E.A.P. ex rel. V.C.I. v. J.A.I., 421 S.W.3d 460

Parents (Mother E.A.P. and Father J.A.I.) had two children and an original consent judgment granting joint legal and physical custody with a parenting plan that included use of a parenting coordinator and alternating week-long parenting time.
Soon after entry of the consent judgment, conflicts arose; the parenting coordinator repeatedly reduced Mother’s parenting time, ultimately limiting her to one day per week.
Father moved to modify custody and support seeking sole custody; Mother counter-moved and sought removal of the parenting coordinator. A six-day evidentiary hearing was held.
The trial court found Mother’s refusal to follow the parenting coordinator’s directives was a substantial, continuing change in circumstances, awarded Father sole legal and physical custody, revised the parenting plan, and authorized the parenting coordinator to modify the contact schedule without court review.
The court also limited Mother’s parenting time (supervised 8 hours/week for three months, then every other weekend, holiday and summer provisions) and ordered Mother to pay child support.
Both parties appealed; Mother challenged the delegation of judicial power to the parenting coordinator and other matters; Father challenged child support calculation.

Issue	Mother’s Argument	Father’s Argument	Held
Whether the trial court impermissibly delegated judicial authority by allowing the parenting coordinator to modify the court-ordered contact schedule without judicial review	The delegation was improper because it gave the coordinator power to change custody/visitation—core judicial functions—without court review	The parenting coordinator’s authority was appropriate as part of a parenting plan to resolve high-conflict disputes and implement the plan	Court held the delegation was impermissible: a judge cannot cede exclusive statutory authority over custody/visitation to a parenting coordinator; the modification provision was reversed and remanded for a new parenting plan
Whether the trial court’s finding of changed circumstances (Mother’s noncompliance with coordinator directives) and resulting custody/support orders should stand	Mother argued the judgment improperly delegated authority, though court could find changed circumstances; she also raised other points not reached after remand	Father argued the evidence (Form 14) supported child support and Mother failed to rebut it	Court said Mother’s conduct could constitute a change in circumstances, but because of the improper delegation the judgment must be reversed and remanded; child support issue was not decided and remanded as potentially affected by new proceedings

In re Marriage of Murphey, 207 S.W.3d 679 (Mo. App. S.D.) (standard of review in court-tried custody cases)
Aubuchon v. Hale, 384 S.W.3d 217 (Mo. App. E.D.) (court may not permit others to alter custody arrangements; court’s custody authority derives from statute)
In re Marriage of Hendrix, 183 S.W.3d 582 (Mo.) (judgment not void merely because erroneous)
M.F.M. v. J.O.M., 889 S.W.2d 944 (Mo. App. W.D.) (statutory standard for modification: change in circumstances and best interests)
Downing v. Howe, 60 S.W.3d 646 (Mo. App. S.D.) (void judgments narrowly defined)
Platt v. Platt, 815 S.W.2d 82 (Mo. App. E.D.) (finality and void-judgment doctrine)
Franken v. Franken, 191 S.W.3d 700 (Mo. App. W.D.) (voidness limited to jurisdictional/due process defects)
Baxi v. United Techs. Auto. Corp., 122 S.W.3d 92 (Mo. App. E.D.) (error is not the same as voidness)
Ream-Nelson v. Nelson, 333 S.W.3d 22 (Mo. App. W.D.) (remand and court’s discretion to reopen the record)
Hamer v. Nicholas, 186 S.W.3d 884 (Mo. App. W.D.) (standards for remand proceedings)
St. Lawrence v. St. Lawrence, 109 S.W.3d 225 (Mo. App. E.D.) (effect of superseding modified judgments)