OTT LAW

In re the matter of: S.C., Respondent, vs. N.H., Appellant.

Decision date: August 28, 2012ED97011

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.

Syllabus

IN RE THE MATTER OF: ) No. ED97011 S.C., ) ) Appeal from the Circuit Court of Respondent, ) the City of St. Louis ) 063-00396 vs. ) ) Honorable Thomas J. Frawley N.H., ) ) Appellant. ) Filed: August 28, 2012

Before Clifford H. Ahrens, P.J., Sherri B. Sullivan, J. and Glenn A. Norton, J.

OPINION

N.H. ("Mother") appeals the judgment granting in part and denying in part Mother and S.C.'s ("Father") motions to modify custody of their minor child ("Child"). We affirm the judgment as modified. We find that the trial court did not err in placing restrictions on Mother's rights as sole legal custodian and joint physical custodian. We also find that the trial court did not err in restricting Mother's access to Child's school during Father's periods of physical custody. An extended opinion on these issues would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. For the reasons set forth below, we modify the judgment so that the periods of physical custody for the Martin

Luther King, Jr., President's Day, Memorial Day, and Labor Day holidays conclude at the commencement of the academic day Tuesday. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b). 1

I. BACKGROUND In October 2006, the trial court entered a paternity judgment which awarded Mother and Father joint legal and joint physical custody. Mother and Father filed motions to modify the paternity judgment, each seeking an award of sole legal and sole physical custody. In June 2011, the trial court issued a judgment granting in part and denying in part Mother and Father's motions to modify the paternity judgment. Mother and Father retained joint physical custody with some changes to the physical custody schedule including a determination that periods of custody for the Martin Luther King, Jr., President's Day, Memorial Day, and Labor Day holidays conclude at "the commencement of the academic day Monday." Mother appeals. II. DISCUSSION A. Standard of Review We will affirm the trial court's custody determination unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law. Schild v. Schild, 272 S.W.3d 329, 334 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008). "We give greater deference to the trial court in custody matters than other matters and we will affirm the trial court's custody determination under any reasonable theory." Id. (internal quotation omitted). B. Holiday Physical Custody Schedule In her fourth point on appeal, 2 Mother claims the trial court erred in determining that periods of physical custody for the Martin Luther King, Jr., President's Day, Memorial Day, and

1 All references to Rules are to Missouri Supreme Court Rules (2012). 2 Mother's first, second, and third points on appeal are addressed and affirmed under Rule 84.16(b) in a separate memorandum.

2

3 Labor Day holidays conclude at "the commencement of the academic day Monday." Mother contends that, because there is no academic day on these holidays, the trial court misapplied the law in terminating physical custody periods at an indeterminate time, and the judgment should be corrected to reflect that these periods of custody conclude at the commencement of the academic day Tuesday. Father concedes this point on appeal, and agrees that these periods of custody should end at the commencement of the academic day Tuesday. We agree that the trial court made a typographical mistake and intended for these periods of custody to conclude at the commencement of the academic day Tuesday. Under Rule 84.14, we have the authority to "give such judgment as the court ought to give." Accordingly, we modify the judgment to reflect that the periods of custody for the Martin Luther King, Jr., President's Day, Memorial Day, and Labor Day holidays conclude at the commencement of the academic day Tuesday. Point four is granted. III. CONCLUSION We modify the trial court's judgment so that the periods of custody for the Martin Luther King, Jr., President's Day, Memorial Day, and Labor Day holidays end at the commencement of the academic day Tuesday. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b). PER CURIAM.

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