Jennifer L. Cox v. Wendell D. Cox
2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1251
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Parties married in 1994; Mother filed for dissolution in July 2014 after separating; hearing June 9, 2015; three children then ages 15 (Zachary), 5 (Hadley), and 3 (Sophia).
- After separation Mother moved about five hours away to Sikeston for work and family; temporary custody order (Aug 2014) had Sophia primarily with Mother and the two older children primarily with Father; parties did not strictly follow it but children spent more time together than ordered.
- At trial Mother proposed Zachary remain with Father and Hadley and Sophia live with her; Father proposed all three live with him to keep siblings together and raised concerns about Mother’s judgment/mental health and her relationship with an incarcerated man.
- Trial court rejected both proposed plans, found both parents fit, and adopted its own parenting plan: joint legal and physical custody with Sophia having extended time primarily with Mother and Hadley and Zachary extended with Father (essentially siblings residing in different homes).
- Court made explicit findings addressing each §452.375.2 factor, concluded the arrangement provided frequent, continuing, meaningful contact with both parents and was in the children’s best interests.
- Father appealed only arguing the court erred in separating the children ("split custody") and that the decision lacked substantial evidence and was against the weight of the evidence; appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Cox (Father) Argument | Cox (Mother) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by ordering differing residential arrangements for siblings (younger two with Mother, oldest with Father) | No substantial evidence supports splitting the children; separation is not in children’s best interests given their bonds and five‑hour parental distance; Father is a good parent | Mother argued the younger children should live together with her and that the older child’s wishes and school/community ties favored remaining with Father; both parents are fit and can provide meaningful contact | Affirmed. Court’s factual findings on §452.375.2 factors were supported by substantial evidence; joint legal/physical custody with differing residential schedules was appropriate and in children’s best interests |
Key Cases Cited
- Loumiet v. Loumiet, 103 S.W.3d 332 (Mo. App. 2003) (custody terminology limited to statutory categories; caution against "primary" custody labels)
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. 1976) (standard of appellate review for bench trials)
- Durbin v. Durbin, 226 S.W.3d 876 (Mo. App. 2007) (view evidence in light most favorable to judgment; do not reweigh)
- Noland‑Vance v. Vance, 321 S.W.3d 398 (Mo. App. 2010) (sibling relationships are relevant but subordinate to child’s best interests)
- Jobe v. Jobe, 708 S.W.2d 322 (Mo. App. 1986) (separating very young siblings may be erroneous absent special circumstances)