Court Opinion

ID: 9778204
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:55:27.350793+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:04.718681
License: Public Domain

CRAHAN, Judge,
concurring.
I concur fully in Judge Dowd’s opinion. I write separately to emphasize what I view as the most compelling reasons for rejecting mother’s contentions concerning the admission of allegedly hearsay statements of the child and father’s claim that he is entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to § 452.400.4.
It is by now well beyond dispute that the paramount consideration in a proceeding to modify child custody is the best interest of the child. § 452.410; Otey v. Otey, 723 S.W.2d 600 (Mo.App.1987). In most, if not all cases, a competent assessment of the child’s best interests will necessarily entail some assessment of the child’s state of mind. In this case, it is clear that both mother and father had engaged in petty and reprehensible behavior and it was essential that the court gain as much insight as possible into the effect the parties’ actions were having on the child. Early in the case, the trial court advised both parties that statements of the child to third parties would be admitted, regardless of which party elicited the testimony.1 So long as the out-of-court statements of the child are considered solely for the purpose of assessing the child’s state of mind and not for the truth of any factual matters contained in the statements, admis*840sion of the statements does not violate the hearsay rule. I find no indication that the statements were considered for any purpose other than evaluating the child’s state of mind. Thus, mother has failed to establish that admission of the statements violated the hearsay rule.
Although I agree that father did not properly invoke § 452.400.4 at trial, I would further hold that he is not entitled to attorney’s fees on the basis of that provision even if he had. Section 452.400.4 only mandates an award of fees and costs in a “proceeding to enforce visitation rights.” The relief father sought and received in this case was. not enforcement of his visitation rights under the prior decree, it was a change of custody from mother to father—i.e., relief which completely supersedes father’s visitation rights under the prior decree. Thus, § 452.400.4 is simply inapplicable.

. The child also testified at the hearing.