Case Name: Tamara R. YAO, Respondent, v. Franck William YAO, Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2013-11-05
Citations: 412 S.W.3d 915
Docket Number: No. ED 99387
Parties: Tamara R. YAO, Respondent, v. Franck William YAO, Appellant.
Judges: Before: MARY K. HOFF, P.J., KURT S. ODENWALD, J., and ANGELA T. QUIGLESS, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 412
Pages: 915–915

Head Matter:
Tamara R. YAO, Respondent, v. Franck William YAO, Appellant.
No. ED 99387.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
Nov. 5, 2013.
Henry M. DeWoskin, Alan E. DeWos-kin, Alan E. DeWoskin, P.C., St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.
Sophya Qureshi Raza, Kara D. Helmuth, Danna McKitrick, P.C., St. Louis, MO, for Respondent.
Before: MARY K. HOFF, P.J., KURT S. ODENWALD, J., and ANGELA T. QUIGLESS, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Franck William Yao ("Father") appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving his marriage to Tamara R. Yao ("Mother") and providing for custody and support of Father and Mother's minor child ("Child"). Father asserts that the trial court erred in requiring him to exercise his visitation with Child in St. Louis or California and in prohibiting him from removing Child from the state of Missouri without Mother's permission. Father also argues that the trial court's parenting plan fails to comply with Section 452.375 in that the holiday schedule provided is inadequate.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b)(5).