Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): the petitioner custody would be in the child’s best interests; and (3) there were sufficient facts pleaded that the welfare of the child required custody be vested in a third party pursuant to the statute. Id. at 140. Guardians allege Grandparents cannot initiate an independent action outside of a pending custody matter because the probate division already determined custody and this case arises outside of a dissolution proceeding. This Court recognizes that, since T.Q.L. was decided, appellate courts have interpreted its holding to permit a nonbiological parent or third-party to initiate an independent proceeding for third-party custody outside the parameters of a pending custody proceeding. See, e.g., D.S.K. ex rel J.J.K. v. D.L.T., 428 S.W.3d 655, 659-60 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) (<HOLDING>); McGaw v. McGaw, 468 S.W.3d 435, 445 (Mo. App. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that res judicata did not bar relitigation of paternity but only because the plaintiff had not been a party to or in privity with a party to the uncontested divorce judgment (B) holding that although the statute of limitations ran on the parents action the child could bring action after majority was reached (C) holding that female children excluded from membership in the boys club could bring claims against the organization (D) holding that husband who was excluded from paternity of children and could not intervene in a paternity action to obtain custody would be able to bring an independent action per tql (E) holding that judgment which ordered simultaneous paternity testing of both the defendant and his brother was interlocutory in that it did not determine the merits of the paternity case and thus was not governed by la cc p art 1951 such that a second judge could amend the judgment
Output (English): holding that res judicata did not bar relitigation of paternity but only because the plaintiff had not been a party to or in privity with a party to the uncontested divorce judgment