{"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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.","topic":{"slug":"family-law","label":"Family Law","description":null,"totalCases":449,"relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"}]},"trend":[{"year":2018,"count":36},{"year":2019,"count":58},{"year":2020,"count":49},{"year":2021,"count":53},{"year":2022,"count":41},{"year":2023,"count":61},{"year":2024,"count":69},{"year":2025,"count":65},{"year":2026,"count":17}],"cases":[{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87987:2026-03-10","opinionId":"a8ee5891-ab55-58e3-98e0-42e18c2cbd32","slug":"ljf-v-jfg-d87987","caseName":"L.J.F.\nvs.\nJ.F.G.","caseNumber":"WD87987","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2026-03-10","year":2026,"display_summary":"Father appealed a circuit court judgment renewing a full order of protection against him for Mother, effective for his lifetime. Father contended the evidence was insufficient to justify renewal and that the judgment lacked sufficient findings for a lifetime order. The appellate court affirmed, finding sufficient evidence of stalking to warrant renewal and concluding that Father failed to preserve his claim regarding the sufficiency of findings for appellate review.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","appellate-procedure","evidence","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=232076","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/ljf-v-jfg-d87987","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:wd87485:2026-02-24","opinionId":"53f50252-917c-5803-bde2-1ddc31e44d0a","slug":"in-re-the-marriage-of-stacey-l-noble-v-bradford-r-noble-d87485","caseName":"In re the Marriage of: Stacey L. Noble\nvs. \nBradford R. Noble","caseNumber":"WD87485","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2026-02-24","year":2026,"display_summary":"Stacey L. Noble appealed the trial court's amended judgment dissolving her marriage to Bradford R. Noble, challenging the denial of maintenance and an alleged judicial impropriety. The appellate court affirmed the judgment. It found no judicial impropriety in the trial court's use of an online calculator for judicially noticeable tax rates. The court also affirmed the denial of maintenance, concluding that Husband lacked the ability to pay regardless of the income calculation method, and that maintenance is not mandatory if the paying spouse cannot afford it.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=231274","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-the-marriage-of-stacey-l-noble-v-bradford-r-noble-d87485","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":"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:ed113261:2026-02-17","opinionId":"d93ee86c-ba6f-5fc9-937d-0965c6252917","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-gerald-r-nytes-appellant-113261","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Gerald R. Nytes, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113261","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2026-02-17","year":2026,"display_summary":"Gerald Nytes appealed his conviction after a bench trial for violating a full order of protection. He argued the State's evidence was insufficient to prove he had legal or actual notice of the order. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that evidence of Nytes's presence at the order of protection hearing and his prior guilty pleas for violating the same order were sufficient to establish actual notice.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","family-law"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=231041","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-gerald-r-nytes-appellant-113261","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":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: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":"mo:sc101157:2026-01-13","opinionId":"0337ba9b-2357-5e36-a3d9-78eb4c402946","slug":"in-re-mark-w-arensberg-respondent-101157","caseName":"In re:  Mark W. Arensberg, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC101157","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2026-01-13","year":2026,"display_summary":"Attorney Mark W. Arensberg faced disciplinary proceedings for negligently drafting fraudulent loan documents for a client involved in a contentious divorce. The disciplinary hearing panel recommended a reprimand, but the Missouri Supreme Court conducted an independent de novo review. The Court found Arensberg acted knowingly, not negligently, in assisting his client to diminish the marital estate. Consequently, the Court imposed an indefinite suspension of Arensberg's law license, which was stayed pending the successful completion of a one-year probation period.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","family-law","civil-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229860","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-mark-w-arensberg-respondent-101157","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:wd87907:2025-12-30","opinionId":"fc1dfff2-c708-53f2-a95d-e5b80647fa35","slug":"in-the-interest-of-bwr-juvenile-pwr-jr-v-juvenile-officer-d87907","caseName":"In the Interest of: B.W.R., Juvenile P.W.R., Jr. \nvs. \nJuvenile Officer","caseNumber":"WD87907","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-12-30","year":2025,"display_summary":"P.W.R., Jr. (Father) appealed the termination of his parental rights to B.W.R. (Son), arguing the trial court failed to make required statutory findings. The appellate court affirmed the judgment. It held that Father's claim of error, which pertained to the form or language of the judgment, was not preserved for appellate review because he failed to file a motion to amend the judgment as mandated by Rule 78.07(c).","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=230714","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-bwr-juvenile-pwr-jr-v-juvenile-officer-d87907","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: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":"moappwd:wd87819:2025-12-09","opinionId":"29e6a29c-db34-51af-9ed4-701248304378","slug":"in-re-the-marriage-of-james-a-starke-v-deborah-s-starke-d87819","caseName":"In RE the Marriage of: James A. Starke\nvs.\nDeborah S. Starke","caseNumber":"WD87819","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-12-09","year":2025,"display_summary":"Deborah S. Starke (Wife) appealed the trial court's judgment dissolving her marriage to James A. Starke (Husband), specifically challenging the order to convey marital real estate to a third-party trust. The Wife contended that the trial court erred by ordering the conveyance of marital property to a non-party to the dissolution action, which violates Missouri law. The appellate court agreed, reversing the judgment and remanding the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","property-real-estate","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=228275","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-the-marriage-of-james-a-starke-v-deborah-s-starke-d87819","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"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":"moappwd:wd87315:2025-12-02","opinionId":"df04912a-d16b-5bc7-b549-3c5d5ef3d61b","slug":"randa-m-techtow-v-jesse-t-techtow-d87315","caseName":"Randa M. Techtow\nvs.\nJesse T. Techtow","caseNumber":"WD87315","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-12-02","year":2025,"display_summary":"Randa Techtow filed for dissolution of marriage, and a default judgment was entered against Jesse Techtow after he failed to respond. Jesse Techtow subsequently filed motions to set aside the default judgment, arguing good cause for his failure to respond and intrinsic fraud by Randa regarding marital property. The trial court denied these motions. On appeal, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the motions or in excluding certain evidence.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","civil-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227954","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/randa-m-techtow-v-jesse-t-techtow-d87315","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: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":"moappd:ed113078:2025-09-16","opinionId":"cb645beb-8fe9-57d9-903a-1566cdaa5b8a","slug":"sophia-chu-respondent-v-william-l-bryan-nanna-appellant-113078","caseName":"Sophia Chu, Respondent, v. William L. \"Bryan\" Nanna, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113078","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-16","year":2025,"display_summary":"Sophia Chu filed a motion to register a foreign (Japanese) divorce judgment against William Nanna. Nanna filed a motion to dismiss the registration and a motion to quash garnishment, which the circuit court denied. Nanna then filed an interlocutory appeal challenging the circuit court's denial. The appellate court dismissed the appeal as moot because a separate, related appeal (ED113487) had already reversed the circuit court's judgment denying Nanna's motion to dismiss.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","family-law"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=224917","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/sophia-chu-respondent-v-william-l-bryan-nanna-appellant-113078","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:ed113487:2025-09-16","opinionId":"0643a023-7a0c-56cf-89b5-1a98e586bd59","slug":"sophia-chu-respondent-v-william-l-nanna-appellant-113487","caseName":"Sophia Chu, Respondent, v. William L. Nanna, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113487","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-16","year":2025,"display_summary":"Sophia Chu filed an unverified motion to register a Japanese divorce judgment against William Nanna. Nanna moved to dismiss, arguing that Chu failed to file a properly verified petition as required by statute. The circuit court denied Nanna's motion to dismiss. The appellate court reversed the circuit court's judgment, holding that Chu's failure to comply with the mandatory statutory requirement of filing a verified petition rendered the registration improper, and dismissed Chu's motion to register the foreign judgment without prejudice.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","family-law"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=224919","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/sophia-chu-respondent-v-william-l-nanna-appellant-113487","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:ed112945:2025-08-26","opinionId":"748f40cf-c118-51aa-91e9-fc7b69e5d111","slug":"donna-j-scalise-respondent-v-william-j-scalise-appellant-112945","caseName":"Donna J. Scalise, Respondent, vs. William J. Scalise, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112945","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-08-26","year":2025,"display_summary":"William J. Scalise appealed a contempt order finding him in violation of his maintenance obligations to Donna J. Scalise, stemming from their dissolution judgment. The appellate court questioned whether the appeal was from a final, appealable judgment, and Husband subsequently filed a document purporting to certify findings under Rule 74.01(b). The court dismissed the appeal, holding that neither the initial contempt order nor the subsequent certification attempt constituted a final, appealable judgment under Missouri law.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","family-law","divorce"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=223935","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/donna-j-scalise-respondent-v-william-j-scalise-appellant-112945","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: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:ed112738:2025-07-15","opinionId":"da1387ab-6436-5064-abee-4f6adb89aae9","slug":"matthew-j-weiss-respondent-v-mary-d-weiss-appellant-112738","caseName":"Matthew J. Weiss, Respondent, vs. Mary D. Weiss, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112738","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-15","year":2025,"display_summary":"Mary D. Weiss (Wife) appealed the trial court's denial of her motion to set aside a consent judgment of dissolution of marriage to Matthew J. Weiss (Husband). Wife argued the judgment was not entered into freely and voluntarily due to duress, and challenged the appointment of a Special Master, the timing of the judgment, and the award of attorneys' fees to Husband. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in denying Wife's motions and concluding that some of her points on appeal were moot or not properly before the court.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222196","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/matthew-j-weiss-respondent-v-mary-d-weiss-appellant-112738","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: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:ed112557:2025-06-27","opinionId":"b11bc7c3-c3b0-5d6d-9987-41a24f3e31cf","slug":"joy-janelle-mcvean-respondent-v-anthony-david-mcvean-appellant-112557","caseName":"Joy Janelle McVean, Respondent, vs. Anthony David McVean, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112557","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-06-27","year":2025,"display_summary":"Anthony David McVean appealed the judgment dissolving his marriage to Joy Janelle McVean, challenging the trial court's imputation of income, awards of maintenance and child support, and division of marital property. Husband argued the court erred in imputing income after he voluntarily quit his job, and that the support awards were beyond his ability to pay. He also claimed the property division was disproportionate. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in any of the challenged rulings.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221633","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/joy-janelle-mcvean-respondent-v-anthony-david-mcvean-appellant-112557","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: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":"moappwd:wd86929:2025-06-17","opinionId":"45a7f9f9-c5e1-5f55-a5aa-1a683dd622c6","slug":"sm-v-curtis-deierling-d86929","caseName":"S.M.\nvs. \nCurtis Deierling","caseNumber":"WD86929","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-06-17","year":2025,"display_summary":"S.M. filed a petition for an Adult Order of Protection against her former tenant, Curtis Deierling, alleging stalking. The circuit court granted the full order of protection, which Deierling appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of stalking and that the appeal was moot due to the order's expiration. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the public interest exception to mootness applied and that there was sufficient evidence to support the finding of stalking under the Adult Abuse Act.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","appellate-procedure","evidence","landlord-tenant"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221293","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/sm-v-curtis-deierling-d86929","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":32,"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: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":"moappsd:sd38534:2025-05-01","opinionId":"c04f9dc3-8c38-5a8e-b53c-162f9c006dc4","slug":"in-re-the-marriage-of-cortney-bender-and-james-bender-cortney-bender-peti-d38534","caseName":"In Re the Marriage of: Cortney Bender and James Bender\nCORTNEY BENDER, Petitioner-Respondent\nvs.\nJAMES BENDER, Respondent-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38534","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-05-01","year":2025,"display_summary":"James Bender (Husband) appealed the trial court's judgment dissolving his marriage to Cortney Bender (Wife) and awarding sole custody to Wife, arguing the judgment was irregular. Husband contended he was not given proper notice that the February 15, 2024 hearing was a trial on the merits, believing it was only for temporary orders. The appellate court agreed, finding the judgment irregular because the lack of notice deprived Husband of due process and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. The judgment was vacated and the cause remanded for a new trial.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","family-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220273","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-the-marriage-of-cortney-bender-and-james-bender-cortney-bender-peti-d38534","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:sd38621:2025-04-23","opinionId":"a1625f17-a77a-5520-80a9-de69a203a4b0","slug":"in-the-interest-of-ads-naw-respondent-v-rls-ii-appellant-d38621","caseName":"IN THE INTEREST OF A.D.S.: N.A.W., Respondent\nvs.\nR.L.S., II, Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38621","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-04-23","year":2025,"display_summary":"N.A.W. (Guardian) petitioned to adopt A.D.S. (Child), alleging Father's consent was not required under section 453.040(7) due to abandonment or neglect. Father appealed the circuit court's judgment granting the adoption, arguing his due process rights were violated because the summons did not notify him of his right to appointed counsel as required by section 211.462. The appellate court affirmed, holding that section 211.462, which pertains to termination of parental rights under chapter 211, is not applicable to an adoption proceeding under section 453.040(7) because chapter 453 does not specifically cross-reference chapter 211 for that ground.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=219893","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-ads-naw-respondent-v-rls-ii-appellant-d38621","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":"moappd:ed112481:2025-04-22","opinionId":"9c8809ef-260a-5052-92b4-ff5581a3b88e","slug":"cyl-respondent-v-zl-appellant-112481","caseName":"C.Y.L., Respondent, vs. Z.L., Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112481","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-04-22","year":2025,"display_summary":"Appellant Z.L. appealed the circuit court's judgment entering a one-year, full order of protection against him on behalf of Respondent C.Y.L., his daughter-in-law. C.Y.L. alleged harassment under the Missouri Adult Abuse Act, stemming from two incidents where Z.L. appeared at her residence, culminating in a verbal altercation where he yelled and used disparaging language. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and vacated the order of protection, finding that C.Y.L. failed to present sufficient evidence to satisfy both the subjective and objective components of harassment's statutory definition, specifically regarding substantial emotional distress.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","civil-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=219839","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/cyl-respondent-v-zl-appellant-112481","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":"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":"moappd:parent-219634","opinionId":"70271783-f06b-54e4-8736-6b650b9828a3","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-gerald-nytes-appellant-112197","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Gerald Nytes, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112197","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-04-15","year":2025,"display_summary":"Gerald Nytes appealed his convictions for three counts of violating a full order of protection. The appellate court reversed the conviction in the \"Letter case,\" finding insufficient evidence that the order of protection was in effect at the time of the alleged violation, as a Case.net entry could not supersede the signed judgment's expiration date. However, the court affirmed the convictions in the \"Phone Call cases,\" holding that there was sufficient evidence of notice of the order and that, while jail call logs were improperly admitted as hearsay, the error was not outcome-determinative due to other corroborating evidence.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","family-law"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=219634","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-gerald-nytes-appellant-112197","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"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: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":"moappwd:wd87009:2025-03-25","opinionId":"90c30eb5-0bd9-5368-8561-1137ab060276","slug":"in-the-interest-of-fpl-v-juvenile-officer-d87009","caseName":"In the Interest of: F.P.L.\nvs.\nJuvenile Officer","caseNumber":"WD87009","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-03-25","year":2025,"display_summary":"F.P.L. appealed a juvenile court judgment finding him repeatedly and without justification absent from school, a status offense under section 211.031.1(2), RSMo. F.P.L. argued there was insufficient evidence he was subject to compulsory school attendance. The appellate court affirmed, first clarifying that F.P.L.'s argument was not a challenge to personal jurisdiction, and then finding sufficient evidence that F.P.L., a 15-year-old enrolled in school, was subject to compulsory attendance and did not qualify for any statutory exceptions.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218657","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-fpl-v-juvenile-officer-d87009","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":"moappsd:sd38623:2025-03-21","opinionId":"92313a5c-3002-5915-b193-c59a76bb3317","slug":"cku-petitioner-respondent-v-darrell-w-hurt-respondent-appellant-d38623","caseName":"C.K.U., Petitioner-Respondent\nv.\nDARRELL W. HURT, Respondent-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38623","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-03-21","year":2025,"display_summary":"Neighbor Darrell W. Hurt appealed a full order of protection granted to C.K.U., arguing the finding of stalking was not supported by substantial evidence. The circuit court had issued the order based on ongoing property disputes and a single heated encounter where Neighbor yelled threats and trespassed. The Southern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals vacated the order, holding that the evidence presented, which largely consisted of a single incident, did not meet the statutory definition of \"stalking\" requiring a \"course of conduct\" of two or more acts causing reasonable fear of physical harm.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","civil-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"vacated","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218673","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/cku-petitioner-respondent-v-darrell-w-hurt-respondent-appellant-d38623","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:ed112602:2025-03-18","opinionId":"4d6a8270-21d5-51bb-92df-96d8d0713cc8","slug":"in-the-interest-of-lms-lss-minors-112602","caseName":"In the Interest of L.M.S. & L.S.S., Minors.","caseNumber":"ED112602","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-03-18","year":2025,"display_summary":"Mother appealed the trial court's judgments terminating her parental rights to L.M.S. and L.S.S. The trial court found statutory grounds for termination based on abuse and neglect, failure to rectify, and unfitness, and that termination was in the children's best interests. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that clear, cogent, and convincing evidence supported the finding of Mother's failure to rectify and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining termination was in the children's best interests.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218538","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-lms-lss-minors-112602","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:ed112742:2025-03-11","opinionId":"66bb86ed-ea7e-5046-b839-b4537943e181","slug":"linda-j-tierney-appellant-v-lawrence-j-tierney-respondent-112742","caseName":"Linda J. Tierney, Appellant, v. Lawrence J. Tierney, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112742","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-03-11","year":2025,"display_summary":"Appellant Linda Tierney appealed a contempt judgment issued against her for failing to comply with a dissolution of marriage judgment, which also amended the original judgment by reallocating property sale proceeds. The appellate court first concluded the appeal was not moot. It then reversed and remanded the contempt judgment, holding that it failed to recite the facts constituting contempt and improperly amended the dissolution judgment in violation of the separation agreement and statute. The court affirmed the trial court's decision to hear a video used to refresh recollection, finding no reversible error.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","civil-procedure","divorce","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218337","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/linda-j-tierney-appellant-v-lawrence-j-tierney-respondent-112742","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: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":"mo:sc100875:2025-02-28","opinionId":"b72533fe-18c8-54bc-a702-697e5d505ff5","slug":"in-re-the-honorable-joe-don-mcgaugh-respondent-100875","caseName":"In re: The Honorable Joe Don McGaugh, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC100875","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-02-28","year":2025,"display_summary":"The Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline recommended a six-month suspension for Judge Joe Don McGaugh due to judicial misconduct, including a pattern of untimely rulings in numerous cases and dishonesty with the Commission. Judge McGaugh admitted the allegations. The Missouri Supreme Court suspended Judge McGaugh without pay for one year, with continued monitoring, asserting its ultimate authority to determine judicial discipline and rejecting arguments that it was bound by the Commission's recommendation. The Court also denied Judge McGaugh's request to serve his suspension under disability retirement.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","family-law"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=217974","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-the-honorable-joe-don-mcgaugh-respondent-100875","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: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":"moappd:ed112435:2025-02-25","opinionId":"d8b441b7-fde3-5e85-91ad-cd9c294ebcea","slug":"cmm-respondent-v-amc-appellant-112435","caseName":"C.M.M., Respondent, vs. A.M.C., Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112435","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-02-25","year":2025,"display_summary":"A.M.C. (Husband) appealed the trial court's judgment granting C.M.M. (Wife) a full order of protection under the Adult Abuse Act. Husband argued there was insufficient evidence to support findings of battery, assault, harassment, or stalking. The Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the judgment and vacated the order, concluding that Wife failed to present substantial evidence for any of the alleged grounds for an order of protection.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","civil-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=217794","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/cmm-respondent-v-amc-appellant-112435","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: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":"moappd:ed112606:2025-02-18","opinionId":"9ca20ffa-e2d0-5934-8f60-8f93f808ee97","slug":"john-r-mennerich-respondent-v-patricia-s-mennerich-appellant-112606","caseName":"John R. Mennerich, Respondent, vs. Patricia S. Mennerich, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112606","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-02-18","year":2025,"display_summary":"Roberta Peasel, as guardian for Patricia S. Mennerich (Wife), appealed the circuit court's judgment dissolving Wife's marriage to John R. Mennerich (Husband). Wife challenged the settlement agreement, the appointment of a guardian ad litem (GAL), and the GAL's performance. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that Wife failed to preserve her claims for appeal because she did not object at trial or file a Rule 78.07 after-trial motion, and the issues were not previously presented to the circuit court.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","family-law"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=217576","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/john-r-mennerich-respondent-v-patricia-s-mennerich-appellant-112606","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: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":"moappsd:sd38354:2024-11-19","opinionId":"0c3c2131-2487-53f0-ba68-3c8d8891d581","slug":"in-the-interest-of-as-webster-county-juvenile-office-petitioner-responden-d38354","caseName":"In the Interest of: A.S., WEBSTER COUNTY JUVENILE OFFICE, Petitioner-Respondent\nv.\nA.S., Respondent-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38354","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-11-19","year":2024,"display_summary":"This appeal challenged a juvenile court's judgment dismissing a delinquency petition against a fifteen-year-old female, A.S., and transferring her to a court of general jurisdiction for prosecution on felony charges of first-degree murder and armed criminal action. A.S. argued the juvenile court abused its discretion by improperly relying on the range of adult punishment. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no abuse of discretion because the adult punishment range is logically relevant to the seriousness of the offense and the juvenile court is not limited to the statutory factors in its certification decision.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214753","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-as-webster-county-juvenile-office-petitioner-responden-d38354","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"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:ed111942:2024-11-19","opinionId":"b782bf42-1ba9-5270-924c-2dfc562f03bc","slug":"carolyn-northup-respondent-v-bradley-j-bakula-personal-representative-of-111942","caseName":"Carolyn Northup, Respondent, vs. Bradley J. Bakula, Personal Representative of the Estate of Byrle Northup, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111942","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-11-19","year":2024,"display_summary":"Bradley J. Bakula, Personal Representative of the Estate of Byrle Northup (Husband), appealed the circuit court's judgment dissolving his marriage to Carolyn Northup (Wife), challenging rulings on temporary maintenance, marital debt allocation, and attorney's fees. Husband died during the appeal, but the court retained jurisdiction after substitution of parties. The appellate court dismissed Husband's appeal for failure to comply with Missouri Supreme Court Rule 84.04's appellate briefing requirements, finding his points relied on multifarious and his brief deficient in other aspects.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","family-law","divorce"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214636","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/carolyn-northup-respondent-v-bradley-j-bakula-personal-representative-of-111942","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: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":"moappsd:parent-214553","opinionId":"b81ec5e6-bf2a-59a3-9235-fdb555bd9b21","slug":"in-the-interest-of-znb-and-alc-minor-children-under-seventeen-years-of-ag-d38171","caseName":"IN THE INTEREST OF:  Z.N.B. and A.L.C., Minor children under seventeen years of age, CARTER COUNTY JUVENILE OFFICER, Petitioner-Respondent\nv.\nB.L.C., Intervenor-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38171","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-11-14","year":2024,"display_summary":"B.L.C., a foster parent, appealed a judgment from the probate division that awarded guardianship of two minor children to their maternal great aunt. The foster parent challenged the judgment appointing the great aunt as guardian. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that the foster parent lacked statutory standing to appeal the guardianship judgment because she did not qualify as an \"interested person\" under the relevant probate code provisions.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","estate-probate","family-law","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214553","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-znb-and-alc-minor-children-under-seventeen-years-of-ag-d38171","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: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":"moappd:ed112428:2024-11-05","opinionId":"e1a3baa2-657f-582f-8fd5-418d31eeeb8d","slug":"francis-wolo-respondent-v-christina-wolo-appellant-112428","caseName":"Francis Wolo, Respondent, vs. Christina Wolo, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112428","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-11-05","year":2024,"display_summary":"In a marriage dissolution case, a default judgment was entered against Christina Wolo (Wife) after she failed to respond to Francis Wolo's (Husband) petition. Wife later filed a motion to set aside the default judgment, claiming it was void due to defective service of process. The trial court denied her motion. The Eastern District affirmed, holding that Wife was estopped from challenging the service of process because she had previously filed and litigated a motion to modify the judgment without raising any issues regarding service or jurisdiction.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","family-law","divorce","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"vacated","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214276","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/francis-wolo-respondent-v-christina-wolo-appellant-112428","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:ed112625:2024-11-05","opinionId":"da29c410-7d91-5d5e-afd4-55d047347bb8","slug":"cb-respondent-v-gb-appellant-112625","caseName":"C.B., Respondent, vs. G.B., Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112625","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-11-05","year":2024,"display_summary":"Husband appealed the circuit court's denial of his Rule 74.06(b) motion to set aside a full order of protection granted to Wife. The Husband argued the judgment was void due to the circuit court's failure to provide him notice of continued hearing dates. The appellate court reversed, holding that the lack of notice violated Husband's procedural due process rights, rendering the full order of protection void. The case was remanded for a new hearing with proper notice to all parties.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","family-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214278","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/cb-respondent-v-gb-appellant-112625","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:wd87033:2024-10-29","opinionId":"bf53346d-be7a-559a-b90a-8af47dffef49","slug":"jr-v-ps-d87033","caseName":"J.R.\nvs.\nP.S.","caseNumber":"WD87033","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-10-29","year":2024,"display_summary":"P.S. appealed pro se from a judgment renewing a Full Order of Protection obtained by J.R. against him. The appellate court found that P.S.'s brief substantially failed to comply with Rule 84.04's mandatory requirements, specifically regarding the points relied on and the argument section. Consequently, the court determined it could not review the appeal on its merits and dismissed the appeal.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","family-law"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=213998","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jr-v-ps-d87033","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:ed112164:2024-10-29","opinionId":"13aeb983-d554-56d3-a398-e2a67205df84","slug":"kes-respondent-v-srs-appellant-112164","caseName":"K.E.S., Respondent, vs. S.R.S., Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112164","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-10-29","year":2024,"display_summary":"Appellant S.R.S. appealed the circuit court's judgment entering a ten-year full order of protection for K.E.S., arguing insufficient evidence to extend the term under § 455.040.1(4). The circuit court found Appellant posed a serious danger to K.E.S.'s physical or mental health. The appellate court affirmed, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the circuit court's finding, and clarified the interpretation of the statutory factors for extending protective orders.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","appellate-procedure","evidence","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214038","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/kes-respondent-v-srs-appellant-112164","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":"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":"moappd:ed112072:2024-10-01","opinionId":"abe8b94e-a5f5-5fa4-a087-656f2a287ff5","slug":"sjh-respondent-v-jph-appellant-112072","caseName":"S.J.H., Respondent, vs. J.P.H., Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112072","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-10-01","year":2024,"display_summary":"Husband appealed a full order of protection granted to Wife, challenging the denial of his motion for continuance, the scope of relief granted, the allowance of an amended petition, and the award of attorney fees. The appellate court reversed the award of attorney fees, finding insufficient evidence of the parties' financial resources as required by statute. However, the court affirmed the judgment in all other respects, concluding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the continuance and that other issues were not preserved for review.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=213119","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/sjh-respondent-v-jph-appellant-112072","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:ed112141:2024-09-10","opinionId":"d3bcc3f7-12e7-55cc-bf88-50071d419815","slug":"alo-respondent-v-gln-appellant-112141","caseName":"A.L.O., Respondent, vs. G.L.N., Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112141","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-09-10","year":2024,"display_summary":"G.L.N. appealed a full order of protection entered against him pursuant to the Adult Abuse Act, which prohibited him from contacting A.L.O. The trial court had found G.L.N.'s actions constituted domestic violence, stalking, and a credible threat. The appellate court reversed and vacated the order, finding A.L.O. failed to establish a familial or household relationship required for domestic violence, and also failed to provide substantial evidence that she feared physical harm from G.L.N. to prove stalking.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","civil-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=211295","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/alo-respondent-v-gln-appellant-112141","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: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:sd37929:2024-07-17","opinionId":"b9630bc3-bb08-5e55-8159-52eb9cff1d0d","slug":"leroy-f-gilbert-respondent-v-andrea-d-chrismer-still-appellant-d37929","caseName":"LEROY F. GILBERT, Respondent\nv.\nANDREA D. CHRISMER-STILL, Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37929","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-07-17","year":2024,"display_summary":"Leroy Gilbert filed for dissolution of his marriage to Andrea Chrismer-Still. The trial court valued a marital savings account at its initial higher value, finding Appellant squandered funds, and ordered her to pay Respondent to equalize the marital estate. Appellant appealed, arguing the trial court misapplied the law regarding the burden to account for diminished funds and erred in finding squandering without direct evidence. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court correctly applied the law, Appellant failed to provide a credible accounting, and her challenge to a single asset's valuation was insufficient without challenging the overall property division.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=209834","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/leroy-f-gilbert-respondent-v-andrea-d-chrismer-still-appellant-d37929","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:ed111518:2024-07-02","opinionId":"aad16bfb-ad4f-59ea-b87c-cde67af602ef","slug":"deborah-pagoria-appellant-v-jerrold-pagoria-personal-representative-of-th-111518","caseName":"Deborah Pagoria, Appellant, vs. Jerrold Pagoria, Personal Representative of the Estate of Nick S. Pagoria, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED111518","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-07-02","year":2024,"display_summary":"Deborah Pagoria appealed the probate court's judgment denying her claim against the Estate of Nick S. Pagoria. The probate court found that Deborah breached a settlement agreement with her ex-husband, Nick S. Pagoria, by failing to execute a beneficiary deed as required by their divorce agreement. The appellate court affirmed, holding that because both parties mutually breached the contract, Deborah could not enforce its terms against the Estate. The court also concluded that allowing evidence of Deborah's breach was not an impermissible collateral attack on the divorce judgment.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","contracts","family-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=209434","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/deborah-pagoria-appellant-v-jerrold-pagoria-personal-representative-of-th-111518","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":36,"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: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":"moappd:ed111233:2024-05-28","opinionId":"5570242f-7417-511d-a27d-ffa739cfadca","slug":"carol-cullen-respondentcross-appellant-v-robert-bernstein-appellant-111233","caseName":"Carol Cullen, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, vs. Robert Bernstein, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111233","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-05-28","year":2024,"display_summary":"Robert H. Bernstein appealed and Carol A. Cullen cross-appealed from a judgment modifying Bernstein's maintenance obligation from $10,000 to $5,000 per month and ordering Cullen to pay $25,000 of Bernstein's attorney fees. Bernstein sought to terminate or reduce maintenance, alleging substantial changes in Cullen's circumstances, including her failure to seek employment, increased assets, and a relationship substituting for marriage. The appellate court reversed the modification judgment, finding Bernstein failed to meet his statutory burden to prove a substantial and continuing change in circumstances, and reinstated the original $10,000 per month maintenance award.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","divorce","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=208474","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/carol-cullen-respondentcross-appellant-v-robert-bernstein-appellant-111233","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:wd86502:2024-05-28","opinionId":"25d8292b-2abf-5967-a31f-8843e6e91f09","slug":"shawn-bitters-v-darryl-olive-d86502","caseName":"Shawn Bitters\nvs.\nDarryl Olive","caseNumber":"WD86502","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-05-28","year":2024,"display_summary":"Darryl Olive appealed the dissolution of his marriage to Shawn Bitters, challenging the trial court's decision to grant his counsel's motion to withdraw, the award of attorney's fees to Bitters, and the denial of maintenance to Olive. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to allow counsel to withdraw and the award of attorney's fees, finding no abuse of discretion or lack of substantial evidence. However, the court reversed the denial of maintenance, concluding that the trial court's finding that Olive had not requested maintenance was unsupported by substantial evidence, and remanded for further proceedings on that issue.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=208379","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/shawn-bitters-v-darryl-olive-d86502","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: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:sd38069:2024-05-01","opinionId":"0a70b71c-9508-5169-bc42-3705541560de","slug":"in-the-interest-of-mlp-and-mrp-wayne-county-childrens-division-respondent-d38069","caseName":"IN THE INTEREST OF M.L.P. and M.R.P., \nWAYNE COUNTY CHILDREN'S DIVISION, Respondent\nvs.\nA.N.B., Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38069","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-05-01","year":2024,"display_summary":"Mother A.N.B. appealed the circuit court's judgment terminating her parental rights to M.L.P. and M.R.P. The circuit court found three statutory grounds for termination and that termination was in the children's best interests. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, denying all of Mother's seven points on appeal. The court found that Mother failed to preserve constitutional claims, relied on evidence outside the record, and did not present cogent challenges to the circuit court's findings regarding termination grounds or best-interest factors.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=207773","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-mlp-and-mrp-wayne-county-childrens-division-respondent-d38069","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":"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:ed111925:2024-04-23","opinionId":"e1c350bc-74c0-5b53-abfa-ba2d5775ae0d","slug":"in-the-estate-of-michall-duncan-deceased-111925","caseName":"In the Estate of Michall Duncan, Deceased.","caseNumber":"ED111925","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-04-23","year":2024,"display_summary":"Appellants challenged a probate court's determination that Jennifer Duncan Criswell was the heir of her biological father, Michall Duncan, arguing that her subsequent adoption by her stepfather removed her from Decedent's bloodline. The Appellants also contended Criswell's petition for heirship was time-barred and that they had acquired title through adverse possession. The appellate court affirmed the probate court's judgment, holding that heirship is determined at the date of death and is not retroactively affected by a later adoption. The court further found that the petition was not time-barred and that adverse possession claims were outside the scope of an heirship determination.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","family-law","civil-procedure","property-real-estate","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=207504","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-estate-of-michall-duncan-deceased-111925","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":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111678:2024-04-23","opinionId":"3a35d840-b04e-53cb-8e91-066dea8c307b","slug":"mary-susan-mccay-personal-representative-for-the-estate-of-david-v-mccay-111678","caseName":"Mary Susan McCay, Personal Representative for the Estate of David V. McCay, Respondent, v. Kathleen P. McCay, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111678","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-04-23","year":2024,"display_summary":"Kathleen McCay appealed the dismissal of her motion to cite her deceased former spouse, David McCay, for contempt for failing to pay her proportionate share of retirement benefits as mandated by their dissolution judgment. The trial court dismissed the motion, finding it barred by the 1999 version of Section 516.350's statute of limitations. The appellate court reversed, holding that the 2001 amendment to Section 516.350, which changed the presumption of payment for periodic employee benefits, applied retroactively because the original 10-year limitations period had not expired when the amendment took effect, thus not affecting any vested substantive rights.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=207500","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mary-susan-mccay-personal-representative-for-the-estate-of-david-v-mccay-111678","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: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":"moappsd:doc-206687:2024-03-25","opinionId":"329aeb86-1cca-5b90-9ec8-5299909bc30c","slug":"in-the-interest-of-kcg-a-child-under-seventeen-years-of-age-blm-and-ctam-206687","caseName":"IN THE INTEREST OF: K.C.G., a child under seventeen years of age.\nB.L.M., and C.T.A.M., and JASPER COUNTY JUVENILE OFFICE, Petitioners-Respondents\nvs.\nM.P.G., Respondent-Appellant","caseNumber":null,"court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-03-25","year":2024,"display_summary":"Father appealed the termination of his parental rights, arguing the trial court erred because there was no evidence he was properly served with a summons. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment. It held that Father failed to preserve his claim of improper service because he did not raise the alleged error to the trial court before appeal, and plain error review was not warranted or requested.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=206687","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-kcg-a-child-under-seventeen-years-of-age-blm-and-ctam-206687","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:sd37223:2024-03-18","opinionId":"9a4f7fda-98af-57a0-9802-5d28e59cabef","slug":"deanna-haley-brown-petitioner-respondent-v-john-patrick-haley-respondent-d37223","caseName":"DEANNA (HALEY) BROWN, Petitioner-Respondent\nv.\nJOHN PATRICK HALEY, Respondent-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37223","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-03-18","year":2024,"display_summary":"Father appealed a judgment of modification in a dissolution action, challenging an order to pay $141,283.52 for medical, extracurricular, and college expenses. He argued the underlying support judgments from 2008 and 2014 were unenforceable due to vague, open-ended terms and that the college expense award was against the weight of the evidence. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Father waived his arguments by failing to appeal the original judgments or file motions to amend, and that the prior judgments were erroneous, not void, thus precluding collateral attack. The court also found Father failed to meet the burden for an against-the-weight-of-the-evidence challenge.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=206513","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/deanna-haley-brown-petitioner-respondent-v-john-patrick-haley-respondent-d37223","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:ed111715:2024-03-12","opinionId":"1b0fb7da-47e8-518d-acbf-e2178ccda51b","slug":"jrc-petitionerrespondent-v-slf-respondentappellant-111715","caseName":"J.R.C., Petitioner/Respondent, v. S.L.F., Respondent/Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111715","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-03-12","year":2024,"display_summary":"S.L.F. appealed a full order of protection granted to his former girlfriend, J.R.C., under Missouri's Adult Abuse Act. J.R.C. alleged stalking and harassment, but the trial court's judgment found domestic violence, stalking, and/or sexual assault. The appellate court reversed, concluding that the trial court's judgment was not supported by substantial evidence for any of the alleged grounds, including battery, assault, harassment, or stalking.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","appellate-procedure","evidence","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=206343","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jrc-petitionerrespondent-v-slf-respondentappellant-111715","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":"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:ed111743:2024-03-05","opinionId":"50666780-3545-504b-bed0-f8e34ae00137","slug":"richard-p-riney-appellant-v-margaret-m-riney-respondent-111743","caseName":"Richard P. Riney, Appellant, vs. Margaret M. Riney, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED111743","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-03-05","year":2024,"display_summary":"Husband appealed the Family Court's denial of his motion to compel arbitration in a dissolution of marriage case, arguing an arbitrator, not the court, should determine the conscionability of their antenuptial agreement. The appellate court affirmed, holding that under the Missouri Uniform Arbitration Act, the Family Court retains its statutory authority to determine the conscionability of such agreements as a ground for contract revocation. The court distinguished cases governed by the Federal Arbitration Act, which would delegate such issues to an arbitrator.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","civil-procedure","contracts","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=206138","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/richard-p-riney-appellant-v-margaret-m-riney-respondent-111743","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"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":"moappd:ed111742:2024-02-27","opinionId":"80654b5d-c5c9-5c1a-9d85-af563ac7a789","slug":"jeffrey-a-greene-respondent-v-melissa-a-greene-appellant-111742","caseName":"Jeffrey A. Greene, Respondent, v. Melissa A. Greene, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111742","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-02-27","year":2024,"display_summary":"Melissa A. Greene appealed the circuit court's judgment dissolving her marriage to Jeffrey A. Greene. She argued the court failed to distribute all marital property, specifically income tax refunds, and failed to include a complete parenting plan. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the wife failed to preserve the issue of tax refunds for review by not presenting it to the circuit court. The court also found the parenting plan issue moot because the youngest child had reached the age of eighteen, making a plan no longer statutorily required.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=205838","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jeffrey-a-greene-respondent-v-melissa-a-greene-appellant-111742","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:ed111716:2024-02-27","opinionId":"d2e31ced-f2fd-5f10-82f1-8f58c860e7b4","slug":"kristen-l-main-respondent-v-donet-c-main-appellant-and-ethan-main-interve-111716","caseName":"Kristen L. Main, Respondent, vs. Donet C. Main, Appellant, and Ethan Main, Intervenor.","caseNumber":"ED111716","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-02-27","year":2024,"display_summary":"Donet C. Main (Husband) appealed the circuit court's judgment denying his motion to terminate nonmodifiable maintenance to Kristen L. Main (Wife), arguing her relationship with a partner constituted a substitute for marriage. Husband also challenged the denial of his motion to compel discovery of bank records and an order to pay a portion of Wife's attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, finding no error in the application of law regarding maintenance termination, no abuse of discretion in the discovery ruling, and no abuse of discretion in the attorney's fee award.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","divorce","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=205837","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/kristen-l-main-respondent-v-donet-c-main-appellant-and-ethan-main-interve-111716","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":"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:wd85527:2024-02-20","opinionId":"306b5746-cbdb-5fc7-a0d3-d38d31d37d83","slug":"shelter-mutual-insurance-company-v-trevor-hill-leslie-hill-lanie-hill-and-d85527","caseName":"Shelter Mutual Insurance Company\nvs. \nTrevor Hill, Leslie Hill, Lanie Hill and Shelbie Alexander","caseNumber":"WD85527","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-02-20","year":2024,"display_summary":"Shelter Mutual Insurance Company appealed a summary judgment holding that a minor child was not a resident of her natural father's household for purposes of an insurance policy exclusion, after the child was injured on the father's property. The trial court had granted summary judgment for the respondents and denied Shelter's cross-motion. The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part, remanding the case for further proceedings, holding that summary judgment was improper because the ultimate factual determination of the child's residency remained in dispute, even with stipulated facts.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","family-law"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=205633","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/shelter-mutual-insurance-company-v-trevor-hill-leslie-hill-lanie-hill-and-d85527","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":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86297:2024-02-13","opinionId":"c3e40b32-a97b-5bcd-ac36-cdc8b3551e4c","slug":"in-the-interest-of-er-childrens-division-v-ag-d86297","caseName":"In the Interest of: E.R.; Children's Division\nvs.\nA.G.","caseNumber":"WD86297","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-02-13","year":2024,"display_summary":"Mother appealed the trial court's judgment terminating her parental rights to Child. She argued the trial court erred by failing to consider and make specific findings regarding factors outlined in section 211.443 RSMo when determining the child's best interest. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that section 211.443 RSMo does not mandate written findings but instead serves to guide statutory interpretation of related provisions.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=205401","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-er-childrens-division-v-ag-d86297","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":"moappsd:sd37849:2024-01-25","opinionId":"88125a34-b733-5b54-abba-b7cf146258a3","slug":"stephanie-maxine-stenger-fka-stephanie-stenger-montgomery-petitioner-resp-d37849","caseName":"STEPHANIE MAXINE STENGER, f/k/a Stephanie Stenger Montgomery, Petitioner-Respondent\nv.\nMARTIN SCOTT MONTGOMERY, Respondent-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37849","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-01-25","year":2024,"display_summary":"Martin Montgomery (Husband) appealed the dismissal of his breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims against Stephanie Stenger (Wife). Husband sought to enforce an obligation from their 2010 dissolution judgment, which had not been revived within the statutory ten-year period. The trial court dismissed the claims, finding the contract merged into the judgment and the judgment was conclusively presumed paid under Section 516.350.1. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the survival clause in the parties' agreement did not prevent merger by judgment, and the unjust enrichment claim was also barred as it arose from the same conclusively paid judgment.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","civil-procedure","family-law","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=204953","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/stephanie-maxine-stenger-fka-stephanie-stenger-montgomery-petitioner-resp-d37849","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":16,"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":"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":"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":"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":"moappsd:sd37560:2023-12-04","opinionId":"a37bf141-3e6e-507b-bcaf-40a6fa38d1d4","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-sebastian-a-rust-appellant-d37560","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent\nv.\nSEBASTIAN A. RUST, Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37560","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-12-04","year":2023,"display_summary":"Sebastian Rust was convicted of misdemeanor nonsupport and sentenced to probation. On appeal, Rust argued that the conviction was not supported by substantial evidence, contending the state failed to prove a legal support obligation and that his indigency constituted good cause for nonpayment. The Southern District of Missouri affirmed the conviction, holding that the state only needed to prove the existence of a civil child support order and its knowing violation, and that indigency for counsel appointment does not, as a matter of law, establish good cause for nonsupport.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","family-law","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=203194","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-sebastian-a-rust-appellant-d37560","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"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:ed111463:2023-11-21","opinionId":"c32597fa-2a23-5618-8ade-4f1f8d8bd6a5","slug":"in-the-interest-of-tag-and-zzg-111463","caseName":"In the Interest of: T.A.G. and Z.Z.G.","caseNumber":"ED111463","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-11-21","year":2023,"display_summary":"Father appealed the termination of his parental rights to his two children, arguing that his appointed counsel operated under an active conflict of interest. The trial court had initially granted Mother a new trial on the same grounds but denied Father's motion. The appellate court agreed with Father, finding that the joint representation of Father and Mother by the same counsel created a concurrent conflict of interest, violating Father's rights to due process and effective assistance of counsel. The judgments terminating Father's parental rights were reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=202934","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-tag-and-zzg-111463","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"}]}]}