Kelly S. Keel v. Edward W. Keel, Respondent/Respondent.
2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 961
Mo. Ct. App.2014Background
- Missouri Court of Appeals (Eastern District, Div. Two) affirms a trial court modification of an Oklahoma custody decree
- Oklahoma Joint Child Custody Plan awarded joint legal/physical custody with Mother as primary physical custodian and Father paying most visitation transport costs
- Mother relocated with children to Missouri; Father later moved for modification seeking sole custody and other relief
- GAL appointed; trial spanned six days in 2013; GAL recommended sole custody to Father
- Trial court found Mother deceptive and failing to facilitate frequent, meaningful contact; awarded Father sole legal and physical custody; ordered Mother to pay GAL fees and found Mother in contempt
- Mother appealed challenging Rule 73.01 findings, the custody transfer, and GAL fees
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court violated Rule 73.01 by failing to make specific findings | Keel argues lack of statutorily required findings | Court had discretion; untimely request not preserved | Not preserved; findings sustained by substantial evidence for best interests |
| Whether transfer of custody to Father was proper under §452.375.2 and §452.410 | Keel claims court considered only one factor and aimed to punish | Court considered all factors and relied on breakdown in cooperation | Proper modification; eight factors considered; not a punitive transfer |
| Whether GAL fees were appropriately awarded against Mother | Mother contends GAL was sought by Father and she has no income | GAL appointment was warranted by Mother's conduct; Father prevailing party | Not an abuse of discretion; balance of GAL fees against Mother affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Lalumondiere v. Lalumondiere, 293 S.W.3d 110 (Mo.App. E.D. 2009) (deference to trial court on custody credibility and best interests)
- Speer v. Colon, 155 S.W.3d 60 (Mo.banc 2005) (sufficiency of findings under §452.375.6; not all factors must be written)
- McCauley v. Schenkel, 977 S.W.2d 45 (Mo.App. E.D. 1998) (breakdown of communication supports change in circumstances)
- Timmerman v. Timmerman, 139 S.W.3d 230 (Mo.App. W.D. 2004) (breakdown of cooperation justifies change of custody)
- Hamer v. Nicholas, 186 S.W.3d 884 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006) (court must consider §452.375.2 factors for best interests)
- In re C.N.H., 998 S.W.2d 553 (Mo.App. S.D. 1999) (interference with decretal rights can justify modification)
- Crow v. Crow, 300 S.W.3d 561 (Mo.App. E.D. 2009) (preservation of error requirements when challenging judgment form)
- In re McIntire, 33 S.W.3d 565 (Mo.App. W.D. 2000) (factors need not be detailed in writing; relevant factors suffice)