Court Opinion

ID: 9773780
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:58:21.724202+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:57.314215
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING OR ALTERNATIVE APPLICATION TO TRANSFER

PER CURIAM.
Father filed a motion for rehearing. The motion correctly points out that for Dr. McGehee’s testimony concerning her treatment of father to have been admissible, there must have been an allegation or evidence of suspected child abuse or neglect. See Roth v. Roth, 793 S.W.2d 590, 592 (Mo.App.1990). The motion then suggests that the record on appeal does not reveal an allegation or evidence of child abuse or neglect.
As pointed out in State ex rel. Scott v. Goeke, 864 S.W.2d 411, 413 (Mo.App.1993), the dissolution of marriage chapter of the statutes, chapter 452, does not define child abuse. However, Missouri courts have utilized the definition in § 210.110(1), RSMo 1994, in dissolution of marriage cases. See Dent v. Dent, 965 S.W.2d 230, 235 (Mo.App.1998); H.J.I. by J.M.I. v. M.E.C., 961 S.W.2d 108, 114 (Mo.App.1998); Holmes v. Holmes, 878 S.W.2d 906, 911 (Mo.App.1994). It defines “[a]buse” as “any physical injury, sexual abuse, or emotional abuse inflicted on a child other than by accidental means by those responsible for the child’s care, custody, and control, except that discipline including spanking, administered in a reasonable manner, shall not be construed to be abuse.”
The opinion to which father’s motion for rehearing is directed summarizes various evidence concerning father’s actions with the children in n. 3. It includes testimony concerning demeaning and unsubstantiated remarks father made to children concerning them mother, as well as evidence concerning father taking the children to another state during a period of visitation and failing to return them as agreed. These actions and the effect they had on the children were not the result of “accidental means.” A parent who demeans the other parent by inappropriate remarks to children, or who fails to return children to their primary custodian at the appointed time under the circumstances in evidence in this case, adversely affects the children’s welfare. Such conduct can constitute emotional abuse and is consistent with a decision to appoint a guardian ad litem as was done in this case. See § 452.423, RSMo 1994.
The evidence summarized in n. 3 was sufficient evidence of abuse, or suspected abuse, to permit the testimony of Dr. McGehee to be admitted in evidence for. purposes of ascertaining the best interests of the children in awarding custody. Other issues raised in father’s motion for rehearing do not warrant further discussion. The motion for rehearing or alternative application to transfer is denied.