Clayton v. Sarratt
2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 5
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Father and Mother share joint custody of B.C., born 2004; custody and support were established in 2006 with joint custody and educational mailing address for B.C. set to Father.
- Mother sought to modify parenting time and change B.C.’s educational/m mailing address to her address in 2010; GAL appointed.
- Motions occurred after Mother moved from Independence to Oak Grove; Father moved to Kansas City area; B.C. started school changes in 2010.
- Court adopted a GAL-proposed plan changing B.C.’s address to Mother’s and modifying the parenting time schedule to maximize parental time and reduce third-party transportation.
- Current plan reduces travel time and third-party reliance; transportation handled primarily by parents, with Grandfather assisting previously.
- Trial court found change in circumstances and that modification was in B.C.’s best interests; judgment upheld on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Modification of parenting time and residential designation | Clayton argues no substantial change in circumstances; seeks to keep custody but modify time and address. | Mitchell contends change in circumstances and best interests justify modification. | Modification upheld; plan serves best interests and reduces travel. |
| Burden of proof shifted in best interests analysis | Father alleges court shifted burden to him for proving detriment. | Mother contends both parties share burden; court’s comment was evidentiary, not shifting burden. | No improper burden shifting; statement was an inference from evidence. |
| Best interests factors and travel concern | Modification needed to reflect schedules and reduce disruption. | Plan balanced time and minimized transfers; addressed school changes and travel. | Court considered factors; modification supported by substantial evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bather v. Bather, 170 S.W.3d 487 (Mo.App. W.D.2005) (change in custody requires substantial change in circumstances)
- Hightower v. Myers, 304 S.W.3d 727 (Mo. banc 2010) (allocation of time must favor frequent contact with both parents; not equal time required)
- Mantonya v. Mantonya, 311 S.W.3d 392 (Mo.App. W.D.2010) (defines custody terms and sub-issues like educational/mailing address as related to custody)
- Russell v. Russell, 210 S.W.3d 191 (Mo. banc 2007) (modification of parenting time requires 452.410.1 standard when joint custody; different rule when sole custody)
- Buchanan v. Buchanan, 167 S.W.3d 698 (Mo. banc 2005) (requires findings on best-interest factors in custody disputes)
- Heslop v. Sanderson, 123 S.W.3d 214 (Mo.App. W.D.2003) (affirming judgment on any ground supported by record; defer to trial court on credibility)
- Jones v. Jones, 277 S.W.3d 330 (Mo.App. W.D.2009) (view evidence in light most favorable to decree)