Court Opinion

ID: 9678441
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:20:05.451057+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:04.707228
License: Public Domain

CHARLES V. BARKER,
Special Judge.
I respectfully dissent. I have no disagreement with the law as declared in the majority opinion, nor do I disagree with the facts recited therein. However, I feel that several additional facts should be considered as will be noted herein. My disagreement is principally with the conclusions *183reached. Conclusions that I feel are not supported by the evidence or the law.
As noted in the majority opinion these parties have been married and divorced on two occasions, and on both occasions custody of the child was awarded to appellant, apparently with the consent of respondent. That being so, if respondent wanted to obtain a modification of the decree whereby custody of the child was to be transferred to him, it was necessary for him to plead and prove a change of circumstances that would require or justify removing the child from the custody of appellant and placing the custody with him. I feel that respondent has totally failed to either plead or prove such change of circumstances.
The motion to modify alleges the following change of circumstances upon which respondent relies in seeking a modification:
5. That since the entry of the original decree of dissolution in August of 1975, the circumstances of the parties have changed as follows:
a. Petitioner has re-married and can provide the child with a two parent home.
b. Petitioner’s present wife, Lynn L. Korn, desires to and is willing to care for the aforementioned child.
c. Petitioner owns a mobile home suitable for the need, comfort and joy of the said minor child.
d. [Appellant], Sherry K. Korn, has joined the Armed Services of the United States and her current whereabouts are unknown.
e. The said minor child is now living in the care and custody of petitioner Michael B. Korn and desires to reside with him.
There is no allegation that the best interest of the child would be served by granting a modification.
As noted in the majority opinion, that while the fact that respondent had re-married and can provide the child with a two parent home may be considered, it is not sufficient to justify modification. It is to be noted in passing that appellant has also re-married and is able to provide a two parent home.
I know of no authority holding that the claimed change of circumstances set out in sub-paragraphs b and c, if true, is sufficient to modify a decree.
The claimed change alleged in sub-paragraph e, while a matter to be considered, can hardly amount to a change of circumstances justifying a modification, particularly in view of the fact that the child was only six years of age at the time of the trial.
The only claimed change of circumstances that could possibly be interpreted as alleging facts that would justify a modification is sub-paragraph d. The allegation that appellant has joined the armed services alone is hardly sufficient to justify a modification in the absence of further allegations as to how the child could be adversely affected. It is common knowledge that literally thousands of parents are in the armed services and so far as I am aware no court has ever held that this in any manner renders them unfit parents, or that it is detrimental to the best interest of the child.
The allegation that appellant’s current whereabouts is unknown, without further allegations as to how the child is adversely affected or some showing that appellant was deliberately concealing herself or failing to provide care for the child, would likewise, in my opinion, fail to allege any change of circumstances justifying a change of custody.
It is to be noted that the motion to modify fails to allege a single instance where the child has been mistreated, abused, neglected, abandoned or in any manner mistreated or that appellant’s circumstances have in any manner changed so that the best interest of the child require the modification sought.
However, if we assume that the motion was sufficient, it is my opinion that the evidence was wholly insufficient to justify the modification.
As stated in the majority opinion, with which I agree, the law is that the party originally awarded custody is prima facie *184capable of having custody. This should have even more cogent force in this case where custody was placed in the appellant on two separate occasions, the last time as a result of a joint petition filed by appellant and respondent. The majority opinion also notes that § 452.410 RSMo 1969' requires that the person seeking the modification has the burden of showing facts arising since the prior decree has given rise to a change of circumstances of the child or his custodian and that a modification was necessary to serve the best interest of the child. The courts have also squarely held that in order to modify a custody decree, the court must find.: (1) facts arising since the prior decree have given rise to a change in circumstances of the child, or his custodian and (2) modification is necessary to serve the best interest of the child. Cook v. Lodes, 560 S.W.2d 64 (Mo.App.1977).
In this case the court requested the Missouri Division of Family Services to make a home study of both appellant and respondent. At the beginning of the hearing the parties, through their attorneys, stipulated that each home study reflected a good home and the court, in its findings, concluded that the parties conceded that the homes of both parties are suitable homes.
There is no credible evidence throughout the transcript that appellant did not have a good home for the child, or that she had ever abused, mistreated, or neglected him. Indeed, in response to a direct question, “Do you have any reason to believe Sherry would not be a proper person to have custody of this child?” respondent answered, “To my knowledge, the only reason is reactions that he had had when we have had him and she comes to get him and takes him back.” These reactions were that he appeared mixed up after a visit with his mother and that he resumed messing his pants. Yet, respondent admits that Travis had had this problem for a long time, in fact, since he was old enough to start potty training some time before the divorce and that their doctor had informed them that some children had this problem but would outgrow it.
The transcript is totally barren of any evidence that appellant was any more the cause of this condition than respondent, or that the visits with appellant were more upsetting than having to return to respondent. The majority opinion in fact notes that the evidence is not persuasive that appellant’s conduct caused whatever nervous condition Travis may have had.
The record also reflects that appellant had never denied respondent his visitation rights except during the time he was admittedly living out of wedlock with the person who is now his wife, and, in fact, appellant saw to it that the child not only could visit his father, but also his paternal grandparents.
On the other hand it seems to me that the conduct of respondent had left much to be desired.
He admittedly lived with his present wife, out of wedlock, from the month following the divorce until his marriage some months later. This conduct was in the presence of the small child of respondent’s present wife and, while she may now be providing the proper care for the child, it is understandable how appellant is upset about having the care of her son entrusted to a woman who has participated in such an arrangement. It is further undisputed that respondent and his wife do not attend church and are not providing any religious training for the child.
The evidence further shows that respondent complained about appellant having many debts and that she joined the armed services to escape the debts. This complaint has an exceptionally hollow ring when the facts disclose that respondent did not keep his rather small child support payments current and that appellant, in fact, was compelled to have his wages garnished in order to collect the child support.
But perhaps the most serious misconduct of respondent is that he permitted or participated in conduct detrimental to the rights of the mother. On occasion the mother was denied the right to talk to Travis on the telephone; on at least two occasions the paternal grandmother (who has sued appel*185lant and in turn been sued by appellant) inquired of the child as to with whom he wanted to live. Respondent has denied her visitation with the child. A particularly revealing example is shown by the following testimony of appellant, which was not refuted and stands undisputed.
“Q. Have they ever prevented you from talking to Travis on the phone?
A. On many occasions.
Q. Sherry, there has been some mention and testimony made about Travis not being allowed to kiss you except through a screen door, do you recall that incident?
A. Yes, sir, I do very well.
Q. Would you tell the court about this?
A. I was — on a Wednesday I flew home and I was told, I called Tom’s office because he was making the arrangements for me and they said I could pick up Travis that evening. Okay, I arrived in Carthage at about 5:00 or 6:00, and it was winter and I went over to Mick’s house and I knocked on the door and it took about ten minutes for them to open it and I heard them say, ‘Boys, go in the other room.’ Okay, so Mick came to the door and he opened it. I said, ‘I’m here to pick up Travis.’ He said, ‘You don’t love him. You don’t care for him. Why don’t you just leave?’ I said, T demand to see my son.’ He said, ‘You don’t love him. Just leave.’ I said, T want to see my son.’ And he wouldn’t let me, so I left. I went home. I went to Jeanette’s house. I called my husband and told him what happened. He said go back there and take a witness so he can’t say you weren’t there. So I did exactly that. Jeanette went with me, Jeanette Hodson. I stood to the side of the door. I didn’t feel he would open the door if he saw me there. He opened the door and I stepped in front. He said, ‘What are you here for?’ I said, ‘I’m here for the same reason I was awhile ago, to pick up my son. I was told I could pick him up when I got here and J want him now,’ and he wouldn’t even let me see him. He said, ‘You don’t have any business here. You don’t love him. Why don’t you leave?’ I said, ‘I want to see my son and I am not leaving until I see him,’ and finally Jeanette spoke up and she said, T am a witness to the fact that you are not letting her see him,’ and at that point he said, ‘Well, she can see him’ and he let Travis come to the screen door and I said, ‘Come here,’ and the screen door was locked and he couldn’t even come and kiss me, so then I asked him, I said, ‘Do you want to kiss Momma?’ and he said, ‘Yes.’ I said, ‘Would you unlock the screen so he can kiss me?’ and he said, ‘No, he’s not coming out.’ And so I kissed him through the screen door and I said I loved him and I would come back tomorrow.”
This conduct on the part of the respondent, in my opinion, is sufficient to show that the best interest of the child would not be served by granting the modification and in fact is a compelling reason why custody should be left with appellant.
The trial court found that “respondent’s grounds for modification can be summed up in two general changes, one, that respondent has now re-married and is able to provide the child with a stable home life whereas, two, [appellant] has failed to provide a stable home life for the child.”
The court specifically found that for “some six or eight months after the dissolution the [appellant] led a very unstable life. However, the court regards her enlistment in the Army as a very positive step and, provided her present marriage is successful, it could lead to a great deal more stability in her life.” This is hardly persuasive that appellant’s home, some year and a half later, is now unstable.
There is not one word of testimony that appellant does not now have a stable home where the child could live with his mother and step-father and half-sister.
*186The trial court, from observation of the parties, arrived at the conclusion that appellant has a restless, aggressive personality whereas respondent appears to be calm and phlegmatic. There is no testimony or evidence in the case upon which this conclusion could be based, and the matter is far too serious for a decision to be based in part on conclusions drawn by observing two people for a short time when both were obviously under stress. Outward appearances are often deceiving and the prevailing party should have something more substantial than who is the better actor or actress, or who can better withstand the stress with an outward appearance of equanimity.
However, if it be assumed that the conclusion is correct, there is no showing that the temperament of the parties have not always been the same and certainly no showing of any change in temperament of appellant.
Whatever the accuracy of the assessment of the situation made by the able and conscientious trial judge, the fact remains that the clear dictates of § 452.410 RSMo and the prior case law have not been met.
It is my opinion that the respondent failed to allege or prove any change of circumstance of the child or of his custodian or that any modification is necessary to serve the best interest of the child. Granting the modification without this showing is not permissible and would, in effect, be allowing the court hearing the motion to modify to substitute its judgment for the judgment of the court granting the original decree.
Upon the record now before us, I would reverse the decision of the trial court, leave custody with the appellant, and order the petition dismissed.