Case Name: Cindy S. KIPP, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Frank W. KIPP, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1978-08-28
Citations: 570 S.W.2d 830
Docket Number: No. KCD 29625
Parties: Cindy S. KIPP, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Frank W. KIPP, Respondent.
Judges: Before SOMERVILLE, P. J., and DIXON and TURNAGE, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 570
Pages: 830–831

Head Matter:
Cindy S. KIPP, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Frank W. KIPP, Respondent.
No. KCD 29625.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Kansas City District.
Aug. 28, 1978.
Don C. Pierce, Downs & Pierce, St. Joseph, for petitioner-appellant.
Kranitz & Kranitz, St. Joseph, for respondent.
Before SOMERVILLE, P. J., and DIXON and TURNAGE, JJ.

Opinion:
DIXON, Judge.
A dispute involving change of custody of a minor child. Upon a full hearing, the court changed the custody from the mother to the father. The mother raises as a single issue on her appeal that insufficient evidence was presented to show a change in circumstances that affected the welfare of the child.
Review is governed by Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo.banc 1976); In re Marriage of Fouts, 553 S.W.2d 488 (Mo.App.1977); D_ I_ M_ v. P_ D_ M_, 548 S.W.2d 237 (Mo.App.1977).
In brief array, the.evidence which supports the trial court order shows that the father has remarried, has a proper home, and can provide a stable home life. The mother's life-style has changed since the marriage. Within the year since the dissolution decree, the child was left in the care of a grandmother in excess of one hundred different nights during the year and, on a variety of occasions, the child was picked up by the mother at very late hours after she returned from the nocturnal excursions which evidenced her change of life-style.
Finding substantial evidence to support the trial court's order and deferring under the rule of Murphy v. Carron, supra, to that finding, unless this court has a firm belief that the decision was wrong, the trial court's order should be affirmed. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. Rule 84.16(b). Judgment affirmed.
All concur.