Dustyn Tienter v. Angela (Rue) Tienter
2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 142
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Marriage dissolved in 2007: joint legal custody; Father awarded sole physical custody; Mother given visitation; no child support ordered.
- In 2013 Mother moved to modify custody seeking sole legal custody and joint physical custody (children to primarily live with Mother) and child support; hearing held in Jan. 2014.
- Evidence showed Father worked a second job and significant overtime, married a new partner (Evelyn), and the children spent much time with paternal grandparents and Evelyn.
- Testimony (Mother, grandparents, children) alleged mistreatment and harsh discipline by Evelyn, poor hygiene of the children, and unmet medical/dental/vision needs while in Father’s care; Father admitted many of these facts on cross-examination.
- Trial court denied modification, finding no substantial change in circumstances; did not expressly decide best‑interests under § 452.375. Mother appealed; appellate court reversed and remanded for best‑interests findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in denying Mother’s motion to modify custody by finding no substantial change in circumstances | Tienter: Father’s marital/employment changes, Evelyn’s mistreatment, neglect of hygiene and medical needs constitute a substantial change warranting custody modification | Father: Trial court properly found no substantial change; some facts unsubstantiated and children’s testimony showed improvement | Reversed — appellate court held the cumulative evidence (including Father’s admissions) established a substantial change in circumstances; remanded for best‑interests analysis and written findings under § 452.375.2 |
| Whether trial court needed to set out detailed written findings when denying modification | Tienter: court should explain basis for custody decision | Father: judgment sufficient; alternatively sought remand for findings | Court: No statutory requirement to make detailed written findings on the threshold change‑of‑circumstances issue; findings under § 452.375.2 are required only if court proceeds to best‑interests analysis; remand needed because court did not assess best interests |
| Whether Mother was entitled to modified visitation schedule if custody changed | Tienter: requested new parenting time plan to reflect custody change | Father: opposed changes | Not reached on merits — remanded for best‑interests and related orders if modification granted |
| Whether Mother was entitled to child support if physical custody awarded to her | Tienter: sought support if custody changed | Father: opposed | Not reached on merits — remanded contingent on custody change |
Key Cases Cited
- Russell v. Russell, 210 S.W.3d 191 (Mo. banc 2007) (drastic custody changes require a substantial change in circumstances)
- Prach v. Westberg, 455 S.W.3d 513 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015) (distinguishing threshold change‑of‑circumstances from best‑interests § 452.375 analysis)
- Parker v. Parker, 66 S.W.3d 778 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002) (parental neglect of hygiene/medical needs can support modification)
- McIntosh v. McIntosh, 400 S.W.3d 860 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013) (changes in employment and marital status may constitute substantial change)
- Guier v. Guier, 918 S.W.2d 940 (Mo. App. W.D. 1996) (failure to provide medical care can justify custody modification)
- Wood v. Wood, 391 S.W.3d 41 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (no written‑findings requirement for threshold change‑of‑circumstances determination)