354 S.W.3d 167
Mo.2011Background
- Mother had sole physical custody but was ordered to relocate Child to Missouri three-county area; paternity established for Father in 2007; Child born 2006; Mother moved to Ohio in 2008; trial court’s 2010 order targeted relocation despite initial custody under §452.375.
- Trial court relied on initial custody framework (§452.375) and included a relocation provision; the order compelled relocation to Missouri and residence within St. Charles, St. Louis, or Lincoln counties.
- Mother challenged the relocation as beyond authority under §452.375; Father cross-appealed seeking sole Missouri custody and visitation adjustments.
- Court noted §452.377 relocation procedures apply only after an initial custody order, and do not authorize relocation in an initial §452.375 determination.
- Majority reversed the relocation order and remanded for a judgment reflecting authority limits and actual custody/visitation arrangements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to compel relocation in initial custody | Mother lacked authority under §452.375 to relocate. | Father contends relocation was supported by plan and trial court’s discretion. | Relocation order without statutory authority is invalid. |
| Whether Exhibit J equates to consent to relocation | Mother did not intend to move; exhibit shows backup plan if Missouri order. | Mother testified willingness to relocate if Court orders. | Exhibit J does not grant authority to compel relocation. |
| Remand necessary due to lack of authority | Judgment should reflect actual circumstances without coercive relocation. | Remand allowed for proper custody/visitation determinations. | Remand required; strike relocation but preserve other provisions, or reopen proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Day ex rel. Finnern v. Day, 256 S.W.3d 600 (Mo.App.2008) (relocation statutes not applicable before initial §452.375 custody determination; §452.377 is for post-determination relocation)
- In re Marriage of Littlefield, 940 P.2d 1362 (Wash. 1997) (courts must base parenting plans on actual circumstances at trial)
- Murphy v. Carron, 586 S.W.2d 80 (Mo. banc 1976) (standard of review: substantial evidence and correct law)
- Stowe v. Spence, 41 S.W.3d 468 (Mo.banc 2001) (relocation must be in best interests, good faith, and comply with §452.377.10 when applicable)
- Taylor v. Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 63 S.W.2d 69 (Mo. 1933) (invited error rule; party cannot complain of errors invited by own conduct)