Mother and Father were divorced in November of 1986. The dissolution decree incorporated the couple’s separation agreement. Mother was awarded primary care and custody of the two minor children. Father was awarded rights of temporary custody and visitation. As part of the separation agreement, Father paid $450 per month for child support. In addition, Father voluntarily included an extra $150 a month in his child support payments until he lost his job in January of 1988.
After losing his job, Father notified Mother that he may have trouble paying child support, and that he had also lost the health insurance benefits which he had for the children through his employer. Shortly thereafter, mother began to look for a new job, one which would pay more money and provide health benefits for the children. Mother applied for several jobs in the St. Louis area and in the Kansas City area. Mother testified the job options in the St. Louis area were either for less or the same salary as her current employment, or were not yet available. Mother saw information on an opening at Parsons State Hospital in Parsons, Kansas. Mother interviewed for the job and was hired as a speech pathologist. The job paid $5,000 more per year than her former position and provided health and medical benefits for her and her children. The position also gave mother an opportunity to attend Kansas University, at no cost, allowing her to pursue a doctorate in speech pathology.
On May 11, 1988, mother filed a Motion for Leave to Remove Children From State after attempts to reach an agreement on *950 the move had failed. On August 11, 1988, the court entered its order granting mother permission to remove the children from the state. The order also reduced Father’s visitation rights from every weekend and every Wednesday to two weekends a month, with the court requiring him to exercise half of his visits in Parsons, Kansas. Father appeals.
In his first point on appeal,, father contends that the trial court erred when it allowed mother to remove the children from the state. Father claims that since the trial court did not make any finding that there had been a change in circumstances necessitating the move, that it was error for the court to grant mother’s request to move the children out of the state.
The record fails to support father’s contention. The trial court expressly found “that economic conditions have arisen which compel [mother] to remove her employment to Parsons, Kansas.” Although the court did not denominate this finding as a “change in circumstances,” § 452.377 RSMo.1986, which addresses the matter of removing a minor child from the state, imposes no technical requirements of particularized language in the order allowing such removal. In fact, father’s loss of employment and health benefits which prompted mother’s application for and acceptance of employment in Kansas obviously constitute a change in circumstances.
We agree with father that the best interests of the children are best served by continued interrelationships with both parents.
Perr v. Perr,
In a case with facts very similar to the present case, this court found that a move to Wisconsin would be in the best interest of the children.
In re Marriage of Cornish,
In this case, there was evidence that mother had reason to believe that financial support and medical care for the children might be in jeopardy as a result of father losing his job. In an attempt to provide security for the children, mother began to seek better employment. As a result of that search mother found a job that paid $5,000 more per year and provided the medical benefits which had been lost. While moving the children to a neighboring state may make it more difficult for father to exercise his visitation rights, this inconvenience does not override the best interests of the children. In the absence of any allegation that mother has exercised her right of custody in a less than exemplary *951 manner, the evidence that the move would permit mother to take a position which would pay her more money and give her better benefits, all to the benefit of the children, provides ample support for the trial court’s order.
Father's second point on appeal is that the trial court erred in reducing his temporary custody and visitation privileges from every weekend and every Wednesday to two weekends a month. Father claims that the order should be withdrawn as the court did not make the required finding of physical or emotional detriment to the children necessitating a restriction of existing visitation rights pursuant to § 452.400.2.
While the order of the court does not directly address the issue of physical or emotional detriment to the children, such a finding is implicit in the issuance of the order in conjunction with the order granting permission to remove the children from the state. We may assume that all factual issues were found in accordance with the result reached.
Jensen v. Borton,
The final issue raised is mother’s claim for attorney’s fees. In the original order of August 11,1988, the court granted mother $1850 for attorney’s fees. On September 19, 1988, the court heard father’s Motion to Amend Judgment. Subsequently, the court amended its original order taxing each party with their own costs.
Requests for attorney’s fees are governed by § 452.355. That section provides that the court shall consider all relevant factors, including the financial resources of both parties, in making its determination of whether attorney’s fees should be granted. The awarding of attorney's fees is within the discretion of the trial court.
Newman v. Newman,
Mother’s reliance on
In Re Marriage of Greene,
The record in this case reflects neither procedural overkill nor improper motivation on father’s part. Although the trial court expressly rejected father's contention that mother’s move to Kansas was an artifice to keep him from the children, the court did not question father’s sincerity regarding such contention. In contrast to the facts in Greene, we find nothing in the record of this case tending to indicate improper motives or tactics on father’s part. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion in the denial of mother’s request for attorney’s fees.
*952 The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in all respects.