Jamie Morgan v. Justin Morgan
497 S.W.3d 359
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Parents divorced in 2011 by consent judgment awarding joint legal custody and what the dissolution called "primary physical custody" to Mother; Father had a Siegenthaler-style schedule (every other weekend, one weekly evening, six weeks in summer, alternating holidays). Child support: Father to pay $935/month (including daycare).
- In April 2013 Father moved to modify custody seeking sole legal and physical custody; Mother cross-moved and sought contempt for arrearages. A GAL was appointed and the matter proceeded to trial.
- Trial court awarded Father sole legal and sole physical custody (essentially reversing the custody allocation), ordered Mother to pay Father $236/month child support going forward, gave Father a retroactive credit that left Father owing Mother ~$693, and awarded Father ~$4,566 of attorney fees. Mother appealed.
- On appeal Mother argued (1) the physical-custody change was against the weight of the evidence and improperly relied on GAL recommendations, school records, relocations, discovery defaults, and unanswered requests for admissions; (2) legal-custody change was unsupported; (3) trial court wrongly gave Father a retroactive child-support credit by excluding Mother’s childcare expenses; and (4) attorney-fee award was improper or excessive.
- The trial court found substantial changes in circumstances (parental communication breakdown, school attendance issues, relocations, withholding school/medical information, vaccination dispute) and determined modification was in the children’s best interests; it applied the more stringent standard for changing sole custody to another parent and relied on statutory factors when awarding fees and support relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Physical custody modification | Trial court wrongly changed physical custody; relied on stale or improper evidence and over-weighted GAL and unanswered discovery | Father showed substantial change and best-interest reasons (communication breakdown, school attendance, relocations, withholding info) | Affirmed: prior decree amounted to "sole" physical custody (Siegenthaler schedule); Section 452.410 case-law standard applied; substantial change and best interests supported transfer to Father |
| Legal custody modification | No substantial change; parents could cooperate; GAL recommended joint legal custody | Ongoing breakdown in communication and inability to cooperate justified sole legal custody | Affirmed: substantial change (communication/decision-making breakdown) and best-interest analysis supported sole legal custody to Father |
| Retroactive child-support credit | Court misapplied law and misweighed evidence about Mother’s daycare expenses | Mother conceded lack of daycare in discovery and at interim order; trial court equitably applied retroactive adjustment to reflect actual child-care costs | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion in retroactive credit under Section 452.340; substantial evidence Moms lacked childcare during pendency |
| Attorney's fees award | Unclear legal basis and award punitive given Mother’s lesser income | Award authorized under §452.355 after considering resources, merits, and parties’ conduct; Mother caused delays and discovery abuses | Affirmed: trial court cited §452.355, considered required factors, and did not abuse discretion in awarding a portion of Father's fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (standard of appellate review in civil cases)
- Russell v. Russell, 210 S.W.3d 191 (Mo. banc 2007) (framework for determining which modification statute applies and when change/substantial-change standards govern)
- Frantz v. Frantz, 488 S.W.3d 167 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016) (application of §452.410 to custody modification matters)
- Timmerman v. Timmerman, 139 S.W.3d 230 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004) (discussion of whether to use prior decree label or parenting-time substance when choosing standard)
- Baker v. Welborn, 77 S.W.3d 711 (Mo. App. S.D. 2002) (advocated examining the substance/parenting-time allocation when classifying prior custody)
- Laubinger v. Laubinger, 5 S.W.3d 166 (Mo. App. W.D. 1999) (trial court discretion to order retroactive support)
- Stufflebean v. Stufflebean, 941 S.W.2d 844 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997) (childcare expenses may be included in Form 14 when supported by evidence)
- Thorp v. Thorp, 390 S.W.3d 871 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013) (attorney-fee awards under §452.355 reviewed for abuse of discretion)