Allen ex rel. Allen v. Gatewood
2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 77
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Paternity judgment (2009) awards joint custody and directs schooling consultations; relocation statute §452.377 governs relocation; notice must include specific address and other details.
- Mother notified she would relocate to Breckenridge, Missouri, citing fiancée’s inheritance; notice lacked correct address.
- Father sought to prevent relocation; Mother’s address in notice later found inadequate and allegedly misleading.
- Mother actually relocated with Child on June 1, 2011, enrolling Child in Breckenridge schools without Father’s consultation.
- Trial on relocation held August 29, 2011; continuance motion denied; court denied relocation and held Mother in contempt for educational decisions and notice noncompliance.
- Court affirmed, holding relocation not in Child’s best interests and affirming contempt and denial of relocation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether relocation notice complied with §452.377.2 | Mother argues Father’s late objection waived relocation. | Father argues notice failed to provide correct address; noncompliance nullifies waiver. | No absolute right; notice insufficient due to incorrect address; burden not satisfied. |
| Whether relocation was in Child’s best interests under §452.375.2 | Move was in Child’s best interests given new home and stability. | Relocation would disrupt Father’s relationship and Child’s adjustment; not in best interests. | Not in Child’s best interests; substantial evidence supports denial. |
| Whether trial-continuance denial was reversible error | Continuance needed due to counsel schedule. | Not an abuse of discretion; school district urgency favored proceeding. | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed. |
| Whether the contempt finding was supported | Relocation and lack of consultation violated paternity judgement. | Contempt findings supported by evidence of noncompliance. | Contempt upheld; evidence supports finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dent v. Dent, 248 S.W.3d 646 (Mo.App.2008) (waiver of objection when no timely response to relocation notice; right to relocate absent timely objection)
- Abraham v. Abraham, 352 S.W.3d 617 (Mo.App.2011) (strict compliance required for address; address known or knowable governs obligations)
- Baxley v. Jarred, 91 S.W.3d 192 (Mo.App.2002) (relaxation of notice rules; not controlling for non-relocating party’s obligation)
- Herigon v. Herigon, 121 S.W.3d 562 (Mo.App.2003) (relocation statute interpreted for best interests/whether relocation proper)
- Hendry v. Osia, 337 S.W.3d 759 (Mo.App.2011) (best interests factors guiding relocation determinations)
- McDonald v. Burch, 91 S.W.3d 660 (Mo.App.2002) (dual burdens for relocation: good faith and child’s best interests)
- Dorman v. Dorman, 91 S.W.3d 167 (Mo.App.2002) (best interests factors weigh against relocation when impact on parent-child relationship significant)
- Mantonya v. Mantonya, 311 S.W.3d 392 (Mo.App.2010) (recognizes intrastate vs interstate relocation considerations unique fact patterns)
- Sitelines L.L.C. v. Pentstar Corp., 213 S.W.3d 703 (Mo.App.2007) (reasonableness of notice where pretrial hearing not substantive hearing)