-marie-hartsock-lewis-appellant-110596","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110409:2023-05-16","opinionId":"210784d9-7206-5179-86eb-31e1711b52ac","slug":"scjm-and-bjjm-by-their-next-friend-sdm-and-sdm-individually-appellants-v-110409","caseName":"S.C.J.M., and B.J.J.M., By Their Next Friend, S.D.M., and S.D.M., Individually, Appellants, vs. B.J.N.S., Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED110409","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-05-16","year":2023,"display_summary":"Father appealed the trial court's judgment awarding Mother sole physical and legal custody of their two minor children and denying him visitation. Father argued the trial court misapplied the law by failing to include specific arrangements in the parenting plan and by not making sufficient findings as required by statute. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court's detailed findings regarding custody and visitation, including findings of domestic violence and negative impact on the children, were sufficient and rendered further specific parenting plan provisions superfluous.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=195435","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/scjm-and-bjjm-by-their-next-friend-sdm-and-sdm-individually-appellants-v-110409","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110317:2023-05-16","opinionId":"8461babc-46f3-5282-9b75-20121e5b727e","slug":"mm-respondent-v-cs-appellant-110317","caseName":"M.M., Respondent, v. C.S., Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED110317","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-05-16","year":2023,"display_summary":"In a paternity suit, Father appealed the trial court's judgment awarding him supervised visitation with one of the parties' minor children, O.S., for four hours every other Saturday. Father argued the judgment was unsupported by substantial evidence and that the trial court improperly relied on unsworn statements from the guardian ad litem (GAL). The appellate court reversed the portion of the judgment related to O.S.'s visitation schedule, finding the trial court erred by relying on the GAL's unsworn statements and that, absent those statements, the order was not supported by substantial evidence. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the visitation issue, with the judgment affirmed in all other respects.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=195434","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mm-respondent-v-cs-appellant-110317","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111003:2023-05-09","opinionId":"d055366b-5d9b-5ee6-ab82-23ff2f1b8969","slug":"in-the-interest-of-erms-tmds-and-zwds-111003","caseName":"In the Interest of: E.R.M.S., T.M.D.S., and Z.W.D.S.","caseNumber":"ED111003","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-05-09","year":2023,"display_summary":"R.K. (Mother) appealed the trial court's judgments terminating her parental rights over her three children, E.R.M.S., T.M.D.S., and Z.W.D.S. Mother argued the trial court erred in finding clear, cogent, and convincing evidence for termination on grounds of abuse/neglect, failure to rectify, and parental unfitness, and that termination was not in the children's best interests. The appellate court found clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that Mother has an untreatable methamphetamine dependency preventing her from providing necessary care, custody, and control of the children, thereby upholding the termination.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","child-custody","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=195302","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-erms-tmds-and-zwds-111003","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":6,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85701:2023-04-18","opinionId":"fdfb9d5b-43a0-5c43-9050-a2ba71ab8bd1","slug":"sk-et-al-v-tk-mk-and-rr-d85701","caseName":"S.K., Et al.\nvs.\nT.K., M.K., and R.R.","caseNumber":"WD85701","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2023-04-18","year":2023,"display_summary":"S.K. appealed the trial court's judgments declaring her and T.K. (her former spouse) as the natural parents of their two children, conceived via artificial insemination with donor sperm. S.K. argued the trial court misapplied the Uniform Parentage Act. The appellate court dismissed the appeals for lack of jurisdiction, finding the judgments were not final because they did not resolve all claims in the petitions, specifically those related to custody, child support, and parenting plans.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","child-custody"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=194540","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/sk-et-al-v-tk-mk-and-rr-d85701","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85520:2023-04-18","opinionId":"b13a04d0-f26e-530f-96c9-35b598145121","slug":"melissa-aldridge-v-devin-martin-d85520","caseName":"Melissa Aldridge\nvs. \nDevin Martin","caseNumber":"WD85520","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2023-04-18","year":2023,"display_summary":"Melissa Aldridge, the paternal grandmother, sought and was granted visitation rights to her grandson, Devin Martin's son, under section 452.402, RSMo. Father appealed, arguing the awarded visitation—a 24-hour period every other weekend and a weekly video chat—was unlawfully excessive and constituted more than a minimal intrusion on his parental rights. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the visitation award was sufficiently limited and did not exceed a minimal intrusion, especially considering Grandmother's prior role as the child's primary caregiver.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","standard-of-review","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=196014","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/melissa-aldridge-v-devin-martin-d85520","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37737:2023-04-10","opinionId":"633395eb-5b94-59d9-b5f8-624427a8f351","slug":"in-the-interest-of-hmw-and-wel-children-under-seventeen-years-of-age-gree-d37737","caseName":"IN THE INTEREST OF: H.M.W. and W.E.L., children under seventeen years of age.\nGREENE COUNTY JUVENILE OFFICE, Petitioner-Respondent\nvs.\nR.W., Respondent-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37737","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-04-10","year":2023,"display_summary":"R.W. (Mother) appealed the trial court's judgments terminating her parental rights to her two minor children, H.M.W. and W.E.L. The trial court terminated parental rights based on abuse/neglect and failure to rectify, and found termination to be in the children's best interest. Mother challenged only the best interest finding on appeal. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that termination was in the children's best interest, especially given Mother conceded six of the seven statutory factors favored termination.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=194333","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-hmw-and-wel-children-under-seventeen-years-of-age-gree-d37737","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":6,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110533:2023-04-04","opinionId":"22e78d0a-b5a2-5ea4-9e40-834483f18e50","slug":"mikala-e-harris-respondent-v-david-w-harris-jr-appellant-110533","caseName":"Mikala E. Harris, Respondent, vs. David W. Harris, Jr., Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED110533","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-04-04","year":2023,"display_summary":"David W. Harris, Jr. (Father) appealed the circuit court's judgment dissolving his marriage to Mikala E. Harris (Mother) and awarding custody of their two minor children. The appellate court affirmed the judgment in part but reversed the custody determination. The reversal was based on the circuit court's failure to include all statutorily required findings regarding the rejection of Father's proposed custodial arrangement and its omission of necessary components in the parenting plan, remanding the case for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=194098","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mikala-e-harris-respondent-v-david-w-harris-jr-appellant-110533","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc99786:2023-03-21","opinionId":"dbd66b46-a4e2-57e4-8135-d1c26651d8be","slug":"in-the-interest-of-lngs-juvenile-juvenile-officer-respondent-and-missouri-c99786","caseName":"In the Interest of:  L.N.G.S., Juvenile; Juvenile Officer, Respondent, and Missouri Department of Social Services, Children's Division, Respondent, vs. A.S. and A.S., Appellants.","caseNumber":"SC99786","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2023-03-21","year":2023,"display_summary":"A.S. and A.S., the child's aunt and uncle, appealed the overruling of their motion for new trial following an adjudication hearing on a child neglect petition. The child had been removed from their temporary custody after suffering burns and fractures. The Missouri Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the relatives lacked standing under section 211.261 of the Juvenile Code. The Court found they were not appealing on the child's behalf and did not qualify as \"parents\" because their adoption of the child was not finalized.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","child-custody","family-law"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=193498","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-lngs-juvenile-juvenile-officer-respondent-and-missouri-c99786","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110427:2023-03-21","opinionId":"b4a0a5e3-899d-5218-bd7a-87c7f9ffb06e","slug":"ohb-and-ekb-by-next-friend-smb-and-smb-individually-appellants-v-lys-resp-110427","caseName":"O.H.B. and E.K.B., by Next Friend S.M.B., and S.M.B., Individually, Appellants, v. L.Y.S., Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED110427","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-03-21","year":2023,"display_summary":"Father appealed a judgment establishing joint legal and physical custody of his two minor children and ordering child support. He argued the judgment was against the weight of the evidence for not awarding substantially equal parenting time and that the child support calculation was erroneous. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, finding Father failed to properly present his against-the-weight-of-the-evidence claim and that the custody arrangement met the statutory definition of joint physical custody.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","child-custody","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=193474","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/ohb-and-ekb-by-next-friend-smb-and-smb-individually-appellants-v-lys-resp-110427","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85049:2023-02-28","opinionId":"afa58a74-25b4-5ec8-a209-1882def31522","slug":"in-the-interest-of-abw-juvenile-officer-v-abw-d85049","caseName":"In the Interest of: A.B.W., Juvenile Officer, \nvs. \nA.B.W.","caseNumber":"WD85049","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2023-02-28","year":2023,"display_summary":"A.B.W., a juvenile, appealed the circuit court's dispositional order committing her to the Buchanan County Academy after being adjudicated delinquent for assault and status offenses. While the appeal was pending, the juvenile court modified its order, releasing A.B.W. from the Academy and placing her on probation in her mother's custody, which was the relief A.B.W. had originally requested. The appellate court dismissed the appeal as moot, finding that no practical effect would result from a judgment on the merits and no exceptions to the mootness doctrine applied.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","family-law","child-custody","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=192770","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-abw-juvenile-officer-v-abw-d85049","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110706:2023-02-21","opinionId":"a3f04b50-6835-5426-b72c-9077a9b07ea3","slug":"in-the-interest-of-fsk-a-minor-110706","caseName":"In the Interest of: F.S.K., a minor.","caseNumber":"ED110706","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-02-21","year":2023,"display_summary":"Mother and Father appealed the judgment terminating their parental rights to F.S.K. The juvenile court terminated their rights based on abandonment and failure to rectify harmful conditions, relying on an outdated social study from a separate proceeding. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the juvenile court committed reversible error by failing to order and obtain a new investigation and social study after the termination petition was filed, as strictly mandated by section 211.455.3 RSMo.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=192638","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-fsk-a-minor-110706","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37583:2023-02-01","opinionId":"323dc947-73c3-55f2-8f2e-8887e7d263d3","slug":"in-interest-of-zsc-and-hec-greene-county-juvenile-office-respondent-v-je-d37583","caseName":"IN INTEREST OF Z.S.C. and H.E.C.,\nGREENE COUNTY JUVENILE OFFICE, Respondent\nvs.\nJ.E., Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37583","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-02-01","year":2023,"display_summary":"J.E. (Father) appealed the circuit court's judgments terminating his parental rights to his two children, Z.S.C. and H.E.C. The circuit court terminated Father's rights based on statutory grounds of neglect, failure to rectify, and parental unfitness, and found termination was in the children's best interest. On appeal, Father challenged only the best interest determination, arguing the court abused its discretion by making erroneous findings under certain statutory factors. The appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in the circuit court's best interest determination.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","child-custody","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=192094","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-interest-of-zsc-and-hec-greene-county-juvenile-office-respondent-v-je-d37583","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37065:2022-12-20","opinionId":"ee7334bd-6e83-568d-add2-9c4c138b788d","slug":"tjw-individually-and-anmt-w-by-tjw-as-next-friend-petitioners-respondents-d37065","caseName":"T.J.W., Individually, and A.N.M.T.-W., by T.J.W. as Next Friend, Petitioners-Respondents\nvs.\nK.T., Respondent-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37065","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2022-12-20","year":2022,"display_summary":"In this second appeal of a paternity action, Mother challenged the trial court's judgment after remand, which again awarded joint legal and physical custody of the child to Mother and Father. Mother raised five points of error, including claims that the trial court failed to follow the appellate mandate, misapplied the law regarding joint legal custody, failed to make required findings, and made findings not supported by substantial evidence. The Southern District of Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, denying all of Mother's points on appeal.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","child-custody","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=191374","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/tjw-individually-and-anmt-w-by-tjw-as-next-friend-petitioners-respondents-d37065","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84946:2022-11-08","opinionId":"c8ab94a1-2aae-5515-88ac-9cd17efe5a0c","slug":"bethany-d-harris-v-douglas-l-harris-d84946","caseName":"Bethany D. Harris \nvs. \nDouglas L. Harris","caseNumber":"WD84946","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-11-08","year":2022,"display_summary":"Douglas Harris appealed the trial court's judgment dissolving his marriage to Bethany Harris, which included decisions on child support, maintenance, marital property division, and a parenting plan. Husband challenged the imputation of income for child support, the amount of child support and maintenance, and the valuation and award of the marital home. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in the imputation of income or the property division, and concluding that other issues were not preserved for review.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","child-custody","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=190294","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/bethany-d-harris-v-douglas-l-harris-d84946","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84813:2022-10-25","opinionId":"2e237119-e330-573c-92ec-123aae56e2c3","slug":"mustafa-q-alamin-v-likita-n-alamin-d84813","caseName":"Mustafa Q. Alamin\nvs.\nLikita N. Alamin","caseNumber":"WD84813","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-10-25","year":2022,"display_summary":"Mother appealed the denial of her motion to revive a 2001 dissolution judgment, which had ordered Father to pay child support and maintenance. Mother argued that Father's prior motions to modify child support and terminate maintenance, and the subsequent modification judgments, had revived the original judgment. The appellate court affirmed, holding that such motions do not revive a judgment under Missouri law and that Father adequately established his untimeliness defense as a legal question.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","civil-procedure","divorce","child-custody","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=190014","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mustafa-q-alamin-v-likita-n-alamin-d84813","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110187:2022-10-04","opinionId":"9b627bd9-1ada-59af-8767-b8e389ec6a55","slug":"alison-g-sendlein-respondent-v-brian-b-sendlein-appellant-110187","caseName":"Alison G. Sendlein, Respondent, v. Brian B. Sendlein, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED110187","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2022-10-04","year":2022,"display_summary":"Mother and Father, joint legal and physical custodians, disagreed on their child's residential address for mailing and educational purposes and which school the child should attend. The circuit court modified the dissolution decree, designating Mother's address and ordering the child to attend a local parochial school, applying the \"best interests of the child\" standard. The appellate court affirmed, holding that both issues are \"sub-issues of custody\" governed by the best interests standard, and the circuit court's findings were supported by substantial evidence.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=189616","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/alison-g-sendlein-respondent-v-brian-b-sendlein-appellant-110187","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84939:2022-09-20","opinionId":"94974d82-e0ae-59cb-883d-7e59e97c8b51","slug":"in-the-interest-of-lsh-lh-lh-juvenile-officer-v-ch-ts-d84939","caseName":"In the Interest of: L.S.H., L.H., L.H.; Juvenile Officer\nvs. \nC.H., T.S.","caseNumber":"WD84939","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-09-20","year":2022,"display_summary":"Father appealed the trial court's order adjudicating his children in need of services and setting a permanency goal of termination of parental rights and adoption. He argued that the Children's Division failed to make reasonable efforts for reunification and that the permanency plan was a misapplication of the law. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's finding that reasonable efforts were made, concluding it was supported by substantial evidence. However, the court dismissed the appeal regarding the permanency plan, holding that such plans are not appealable under Missouri law.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=189254","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-lsh-lh-lh-juvenile-officer-v-ch-ts-d84939","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84988:2022-09-13","opinionId":"34b665dc-ad20-564e-8d51-74dd890b0082","slug":"in-the-interest-of-dth-mjh-juvenile-officer-v-rb-d84988","caseName":"In the Interest of: D.T.H., M.J.H., Juvenile Officer\nvs. \nR.B.","caseNumber":"WD84988","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-09-13","year":2022,"display_summary":"Mother R.B. appealed the circuit court's judgment terminating her parental rights to her two daughters, D.H. and M.H. The circuit court found termination appropriate based on three independent statutory grounds and determined it was in the children's best interest. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the statutory ground of failure to rectify and concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that termination was in the children's best interests, despite Mother's briefing deficiencies and incomplete record on appeal.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=189035","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-dth-mjh-juvenile-officer-v-rb-d84988","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37371:2022-07-06","opinionId":"9b2685de-0a13-53b1-984d-a162f242cb04","slug":"in-the-interest-of-dnd-greene-county-juvenile-office-respondent-v-hdw-app-d37371","caseName":"IN THE INTEREST OF D.N.D.,\nGREENE COUNTY JUVENILE OFFICE, Respondent\nvs.\nH.D.W., Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37371","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2022-07-06","year":2022,"display_summary":"Mother appealed the circuit court's judgment terminating her parental rights to Child D.N.D., arguing that the finding that termination was in the child's best interest was against the weight of the evidence. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that Mother failed to carry her burden to establish circuit court error by not presenting a cogent against-the-weight-of-the-evidence challenge. The court emphasized that an appellant must identify evidence contrary to the judgment that is not based on credibility determinations, which Mother failed to do.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","family-law"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=187775","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-dnd-greene-county-juvenile-office-respondent-v-hdw-app-d37371","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:parent-187096","opinionId":"113c5549-c41d-51ed-8f30-679f7dd67512","slug":"in-the-interest-of-amw-sw-rw-fw-acw-and-gw-juvenile-officer-and-departmen-d84846","caseName":"In The Interest of: A.M.W., S.W., R.W., F.W., A.C.W., and G.W.; Juvenile Officer; and Department of Social Services, Children's Division\nvs.\nA.W.; and P.G.","caseNumber":"WD84846","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-05-31","year":2022,"display_summary":"Mother and Father appealed a judgment terminating their parental rights to six children, which was based on findings of abuse or neglect, failure to rectify, and parental unfitness. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, specifically upholding the trial court's determination that the parents failed to rectify the conditions leading to the children's removal, supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the determination that termination was in the children's best interest, given the parents' long history of inadequate care and inability to safely parent despite extensive services.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=187096","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-amw-sw-rw-fw-acw-and-gw-juvenile-officer-and-departmen-d84846","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37034:2022-05-04","opinionId":"0db7995f-9e1c-5850-9484-116dab193120","slug":"in-re-the-marriage-of-dana-lea-wasson-and-jeremy-shane-wasson-dana-lea-wa-d37034","caseName":"In Re the Marriage of: DANA LEA WASSON and JEREMY SHANE WASSON.\nDANA LEA WASSON, Petitioner/Appellant\nvs.\nJEREMY SHANE WASSON, Respondent/Respondent","caseNumber":"SD37034","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2022-05-04","year":2022,"display_summary":"Dana Lea Wasson (Mother) appealed the trial court's judgment dissolving her marriage to Jeremy Shane Wasson (Father), raising four points of error. Mother challenged the denial of her motion to reopen the case for new evidence, the trial court's alleged failure to make specific findings of abuse, the award of $50,000 in attorney fees to Father, and the allocation of a deficiency judgment debt to her. The appellate court found no merit in any of Mother's points and affirmed the trial court's judgment.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","divorce","child-custody","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=186674","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-the-marriage-of-dana-lea-wasson-and-jeremy-shane-wasson-dana-lea-wa-d37034","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84571:2022-05-03","opinionId":"8f4abfb0-06bc-5da8-9225-54a15050e9de","slug":"lacy-anne-craig-v-cory-wayne-craig-d84571","caseName":"Lacy Anne Craig\nvs. \nCory Wayne Craig","caseNumber":"WD84571","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-05-03","year":2022,"display_summary":"Cory Craig (Husband) appealed from a dissolution judgment, raising six points concerning child support, appointment of a guardian ad litem (GAL), and property division. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment. Most of Husband's points were denied due to failure to preserve them for review, specifically for non-compliance with Rule 84.04 briefing requirements or failure to plead an affirmative defense. The court found no merit in Husband's preserved claim regarding the non-appointment of a GAL, as child abuse was not expressly alleged in a pleading and no harm to the children was shown.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","appellate-procedure","divorce","child-custody","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=186519","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/lacy-anne-craig-v-cory-wayne-craig-d84571","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed109487:2022-04-12","opinionId":"8a517beb-31ac-52e4-a0d2-57d09fd8daf7","slug":"in-the-interest-of-td-109487","caseName":"In the Interest of: T.D.","caseNumber":"ED109487","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2022-04-12","year":2022,"display_summary":"The juvenile officer filed a petition requesting care and treatment for T.D., the minor child of Mother M.R., due to concerns about Mother's drug abuse history and neglect, including the death of another infant child. The juvenile court assumed jurisdiction over T.D. and granted temporary custody to the Children's Division. Mother appealed, arguing the judgment lacked substantial evidence, was based on unpleaded facts, and relied on irrelevant testimony. The appellate court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=186116","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-td-109487","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed109556:2022-04-12","opinionId":"e7294153-dc6b-5c21-b7b4-3ad0935a7157","slug":"in-the-interest-of-kaml-109556","caseName":"In the Interest of: K.A.M.L.","caseNumber":"ED109556","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2022-04-12","year":2022,"display_summary":"M.L.R. (Father) appealed the trial court's judgment terminating his parental rights for his three children. He argued the trial court erred by denying his motions for a continuance and to reopen evidence, and that there was insufficient evidence to support termination based on failure to rectify and the children's best interests. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the motions and concluding that clear, cogent, and convincing evidence supported the termination grounds and best interest determination.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","appellate-procedure","evidence","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=186118","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-kaml-109556","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed109843:2022-04-05","opinionId":"62ed36c5-2f72-5b69-8c55-c613205b0cad","slug":"in-the-interest-of-tmp-109843","caseName":"In the Interest of: T.M.P.","caseNumber":"ED109843","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2022-04-05","year":2022,"display_summary":"Mother M.C. appealed the trial court's judgment terminating her parental rights to T.M.P. and T.T.P. The trial court had found grounds for termination based on abuse and neglect, failure to rectify, and unfitness, citing Mother's alleged failure to provide financial support, obtain adequate housing, and comply with a social service plan. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the Missouri Department of Social Services, Children's Division, failed to present substantial evidence to justify the termination of parental rights under any of the statutory grounds.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","civil-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=185975","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-tmp-109843","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed109823:2022-03-15","opinionId":"d74cc0e8-5f40-5107-95f3-d0aa11934ea8","slug":"in-the-interest-of-lqf-aed-dgf-jsf-ltk-and-jlk-109823","caseName":"In the Interest of: L.Q.F., A.E.D., D.G.F., J.S.F., L.T.K., and J.L.K.","caseNumber":"ED109823","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2022-03-15","year":2022,"display_summary":"Mother D.D. appealed the termination of her parental rights to her six children. She argued the circuit court erred by denying her motion for extraordinary expenses to hire an expert physical therapist and by allowing hearsay statements from two of her children. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the expert expenses given the overwhelming evidence of Mother's direct abuse. The court also found no prejudice from the admitted hearsay, as substantial other admissible evidence supported the termination.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","evidence","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=185260","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-lqf-aed-dgf-jsf-ltk-and-jlk-109823","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84501:2022-03-08","opinionId":"56d9800e-4869-5d5a-b502-41f1d5f52f2b","slug":"alexandra-c-prevost-v-brett-m-silmon-d84501","caseName":"Alexandra C. Prevost\nvs. \nBrett M. Silmon","caseNumber":"WD84501","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-03-08","year":2022,"display_summary":"Mother appealed the modification of a dissolution judgment, which awarded Father sole legal custody of their minor child and adopted a guardian ad litem's parenting plan. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding that Mother failed to properly brief her against-the-weight-of-the-evidence challenges regarding custody and the parenting plan. The court concluded that the circuit court's detailed findings supported the change in custody and the adoption of the GAL's plan, demonstrating the parents' inability to function as a unit. Mother's claims regarding child support and GAL fees were also denied due to briefing deficiencies.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","divorce"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=185019","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/alexandra-c-prevost-v-brett-m-silmon-d84501","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed109820:2022-02-08","opinionId":"8cda0972-5bbd-55a1-b8c0-d7a4d85a4050","slug":"emily-jane-corson-respondent-v-joshua-ryan-corson-respondent-and-elaine-k-109820","caseName":"Emily Jane Corson, Respondent, v. Joshua Ryan Corson, Respondent, and Elaine Korn, Proposed Intervenor/Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED109820","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2022-02-08","year":2022,"display_summary":"Elaine Korn, the maternal grandmother, sought to intervene in her daughter Emily Corson's dissolution of marriage action against Joshua Corson to obtain grandparent visitation rights. The circuit court denied Korn's motion to intervene as untimely, which Korn appealed. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, concluding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Korn's application to intervene was untimely, especially given the prejudice to the existing parties who had already reached a consent judgment.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","child-custody","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=184174","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/emily-jane-corson-respondent-v-joshua-ryan-corson-respondent-and-elaine-k-109820","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed109375:2021-12-28","opinionId":"6b0ccc49-e3b8-5a41-a9e5-f1b723c42eea","slug":"ktl-by-her-next-friend-kl-and-kl-individually-respondents-v-ag-appellant-109375","caseName":"K.T.L. by Her Next Friend, K.L.., and K.L. Individually, Respondents, vs. A.G., Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED109375","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-12-28","year":2021,"display_summary":"A.G., a third-party petitioner, appealed the trial court's judgment awarding sole custody of the minor child, K.T.L., to her biological father, K.L., following the mother's death. A.G. claimed the child's welfare required an award of third-party custody. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that A.G. failed to meet her burden to rebut the natural-parent presumption under the \"welfare\" prong of § 452.375.5(5)(a), particularly due to her conduct in discouraging the child's relationship with the father.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=183017","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/ktl-by-her-next-friend-kl-and-kl-individually-respondents-v-ag-appellant-109375","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed109164:2021-12-21","opinionId":"85538276-fab4-5f79-a3ec-9c8cccc9bd02","slug":"kathleen-m-mclaughlin-respondent-v-kevin-p-mclaughlin-appellant-109164","caseName":"Kathleen M. McLaughlin, Respondent, v. Kevin P. McLaughlin, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED109164","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-12-21","year":2021,"display_summary":"Kevin P. McLaughlin (Father) appealed the trial court's judgment denying his motion to modify child support, relieving him of private school tuition, and granting Kathleen M. McLaughlin (Mother) sole legal custody. Father argued he met the burden for modification due to changes in income and custody time, and that the court punished him. The appellate court affirmed, finding Father failed to prove a substantial and continuing change in circumstances to reduce child support and that his conduct justified the sole legal custody award to Mother. The court also noted Father benefited from being relieved of private school tuition.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","divorce","child-custody","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=182816","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/kathleen-m-mclaughlin-respondent-v-kevin-p-mclaughlin-appellant-109164","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed108963:2021-12-14","opinionId":"61b6c20a-948c-558b-b0e0-36a7f420e83a","slug":"khoi-m-le-appellant-v-brenda-m-le-nka-patterson-respondent-108963","caseName":"Khoi M. Le, Appellant, vs. Brenda M. Le, n/k/a Patterson, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED108963","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-12-14","year":2021,"display_summary":"Khoi Le (Father) appealed the trial court's denial of his motions to terminate child support and for reimbursement, and the grant of Brenda Patterson's (Mother) motions to hold him in contempt and for attorney's fees. Father argued his son, L.K., was emancipated and that the dissolution judgment regarding post-secondary education costs was vague. He also challenged the admission of medical records and the award of attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment and the award of attorney's fees, finding L.K.'s disabilities excepted him from full-time enrollment requirements, the judgment was not vague, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion regarding contempt, evidence, or attorney's fees.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","child-custody","civil-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=182634","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/khoi-m-le-appellant-v-brenda-m-le-nka-patterson-respondent-108963","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed109493:2021-12-07","opinionId":"fd909a55-8a87-53fe-b8dc-e191acb743ae","slug":"in-the-interest-of-dlp-th-wch-agh-and-rsmh-109493","caseName":"In the Interest of: D.L.P, T.H., W.C.H., A.G.H., and R.S.M.H.","caseNumber":"ED109493","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-12-07","year":2021,"display_summary":"Biological Mother appealed the termination of her parental rights to four children. The trial court terminated her rights after finding grounds under sections 211.447.5(3) and 211.447.5(5). The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the Children's Division failed to provide adequate assistance, thus precluding termination based on the social service plan. Additionally, the court found the trial court erred by not explicitly stating the \"clear, cogent, and convincing evidence\" standard in its judgment, which is a reversible defect in parental rights termination cases.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=182514","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-dlp-th-wch-agh-and-rsmh-109493","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":6,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed109532:2021-11-23","opinionId":"e1e7360f-cfb0-50f3-9175-fac754ac5ef5","slug":"kimberly-l-ball-appellant-v-michael-r-ball-respondent-109532","caseName":"Kimberly L. Ball, Appellant, vs. Michael R. Ball, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED109532","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-11-23","year":2021,"display_summary":"Kimberly Guinn (Mother) appealed the trial court's judgment modifying an Illinois child custody judgment, which granted Michael Ball (Father) sole physical custody of their daughter. Mother challenged the Missouri court's jurisdiction, the temporary custody order, the custody award, the adoption of Father's proposed findings, the tax credit modification, the dismissal of her motion for new trial, and the child support order. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction, Mother's procedural arguments were unpreserved, and the custody and support decisions were supported by the evidence and entitled to deference.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=182215","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/kimberly-l-ball-appellant-v-michael-r-ball-respondent-109532","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36891:2021-11-22","opinionId":"b0683964-911d-5d34-93a9-2e7fb1bfd6c9","slug":"mckenzie-r-allen-petitionerrespondent-v-bailey-l-seely-respondentappellan-d36891","caseName":"MCKENZIE R. ALLEN, Petitioner/Respondent\nvs.\nBAILEY L. SEELY, Respondent/Appellant","caseNumber":"SD36891","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2021-11-22","year":2021,"display_summary":"Mother Bailey L. Seely appealed the trial court's judgment modifying a child custody decree and denying her motion to relocate with the child to Arkansas. She argued the trial court erred procedurally by modifying custody without proper notice and by misapplying the law regarding child relocation. The appellate court affirmed the judgment. It held that the trial court only modified residential designation and parenting time, not custody itself, and that the four-factor test Mother relied on for relocation was previously rejected by the Missouri Supreme Court.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=182191","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mckenzie-r-allen-petitionerrespondent-v-bailey-l-seely-respondentappellan-d36891","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84181:2021-11-16","opinionId":"690fc0c8-734c-5983-ae6c-9ef6f1ce2892","slug":"in-re-shp-and-alp-as-lm-v-nb-cp-d84181","caseName":"In Re:  S.H.P. and A.L.P.,\nA.S.,\nL.M.,\nvs. \nN.B.,\nC.P.","caseNumber":"WD84181","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-11-16","year":2021,"display_summary":"A.S. appealed the circuit court's judgment denying her petition for adoption of two minor children and granting L.M.'s competing petition. A.S. argued the trial court erred by applying child custody best-interest factors to the adoption proceeding, failing to address all such factors, and refusing evidence of the children's preferences. The appellate court affirmed, finding that A.S.'s first and third points were not preserved or were abandoned due to briefing deficiencies. On the merits of the second point, the court held that child custody factors are not mandatory in adoption cases, and the trial court properly exercised its discretion in determining the children's best interests.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","child-custody","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=181955","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-shp-and-alp-as-lm-v-nb-cp-d84181","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]}]}