Rachel Whitehead vs. Zackery Todd Moore Jr.

RACHEL WHITEHEAD, ) ) Respondent, ) ) WD87588 v. ) ) OPINION FILED: ) December 23, 2025 ZACKERY TODD MOORE JR., ) ) Appellant. ) Appeal from the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri The Honorable Adam L. Caine, Judge Before Division Three: Alok Ahuja, Presiding Judge, Mark D. Pfeiffer, Judge, and Thomas N. Chapman, Judge Mr. Zackery Moore Jr. ("Father") appeals pro se from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri ("family court"), arguing that the family court erred in denying his Motion for Family Access filed against Ms. Rachel Whitehead ("Mother"). Father's initial appellate brief was stricken by order of this Court on June 24, 2025, due to numerous briefing deficiencies. Father's amended brief is similarly replete with the same deficiencies. Because Father fails to provide appellate briefing compliant with

2 Missouri Supreme Court Rule 84.04 and otherwise fails to allege any reviewable legal basis for reversal of the judgment, we dismiss his appeal. Factual and Procedural History 1

On April 4, 2018, the family court entered a Judgment of Paternity finding that Mother and Father were the parents of minor child, R.M. ("child"), and awarding Mother and Father joint legal and physical custody of the child. Because Mother and Father faced persistent difficulties in co-parenting, the family court modified the Judgment of Paternity and parenting plan contained therein on May 11, 2021, and again on June 26, 2024, to reflect the best interests of the child. In both modifications, the family court found it was in the best interests of the child for the parents to continue to share joint physical custody, but modified provisions of the parenting plan to encourage a healthy co-parenting relationship between the parties. One requirement of the June 26, 2024 modification was that the parents attend co-parenting therapy on at least a monthly basis. Due to apparent ongoing confusion about, or outright non-compliance with, the terms of the parenting plan, Mother and Father have both continued to act without regard to the family court's rulings relating to joint physical custody and respective parenting times. For example, Father has refused to attend co-parenting counseling. And, since the initial judgment and the two modifications were entered, the parties have filed five

1 "In the appeal of a bench-tried case, the appellate court views the facts in the light most favorable to the trial court's judgment." Shelton v. Shelton, 717 S.W.3d 810, 816 n.2 (Mo. App. W.D. 2025) (citation modified).

3 motions for family access alleging the other parent has interfered with his or her parenting time without good cause. Mother has filed two motions for family access. Father has filed three motions for family access. 2

The current dispute arises out of the intersection of three provisions of the current parenting plan: (1) the summer schedule provision, (2) Mother's seven days of parenting time at the end of the summer schedule, and (3) Mother's and Father's alternating weekends of parenting time during the school year. 3

Specifically, in his August 18, 2024 Motion for Family Access, Father argued that he was entitled to his school year alternating weekend of parenting time beginning Friday, August 23, 2024, because Mother's seven days of parenting time at the end of the summer schedule prevented him from exercising what would have typically been his

2 And, subsequently, Missouri Case.net shows that Mother has filed another motion for family access in June 2025 in which the parties are again feuding over parenting time as it relates to the front end of the summer schedule from the current parenting plan (whereas the current appeal relates to a dispute with the back end of the summer schedule of the parenting plan). 3 In summary, the summer schedule provides for alternating parenting time of one week on, one week off; this pattern ends with Mother receiving parenting time seven days before the school year begins; then, during the school year, Father receives alternating weekend parenting time (with certain holiday exceptions). Here, school began on Tuesday, August 20, 2024. Though Mother was entitled to parenting time for the seven days prior to the beginning of the school year (August 13-20, 2024), there was no testimony at trial as to who had parenting time on August 13; Mother had parenting time on August 14-18; and, Father, had parenting time on August 19-20. Thereafter, school started on August 20, and Mother took the weekend of August 23-25 for parenting time, and Father took the next two weekends for parenting time because he felt he should have had the weekend of August 23-25 for his parenting time. Thus, Father effectively self-helped himself to the very compensatory parenting time he now argues the family court should have given him—in addition to the extra days of parenting time on August 19-20 that Mother gave him during her "seven days before school begins" parenting time.

4 weekend of parenting time during the previous weekend—though Father ignores that Mother shared her "seven days prior to the school year" parenting time with Father. In Mother's response, she denied that she interfered with Father's parenting time under the terms of the parenting plan. On October 15, 2024, the family court heard testimony from the parties on the Motion for Family Access. On October 17, 2024, the family court denied Father's Motion for Family Access, stating in its judgment: Upon the evidence presented, pursuant to section 452.400, RSMo, the court finds that there was no denial of or interference with custody, visitation or third-party custody or that there was good cause to deny or interfere with custody, visitation or third-party custody under the judgment of dissolution, legal separation, paternity or modification. Therefore, the Motion for Family Access Order is denied. The Court notes the parties have still not participated in co-parenting counseling as ordered by the judgment. [Father] continues to refuse to participate in co-parenting counseling. As the Court cautioned at the August 8, 2024, family access motion hearing, the refusal to participate [i]n co-parenting counseling can be considered by the Court in future modification or contempt actions in this case. Father appealed the judgment. Father's initial appellate brief was stricken by order of this Court due to five deficiencies:

1. The Statement of Facts lacks specific page references to the legal file or

the transcript as required by Rule 84.04(c).

1. The Points Relied On are not in compliance with the specific

requirements of Rule 84.04(d).

1. The Points Relied On do not include a list of cases or other authority

upon which that party principally relies as required by Rule 84.04(d)(5).

1. The argument does not include a concise statement of the applicable

standard of review for each claim of error. The argument does not include a concise statement describing whether the error was preserved

5 for appellate review and if so how it was preserved. All as required by Rule 84.04(e).

1. The certificate of compliance fails to state the number of words in the

brief as required by Rule 84.06(c)(4). Subsequently, Father filed an amended brief. Analysis "Rule 84.04 plainly sets out the requirements for the contents of an appellant's brief." Starcher v. Div. of Emp. Sec., 672 S.W.3d 861, 863 (Mo. App. W.D. 2023). "In summary, all appellate briefs must include: (1) a detailed table of contents; (2) a jurisdictional statement; (3) a statement of facts; (4) the points relied on; (5) an argument; and (6) a short conclusion stating the precise relief sought." R.M. v. King, 671 S.W.3d 394, 397 (Mo. App. W.D. 2023) (citing Rule 84.04(a)(1)-(6)). Our appellate briefing rules are "not simply a judicial word game or a matter of hypertechnicality on the part of appellate courts[,]" Int. of S.R.W., 715 S.W.3d 223, 228 (Mo. App. W.D. 2025), but are instead designed to provide essential rules "to ensure that this Court retains its role as a neutral arbiter and avoids becoming an advocate for any party." Renegar v. Borman, 712 S.W.3d 33, 37 (Mo. App. E.D. 2025) (quoting Jones v. Impact Agape Ministries, 693 S.W.3d 122, 126 (Mo. App. E.D. 2023)). "An appellant's failure to adhere to the briefing standards outlined in Rule 84.04 preserves nothing for appeal and is grounds for dismissal." Shelton v. Shelton, 717 S.W.3d 810, 814-15 (Mo. App. W.D. 2025) (quoting Townsend v. Div. of Emp. Sec., 654 S.W.3d 424, 426 (Mo. App. E.D. 2022)). "Although [Father] appears pro se, he is held to the same standard as attorneys and he is subject to Rule 84.04's mandatory appellate briefing requirements." R.M., 671

6 S.W.3d at 397. "This is not from a lack of sympathy, but rather is necessitated by the requirement of judicial impartiality, judicial economy, and fairness to all parties." S.R.W., 715 S.W.3d at 228 (quoting Starcher, 672 S.W.3d at 863). Father's initial appellate brief was stricken for numerous briefing deficiencies. Despite the fact that Father was presented with an opportunity to correct those deficiencies, his amended brief failed to rectify these deficiencies. Because the deficiencies associated with Father's statement of facts and points on appeal are so pervasive that they impede our review on the merits, we dismiss Father's appeal. Father's Statement of Facts Rule 84.04(c) provides that an appellant's statement of facts shall be "a fair and concise statement of the facts relevant to the questions presented for determination without argument." "The primary purpose of the statement of facts is to afford an immediate, accurate, complete and unbiased understanding of the facts of the case." Shelton, 717 S.W.3d at 815 (citation modified) (quoting Acton v. Rahn, 611 S.W.3d 897, 901 (Mo. App. W.D. 2020)). Further, each statement of facts "shall have specific page references to the relevant portion of the record on appeal, i.e., legal file, transcript, or exhibits." Rule 84.04(c). "Specific relevant cites to the record are mandatory and essential for the effective functioning of appellate courts because courts cannot spend time searching the record to determine if factual assertions in the brief are supported by the record." Sharp v. All-N-One Plumbing, 612 S.W.3d 240, 245 (Mo. App. W.D. 2020) (citation modified) (quoting Jimmy Jones Excavation, Inc. v. JDC Structural Concrete, LLC, 404 S.W.3d 922, 924 (Mo. App. S.D. 2013)). The failure to substantially comply

7 with Rule 84.04(c) "preserves nothing for review and is a sufficient basis to dismiss an appeal." Shelton, 717 S.W.3d at 815. Father's statement of facts is non-compliant with Rule 84.04(c) for several reasons. First, Father's recitation of the relevant facts completely ignores this court's factual lens of review. "To present a fair statement of facts, an appellant is required to provide a statement of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, not simply recount appellant's version of the events." McKenna v. McKenna, 717 S.W.3d 634, 641 (Mo. App. W.D. 2025) (citation modified) (quoting Lavery v. Lavery, 699 S.W.3d 575, 578 (Mo. App. W.D. 2024)); In re Marriage of Smith, 283 S.W.3d 271, 273 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009); see Lattimer v. Clark, 412 S.W.3d 420, 422 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) ("Ms. Lattimer's statement of facts is argumentative and does not contain a fair and concise statement of the facts relevant to the questions presented. It instead contains Ms. Lattimer's version of the events . . . rather than a statement of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict as required by Rule 84.04."); Sprueill v. Lott, 676 S.W.3d 472, 475 (Mo. App. S.D. 2023) ("Appellants' 'Statement of Facts' section appears to only recite evidence favorable to [Appellant]. Therefore, it is not 'fair' because the facts were not presented in accord with the trial court's adverse fact-finding and credibility determinations."). "An appellant's task on appeal is to explain why, even when the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the respondent, the law requires that the judgment of the trial court be reversed." Smith, 283 S.W.3d at 273-74. "Statements of fact consisting of the appellant's version of the events, rather than a statement of the

8 evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict as required by Rule 84.04, are non- compliant and fail to preserve the appellant's claim for review." Guerra v. Locarno Partners, LP, 577 S.W.3d 900, 904 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019). In denying Father's Motion for Family Access, the family court found "there was no denial of or interference with custody . . . or that there was good cause to deny or interfere with custody . . . ." Therefore, we are required to construe the facts in a light most favorable to the family court's judgment on that topic. Instead of presenting facts that document the manner in which the parties were splitting parenting time before and after the weekend in question—facts that, when viewed in a light most favorable to the judgment, would support the family court's judgment—Father instead merely provides his conclusory allegation that Mother took parenting time in violation of the parenting plan. Thus, Father's statement of facts is non-compliant with Rule 84.04(c) because he only provided this Court with his interpretation of the events pertaining to his Motion for Family Access and ignored the evidence contrary to his position. 4

The "facts" Father provides are merely conclusory allegations "masquerading as fact, which is prohibited." In re Marriage of Blanchard, 613 S.W.3d 879, 885 (Mo. App. S.D. 2020) (citation modified). "A statement of facts . . . that is argumentative and consists of conclusory assertions leaves a reviewing court with an insufficient basis for

4 Father's failure to provide a full and fair statement of the facts in accordance with our lens of factual review is particularly fatal where, as here, Mother has not filed an appellate brief in response to Father's appellate brief with an overview of the facts favorable to the judgment. See Shelton, 717 S.W.3d at 816 n.2.

9 evaluating the facts." Guerra, 577 S.W.3d at 904 (citation modified) (quoting Bridges v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 146 S.W.3d 456, 459 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004)). Next, Father failed to provide this Court with a comprehensive understanding of the background of this case—he provides a scant account of the background facts of this case and does not recount any procedural history pertinent to this appeal. In doing so, Father omitted years of litigation between the parties and modifications of the parenting plan—one of which Father complains Mother violated. See McNeese v. Wheeler, 677 S.W.3d 907, 911 (Mo. App. W.D. 2023) (holding statement of facts was "substantively deficient in that it fail[ed] to provide an account of the background facts relevant to th[e] appeal."). The result is that this Court is left without the "basic factual background necessary to resolve [his] claims on appeal." Mecey v. Harps Food Stores, 721 S.W.3d 197, 200 (Mo. App. E.D. 2025). Consequently, Father has failed to provide this Court with an unbiased and accurate understanding of the facts of this case. 5

Moreover, Father fails to provide specific and consistent citations to the record on appeal. This Court struck Father's initial brief because, among other reasons, Father's statement of facts "lack[ed] specific page references to the legal file or the transcript as

5 Father's failure to provide an unbiased and accurate statement of the facts relevant to his appeal is not only fatal on its own account but also impairs Father's ability to follow the distinct analytical framework required for challenging any judgment following a bench-tried case. See Weeks v. City of St. Louis, 721 S.W.3d 873, 877 (Mo. banc 2025) ("expressly adopt[ing]" the analytical framework in Houston v. Crider, 317 S.W.3d 178, 187 (Mo. App. S.D. 2010)). Without identifying the evidence in the record that is favorable to the judgment and contrary to Father's position, Father cannot meet the analytical framework requirements for an against-the-weight-of-the-evidence or not- supported-by -substantial-evidence challenge.

10 required by Rule 84.04(c)." This Court not only informed Father of the specific ways in which his brief was deficient but also provided Father with an opportunity to file an amended brief correcting those violations. Although Father filed an amended brief, his subsequent statement of facts remains deficient because it continues to lack specific page references for each individual fact stated. Bi-Nat'l Gateway Terminal, LLC v. City of St. Louis, 697 S.W.3d 593, 598 (Mo. App. E.D. 2024). When Father did attempt to provide citations to the record on appeal, he primarily cited to the appendix to support his factual contentions. However, "the appendix is not part of the legal file or otherwise part of the record on appeal." Shelton, 717 S.W.3d at 815 (quoting Callahan v. Precythe, 577 S.W.3d 159, 162 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019)). The documents in Father's appendix are merely excerpts of documents that favor his position on appeal, none of which were admitted at trial. Furthermore, any citations Father has properly made to the record on appeal appear only at the end of each paragraph, requiring this Court to scour the record searching for a "needle in a haystack" to find and verify the factual contentions made in the body of each paragraph. Phox v. Boes, 702 S.W.3d 498, 504 (Mo. App. W.D. 2024). Father failed to correct these Rule 84.04(c) violations despite notice and an opportunity to correct them by filing an amended brief, making dismissal of Father's appeal "particularly appropriate" in this case. Sharp, 612 S.W.3d at 245. Father's Failure to Allege an Adequate Legal Basis for Reversal Equally fatal to Father's appellate briefing, Father has failed to challenge the legal basis for the family court's denial of the Motion for Family Access. "While it may not be

11 stated explicitly in Rule 84.04, the fundamental requirement for an appellate argument is that it demonstrate the erroneousness of the basis upon which a lower court or agency issued an adverse ruling." Halderman v. City of Sturgeon, 670 S.W.3d 193, 212 (Mo. App. W.D. 2023) (quoting Rainey v. SSPS, Inc., 259 S.W.3d 603, 606 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008)); Murphree v. Lakeshore Ests., LLC, 636 S.W.3d 622, 625 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021); see Hicks v. St. Luke's Northland-Smithville, 655 S.W.3d 641, 649 (Mo. App. W.D. 2022) ("The argument section of an appellate brief must provide sufficient analytical support for the claim of reversible error."). "Unless an appellant challenges the grounds on which an adverse ruling depends, he has shown no entitlement to appellate relief." Halderman, 670 S.W.3d at 212 (emphasis added) (quoting Rainey, 259 S.W.3d at 606). In the Family Access Judgment, the family court made a single finding: Upon the evidence presented, pursuant to section 452.400, RSMo, the court finds that there was no denial of or interference with custody, visitation or third-party custody or that there was good cause to deny or interfere with custody, visitation or third-party custody under the judgment of dissolution, legal separation, paternity or modification. Thus, in order to allege an adequate legal basis for reversal of the family court's judgment, Father was required to challenge this finding in his points on appeal. However, both of Father's points relied on fail to do so. Father's first point relied on alleges that the family court "erred in denying Appellant compensatory parenting time despite no finding of endangerment . . . ." Plainly, this point does not allege reversible error because the family court's judgment did not depend on any "finding of endangerment" and, in fact, the family court made no such finding to support its judgment. Therefore, Father's first point on appeal fails to

12 challenge the family court's judgment on a ground that the judgment actually depended upon and preserves nothing for appellate review. 6

Father's second point relied on states: "The trial court erred in finding ambiguity regarding the parenting schedule" and thus the family court's finding "was unsupported

6 Further, though Father complains that the family court failed to make a "finding of endangerment," Father never requested the family court to make any such finding. See Berlin v. Pickett, 100 S.W.3d 163, 167 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003) ("[A] trial court need not make findings of fact unless the movant clearly and unequivocally specifies the controverted fact issues."); Country Club of the Ozarks, LLC v. CCO Invs., 338 S.W.3d 325, 335 (Mo. App. S.D. 2011) ("It is the parties' duty to specifically request findings of fact and conclusions of law, identifying the issues they wish the court to decide." (citation modified)); Dorman v. Dorman, 91 S.W.3d 167, 170 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002) ("Rule 73.01 is a procedural rule in that it prescribes the procedure a party must follow to trigger the trial court's duty to make findings of fact."). More importantly, Father's argument is misplaced. Section 452.400.1 states: "A parent not granted custody of the child is entitled to reasonable visitation rights unless the court finds, after a hearing, that visitation would endanger the child's physical health or impair his or her emotional development." (emphasis added). The family court did not err in failing to make a finding of endangerment pursuant to section 452.400.1 because Mother and Father share joint physical custody of the child. Finally, Father waived his claim of error when he failed to raise this alleged error of the family court in a post-trial motion. Rule 78.07(c) states: "In all cases, allegations of error relating to the form or language of the judgment, including the failure to make statutorily required findings, must be raised in a motion to amend the judgment in order to be preserved for appellate review." Father failed to file any post-trial motions raising the alleged error to make any requested findings in its judgment, thereby failing to preserve this issue for appellate review. See Jenkins v. Jenkins, 368 S.W.3d 363, 369 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) ("Ms. Jenkins failed to file any post-trial motions. . . . Consequently, Ms. Jenkins's claim is not preserved."); Country Club of the Ozarks, 338 S.W.3d at 336 ("Country Club failed to file any post-trial motions, including a motion to amend the judgment. As such, the complaint that the trial court entered judgment without making specific findings of fact is waived."); Ireland v. Div. of Emp. Sec., 390 S.W.3d 895, 899 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) ("This court may not properly address an issue that was not [first] determined by the [family court]." (quoting Rainey v. SSPS, Inc., 259 S.W.3d 603, 606 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008))). Therefore, Father waived any claim of error he attempts to allege in Point I.

13 by the evidence and misapplied the law." 7 Father's second point fails to allege reversible error because the family court's decision to deny Father's Motion for Family Access did not depend on any finding of "ambiguity" and, again, the family court made no such finding in support of its ruling on Father's motion. Since Father's second point on appeal fails to challenge any finding actually relied upon by the family court in its judgment, Father's point has again preserved no legal argument for appellate review. "Appellate courts have discretion to review noncompliant briefs gratuitously, overlooking technical deficiencies, when the deficiencies do not impede review on the merits." Starcher, 672 S.W.3d at 864. However, "[w]here a brief, as here, is so defective as to require this court to speculate about the appellant's argument and precedential support for it, we cannot reach the merits . . . ." Id. at 864-65. To evaluate the merits of Father's arguments, this Court would be required to step out of its role as a neutral arbiter and "speculat[e] about facts and arguments that have not been made," which we cannot do. Id. at 863. 8 Therefore, the deficiencies in Father's brief are so significant that they impede our review of the merits of his appeal.

7 We note that Point II is impermissibly multifarious—it combines two separate legal challenges by arguing that the family court's finding was "unsupported by evidence" and that the family court "misapplied the law." As distinct legal challenges, those arguments must be presented to this Court in separate points relied on. See Langston v. Langston, 615 S.W.3d 109, 116 & n.3 (Mo. App. W.D. 2020) (holding that Father's points on appeal were multifarious when he combined challenges claiming the judgment was not supported by evidence and erroneously applied the law). 8 Without an additional modification clarifying the summer schedule provision's intersection with the weekend schedule and the child's beginning of school each year, we suspect the parties will continue to disagree about the meaning of those provisions at the start of each school year. However, we urge the parties to think about the effect of this extensive litigation on their child and to make a conscious choice to cooperate with each

14 Conclusion Father's appeal is dismissed.

Mark D. Pfeiffer, Judge Alok Ahuja, Presiding Judge, and Thomas N. Chapman, Judge, concur.

other on parenting time disagreements. Since both Father and Mother appear to care deeply for their child, focusing that passion on the best interests of their child—which requires parental cooperation—would likely yield a much-needed remedy for the wounds of this broken family. ___________________________________