453 S.W.3d 318
Mo. Ct. App.2014Background
- Parties divorced in 2009 with joint legal and physical custody of two daughters; Father ordered to pay child support.
- Mother alleged Father molested one child; Father was indicted (2010) and later acquitted (2011); Children’s Division later reversed a "substantiated" finding.
- Mother sought sole custody and to relocate children to Texas; trial court denied those requests in 2011; this Court reversed and remanded in 2012 for consideration of changed circumstances.
- On remand (2013), trial court found Mother intentionally alienated the children from Father, the abuse allegations were not credible, and the children were entrenched in no-contact preferences. Court awarded sole custody to Mother but denied Father visitation, while preserving Father’s access to information and limited correspondence.
- Court denied Mother’s relocation request (found not in good faith and not in children’s best interests), reduced Father’s child support (based on updated incomes), and awarded Mother $10,000 of appellate fees but denied remand-fee recovery.
Issues
| Issue | Hale (Mother) Argument | Aubuchon (Father) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relocation to Texas | Move is in children’s best interests; remand required reconsideration | Mother seeks to impede Father; relocation is bad faith | Denied: Mother acted in bad faith to deprive Father; relocation not in children’s best interests |
| Custody / Visitation | Sought sole custody and to limit Father’s contact | Challenge to sole custody / no visitation; evidence shows at least some willingness from M.A. | Affirmed: Sole custody to Mother; no forced visitation because forcing contact would harm children given estrangement and Mother’s influence |
| Child support calculation | Court should not reduce support; Mother disputes credits and imputations | Father’s income has fallen; court relied on current income statements | Affirmed: Court permissibly relied on updated incomes and exercised discretion on imputing income and expense allocations |
| Attorney fees | Mother seeks full recovery of appellate and remand fees | Father challenges any award against him; argues his objections to relocation were in good faith | Affirmed: $10,000 awarded to Mother for first appeal; no remand-fee award because Father’s good-faith opposition to relocation bars fee shifting under statute; trial court’s allocation not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Aubuchon v. Hale, 384 S.W.3d 217 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012) (remand required where changed circumstances warranted reexamination of custody and relocation)
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (standards for appellate review of trial-court fact findings)
- Jansen v. Westrich, 95 S.W.3d 214 (Mo. App. 2003) (affirm/modify standard; review limited to sufficiency, weight, and legal error)
- Mantonya v. Mantonya, 311 S.W.3d 392 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010) (good-faith standard for relocation: motive must not be to deprive non-relocating parent of contact)
- Appling v. Appling, 156 S.W.3d 454 (Mo. App. E.D. 2005) (imputation of income is discretionary and fact-specific)
- Manning v. Manning, 292 S.W.3d 459 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009) (trial court’s broad discretion in awarding attorney fees; reversal only for abuse of discretion)