J.F.H. v. S.L.S.
550 S.W.3d 532
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- 2009 custody decree awarded parents joint legal and joint physical custody; Child's school/educational address was Mother's residence in Marble Hill while Father lived/worked in Cape Girardeau. The parenting plan provided roughly equal, alternating two‑week blocks.
- After Child reached school age, Father regularly transported Child (~30+ miles each way) between Cape Girardeau and Marble Hill on his custody days; Father claims job loss and concern about excessive travel time for Child.
- Father filed to modify (2015) seeking to keep joint custody but change Child's educational address to his (Cape Girardeau) and adjust school‑year parenting time to weekdays plus alternating weekends. Mother filed to terminate joint custody and sought sole legal and physical custody (and alternating weekends to Father during school year).
- Trial court (Sept. 2016) awarded Mother sole legal and sole physical custody and limited Father to alternating weekends during the school year, finding breakdown in cooperation and that the prior schedule had become unworkable due to distance/transportation burdens.
- On appeal, the court affirmed the award of sole legal custody to Mother (finding a substantial change in legal‑custody circumstances) but reversed the termination of joint physical custody as not supported by substantial evidence and contrary to Child's best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Father's Argument | Mother's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was a substantial change in circumstances to terminate joint physical custody | No — driving/time issue was inherent in the original decree (Child's educational address was Mother's); Father's parenting time and care ability unchanged | Yes — long travel time, communication breakdown, two unilateral school enrollments, alleged alienation show changed circumstances | Reversed — no substantial change shown as to physical‑custody-related circumstances; termination improper |
| Whether terminating joint physical custody was in Child's best interests | No — Father is an involved, reliable parent; reducing school‑year contact to alternating weekends harms frequent, continuing, meaningful contact | Yes — distance/transport burden and the decree became unworkable; limiting Father's time protects Child from excessive travel and parental conflict | Reversed — cutting school‑year time to alternating weekends is against Child's best interests given record evidence |
| Whether there was a substantial change in circumstances to modify legal custody to sole custody | No — parties have shown willingness to cooperate in the future (some evidence of ability to share decisions) | Yes — two unilateral school enrollments by Father and communication breakdown materially impaired joint decision‑making | Affirmed — substantial change in legal‑custody circumstances shown; sole legal custody to Mother supported as serving Child's best interests |
| Whether Father invited any error by alleging driving/time as the changed circumstance | Father pleaded driving/time as changed circumstance; Mother argues he cannot now complain if court relied on communication breakdown | Father: the court relied on different grounds (communication) than his pleading | Held: Bather inapplicable; Father did not invite the specific error because the trial court based its change on communication breakdown, not the pleaded travel issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Morgan v. Morgan, 497 S.W.3d 359 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016) (standard for reviewing custody modifications and joint‑custody cooperation analysis)
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (appellate standard of review for trial court findings)
- Tienter v. Tienter, 482 S.W.3d 483 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016) (type of custody modification determines required change in circumstances)
- Mehler v. Martin, 440 S.W.3d 529 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014) (breakdown in communication can warrant terminating joint legal custody)
- Reeves‑Weible v. Reeves, 995 S.W.2d 50 (Mo. App. W.D. 1999) (carrying out decree obligations is generally not a change in circumstances)
- Bewig v. Bewig, 708 S.W.2d 769 (Mo. App. E.D. 1986) (distinguishing custody issues from other changed circumstances)
- Eatherton v. Eatherton, 725 S.W.2d 125 (Mo. App. E.D. 1987) (limited instances of decree interference alone insufficient to alter custody)