456 S.W.3d 69
Mo. Ct. App.2015Background
- Mother gave birth to the minor child in 2012; parents had an off-and-on relationship and lived in different Missouri cities after the birth.
- Father filed to establish paternity, seek a name change, and obtain joint legal and physical custody; Mother sought sole custody and support.
- After a contested hearing, the trial court awarded joint legal and physical custody, adopted a 2-2-3 custody schedule, ordered child support, and changed the child’s surname to Father’s.
- The judgment included a parenting plan listing Father’s district for school enrollment and specified custody exchanges at a sheriff’s department until school started.
- Mother moved to amend, arguing the trial court failed to make the written findings required by Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.375.6; the trial court denied relief and entered an amended judgment without the required findings.
- Mother appealed; the appellate court found the custody issue was contested and reversed and remanded because the trial court did not make the statutorily required written findings explaining which statutory factors supported its custody decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court made the written findings required by § 452.375.6 when custody was contested | Mother: Trial court failed to include the specific written findings tied to § 452.375.2 factors, preventing meaningful appellate review | Father: (Implicit) Judgment and parenting plan are sufficient; no Rule 73.01 request was filed | Reversed and remanded: trial court must make the statutory written findings when custody is contested |
| Whether the 2-2-3 parenting plan was in the child’s best interest | Mother: Schedule is not in child’s best interest and is unworkable once child starts school | Father: 2-2-3 schedule supports frequent contact with both parents | Not reached on merits because remand required for findings; appellate court noted plan likely unworkable once school begins |
| Whether the child’s surname should be changed to Father’s | Mother: Name change not shown to be in child’s best interest | Father: Name change appropriate as part of custody/paternity determination | Not reached on merits; remanded for reconsideration after required findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Buchanan v. Buchanan, 167 S.W.3d 698 (Mo. banc 2005) (trial court must issue statutory written findings in contested custody matters)
- Speer v. Colon, 155 S.W.3d 60 (Mo. banc 2005) (same)
- Wood v. Wood, 391 S.W.3d 41 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 2012) (statutory findings requirement facilitates meaningful appellate review)
- Day ex rel. Finnern v. Day, 256 S.W.3d 600 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 2008) (§ 452.375 governs initial custody awards in paternity cases)
- Lampe v. Rust, 190 S.W.3d 631 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 2006) (same)