Court Opinion

ID: 9777593
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:16:14.876895+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:56.986651
License: Public Domain

PARRISH, Presiding Judge,
concurring in result.
I concur in the result reached. However, I do not find it necessary to address the merits (or the lack thereof) of the custody plan for exchanging physical custody of the child every two weeks. That issue was not presented by the sole “Point Relied On” in appellant’s brief.
The sole issue presented by appellant’s “Point Relied On” was whether there was a showing of a continuing change of circumstances affecting the child or her custodian. I suggest, therefore, that the argument that the custody arrangement was “a perpetual merry-go-round” that was not in the child’s best interests is not an issue in this appeal.
Notwithstanding, I am compelled to comment on Alt v. Alt, 947 S.W.2d 433 (Mo.App.1997), in view of the principal opinion’s reference to that case. My reading of Alt does not convince me that it stands for the proposition that the Western District “approved” the concept that the custody plan that shifted a child between parents every two weeks was in the best interests of the child. The issue in Alt was whether the trial court complied with the Western District’s mandate in an earlier appeal. The issue, as suggested in the dissenting opinion in Alt, was whether the trial court misunderstood an earlier mandate.
I would recommend that trial judges who are considering custody arrangements that constantly shift children between parents read the dissent in Alt. I believe its suggestion that substantial confusion exists concerning the concept of joint custody is correct and that its criticism of custody plans such as was entered in this ease is compelling.