554 S.W.3d 512
Mo. Ct. App.2018Background
- Child born 2011; 2013 stipulated paternity judgment awarded Mother sole legal and physical custody and Father alternate weekend visitation and child support.
- Father moved to modify custody in 2015–2016 alleging Mother alienation, false abuse allegations against Father, missed supervised visits, and untreated mental-health/substance problems; Father sought custody or expanded time.
- Parties entered successive temporary orders (therapeutic/supervised visits, then expanded weekend/overnight parenting time for Father) and a GAL participated and recommended increased but more frequent contact (e.g., 2-2-3 schedule) rather than removing Mother.
- At trial, Father submitted a proposed judgment awarding him sole legal custody and limiting Mother to every-other-weekend plus limited weeknight/holiday time; the trial court signed Father’s proposed judgment with minor edits.
- Mother appealed, arguing judicial bias, failure to make statutorily required findings before restricting visitation, failure to adopt/attach a parenting plan, and erroneous reduction of her custodial time.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded: it found no disqualifying judicial bias but held the trial court erred by restricting Mother’s visitation without the statutory findings and by failing to adopt/attach a parenting plan; instructed the trial court to provide Mother "significant" time and comply with statutory factors.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Father’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judicial bias / impartiality | Judge showed predecisional bias and hostile questioning of Mother’s expert, denying fair trial | Judge’s comments were courtroom administration and permissible questioning; no extra‑judicial bias shown | No disqualifying bias; appellate court affirmed (trial judge’s conduct did not require retrial) |
| Restricting visitation without required findings | Trial court limited Mother to minimal time without making statutory findings that visitation would endanger child’s physical health or impair emotional development | Father argued changed circumstances and child welfare justified the restriction | Reversed: court must make the specific statutory findings before restricting visitation and reevaluate to provide Mother "significant" time to preserve bond |
| Modification of physical custody (sole vs. joint) | Mother: schedule amounted to continued sole custody for her; trial erred in effectively transferring custody without proper standard/application | Father: proposed parenting plan and evidence of changed circumstances justified awarding him sole physical custody | Court treated Father as having been awarded sole physical custody under the new schedule but held modification standard applies; remand to reassess visitation/time consistent with that standard |
| Parenting plan adoption/attachment | Trial court merely found Father’s proposed plan in child’s best interests but did not adopt/incorporate or attach required written parenting plan | Father: trial record and exhibits identified plan; signing the proposed judgment sufficed | Reversed on clerical/substantive grounds: trial court must adopt/attach a parenting plan that meets statutory prerequisites on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Griffin, 848 S.W.2d 464 (Mo. banc 1993) (courts warned against verbatim adoption of a party’s proposed order)
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (standard of appellate review for trial court findings)
- Morgan v. Morgan, 497 S.W.3d 359 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016) (framework for deciding whether physical custodial time is "significant" for custody classification)
- Parker v. Parker, 918 S.W.2d 299 (Mo. App. E.D. 1996) (reversal where visitation was restricted without statutory findings)
- Capehart v. Capehart, 110 S.W.3d 920 (Mo. App. S.D. 2003) (trial court must include required parenting‑plan elements and attach plan)
- Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (U.S. 1994) (opinions formed during proceedings do not alone establish disqualifying bias)