Robinson v. Robinson
338 S.W.3d 868
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Laura and Jeremy Robinson married in 2006 in Missouri and lived in Blue Springs; their daughter Sophia was born in 2008 and was 19 months old at trial.
- Post-birth, Jeremy had limited home presence and began a relationship with another woman; Laura continued to reside in Blue Springs.
- The parties separated in January 2009; Jeremy moved between Overland Park, Kansas, and his parents’ home in Independence, Missouri, with Sophia spending substantial time with each.
- The initial parenting plan provided Laura with primary custody but allowed joint legal/physical custody; Laura sought relocation to Columbia in October 2009 to be near her family.
- During separation, Laura changed Sophia’s daycare arrangement to a cheaper caregiver in May 2009, causing notice issues with Jeremy’s family.
- The trial court granted Laura’s relocation request, found it in good faith and in Sophia’s best interest, and adopted a parenting plan aligning most closely with Laura’s proposal while maintaining substantial time for Jeremy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relocation to Columbia—best interests of the child | Laura asserts the move is in Sophia’s best interests and made in good faith | Robinson contends the move lacks evidence of benefit to Sophia and harms paternal contact | Relocation affirmed; supported by best-interest considerations and flexible factors |
| Impact on non-relocating parent’s contact | Relocation plan preserves meaningful contact with Jeremy | Move will reduce convenient access to Sophia | Court properly safeguarded father’s ongoing contact under 452.377.10(1) |
| Stability of housing and parental support | Laura has stable employment in Columbia; parents’ support facilitates care | Jeremy’s unstable housing harms child stability | Court credited Laura’s stability and parental support; still weighed custodial considerations |
| Transportation burden and logistics | Plan provides shared transportation and mid-point exchanges; travel burden acknowledged but manageable |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (standard for reviewing relocation judgments under Murphy)
- Mantonya v. Mantonya, 311 S.W.3d 392 (Mo.App.2010) (relocation deference; flexibility to consider all relevant factors)
- Lowery v. Lowery, 287 S.W.3d 693 (Mo.App.2009) (frequent, continuing contact with both parents prioritized)
- Stowe v. Spence, 41 S.W.3d 468 (Mo.banc 2001) (abrogated Michel four-factor test; consider all relevant factors for relocation in best interests)
- Michel v. Michel, 834 S.W.2d 773 (Mo.App.1992) (four-factor Michel test originally used for relocation decisions)
- SEP v. Petry, 35 S.W.3d 862 (Mo.App.2001) (relocation allowed for indirect benefits to child; out-of-state example)
- Murray v. Murray, 318 S.W.3d 149 (Mo.App.2010) (upholding relocation where parenting plan supports child’s best interests)
- Foster v. Foster, 149 S.W.3d 575 (Mo.App.2004) (deference to trial court in relocation decisions)