In re the Marriage of Krista Lea Chapman and Darren Lynn Chapman KRISTA LEA CHAPMAN v. DARREN LYNN CHAPMAN, Respondent-Respondent.
501 S.W.3d 572
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Mother (Krista Chapman) sent a relocation notice under Mo. Rev. Stat. §452.377 stating she would move the children on/about Dec 26, 2014; notice mailed Oct 23, 2014 and received by Father’s wife on Nov 21, 2014.
- Father filed an objection on Dec 23, 2014 but did not file an accompanying affidavit within 30 days as expressly required by §452.377.7.
- Mother did not move on the stated date; the parties litigated multiple motions including Mother’s relocation request and a separate motion to modify custody seeking sole custody and supervised parenting time for Father.
- The trial court held hearings, found Mother’s relocation was in good faith but not in the children’s best interests, and denied both the relocation and the custody-modification request.
- Mother appealed, arguing (1) Father’s objection was untimely/defective so she had an absolute right to relocate, (2) relocation was in the children’s best interest and denial lacked substantial evidence, and (3) the modification denial was not supported by substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Chapman (Mother) Argument | Chapman (Father) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Father’s failure to file a timely affidavit under §452.377.7 deprived court of jurisdiction to consider his objection | Father’s failure to file within 30 days meant Mother had an absolute, nonwaivable right to relocate | Court may consider untimely or procedurally imperfect objections when no prejudice and parties litigate the merits | Court rejected Mother’s claim; procedural noncompliance can be waived and court retained authority to decide the matter |
| Whether substantial evidence supported denial of relocation as contrary to children’s best interests | Relocation was in children’s best interests (better employment/life) | Move would reduce Father’s parenting time and harm children’s relationships in Missouri | Court found substantial evidence supported denial: Father was active parent; move would severely decrease his role and disrupt children’s ties |
| Whether modification to award Mother sole custody and supervised parenting time for Father was supported by evidence | Change in circumstances justified modification and move | Status quo favored; both parents had issues and cooperation problems; best interest did not favor change | Court affirmed denial of modification; substantial evidence supported maintaining status quo |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by weighing credibility and evidence | Court should have credited Mother’s evidence and allowed move | Court may accept or reject testimony and weigh credibility; its findings control if supported | No abuse of discretion found; appellate court defers to trial court credibility determinations |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Abraham, 352 S.W.3d 617 (Mo. Ct. App. S.D. 2011) (procedural requirements for relocation notice and objection are mechanisms to frame merits; courts may consider untimely filings)
- Weaver v. Kelling, 53 S.W.3d 610 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 2001) (failure to follow notice formalities does not bar consideration where actual notice occurred and no prejudice resulted)
- Heintz v. Woodson, 758 S.W.2d 452 (Mo. 1988) (procedural noncompliance does not warrant reversal absent prejudice)
- In re T.L.B., 376 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. Ct. App. S.D. 2011) (appellate deference to trial court’s credibility and custody determinations)