OTT LAW

In re: K.W. a minor, Karen Wheeler, Petitioner, v. Carol Cash, Respondent.

Decision date: UnknownED78127

Slip Opinion Notice

This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.

Opinion

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District Case Style: In re: K.W. a minor, Karen Wheeler, Petitioner, v. Carol Cash, Respondent. Case Number: ED78127 Handdown Date: 07/05/2000 Appeal From: Writ of Habeas Corpus Counsel for Appellant: Leneigha Downs Counsel for Respondent: Terry Flanagan and John W. Peel Opinion Summary: This Court's writ issued on an original petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by Karen Wheeler ("Mother") seeking to obtain custody of her daughter, K.W. ("Daughter"). CUSTODY REMANDED TO MOTHER. Writ Division Two holds: Trial court order issued without notice to Mother and without a hearing purporting to grant temporary custody to a non-party was beyond its jurisdiction and void. Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: CUSTODY REMANDED TO MOTHER. Crahan, P.J., Knaup Crane and Draper, III, JJ., concur. Opinion: Our writ issued on an original petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by Karen Wheeler ("Mother") seeking to obtain custody of her daughter, K.W. ("Daughter"). Daughter is presently in the custody of Carol Cash, a stranger to the dissolution proceedings between Mother and Charles Wheeler ("Father") which resulted in a decree awarding Mother and Father joint custody of Daughter. Father was awarded primary physical custody of Daughter in Missouri and Mother was awarded liberal visitation with Daughter including nine weeks visitation during the summer at Mother's home in Texas. (FN1)

On May 31, 2000 Carol Cash filed what is styled "Intervenor's Motion to Modify" in the Circuit Court of Franklin County.(FN2) That motion alleged that Daughter had resided with Carol Cash for the substantial majority of her life and that for various reasons, it would be in the child's best interests for primary physical custody to be granted to Carol Cash. That same day, Judge Jeffrey Schaeperkoetter, presiding judge of the Circuit Court of Franklin County, entered an order awarding temporary custody of Daughter to Carol Cash and prohibiting Mother from removing Daughter from the State of Missouri "subject to [Mother's] right to request a hearing as to her summer visitation." Insofar as we can determine from the docket sheets, such order was entered without the benefit of any hearing. It clearly was entered without any notice, inasmuch as the return of service upon Mother reflects that she was not served until June 13, 2000 and there is no indication of any attempt to serve Father. An order which purports to rule on a motion to modify without proper notice and without a hearing is in excess of the court's jurisdiction and void. ExParte J.A.P. 546 S.W.2d 806, 808 (Mo. App. 1977); In Re Lipschitz, 466 S.W.2d 183, 185 (Mo. App. 1971). Accordingly, it appearing from the terms of the decree that Mother is now entitled to nine weeks custody of Daughter at her residence in Texas, we dispense with further pleadings and remand custody of Daughter to Mother for exercise of her temporary custody in accordance with the terms of the October 22, 1999 decree. Footnotes: FN1. Mother and Father have three children, one of whom was declared emancipated in the dissolution decree. The decree contemplates that other child will reside with Mother in Texas except during Father's periods of temporary custody. FN2. The docket sheet gives no indication that Carol Cash ever filed a motion to intervene. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.

Related Opinions

Ronald Wuebbeling, Respondent, vs. Jill Clark, f/k/a Jill Wuebbeling, Appellant.(2016)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictAugust 9, 2106#ED103501

affirmed
family-lawmajority5,654 words

L.J.F. vs. J.F.G.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictMarch 10, 2026#WD87987

affirmed

The court affirmed the circuit court's renewal of a full order of protection against Father, which was made effective for his lifetime. The order prohibits Father from communicating with or coming within 100 feet of Mother, except for communications concerning their shared child, based on findings that Father engaged in stalking, harassment, and coercion that posed a serious danger to Mother's physical or mental health.

family-lawper_curiam4,882 words

In re the Marriage of: Stacey L. Noble vs. Bradford R. Noble(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictFebruary 24, 2026#WD87485

affirmed

Wife appealed the trial court's dissolution judgment, challenging the court's failure to provide a remedy after independent investigation of facts, the use of normalized income to determine husband's maintenance obligation, and the finding that husband lacked ability to pay maintenance. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment in all respects.

family-lawmajority8,056 words

In re the matter of: A.L.P. and S.H.P., minors; Alicia Smith, Respondent, vs. Lora Martinez, Appellant.(2026)

Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101121

reversed

The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's grant of third-party visitation to Smith under section 452.375.5(5)(a), holding that this statute does not create an independent cause of action for third-party visitation when custody is not at issue. The court determined that Smith lacked standing to seek visitation rights after Martinez was granted full parental rights through adoption.

family-lawper_curiam3,296 words

M.D.M, Appellant, v. A.W.S., Respondent.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 10, 2026#ED113141

affirmed

The court affirmed the circuit court's child custody and support judgment, rejecting Father's six points of error regarding the Form 14 calculations, denial of Line 11 credit despite equal visitation time, disproportionate attorney's and GAL fees, and exclusion of testimony on equitable abatement. The appellate court found that Father failed to meet the required analytical standards for challenging the judgment and that the circuit court properly exercised its discretion in denying the Line 11 credit and ruling against equitable abatement.

family-lawmajority3,425 words