The Missouri legislature has officially closed a long-standing legal loophole that previously prevented pregnant women from finalizing a divorce. For decades, an interpretation of a 1973 Missouri law allowed judges to delay or deny the finalization of a divorce if one of the spouses was pregnant. This was often done to ensure that child support and custody could be settled in a single legal proceeding once the child was born. However, this often left women—including those in abusive situations—legally tied to their spouses against their will. Key Changes in the New Law Governor Mike Kehoe signed House Bill 1908 into law in April 2026, a significant victory for advocacy groups. This law explicitly bans state judges from delaying or denying a divorce decree solely because a spouse is pregnant. The primary reasoning behind the bill was the protection of domestic violence victims. By allowing divorces to proceed, the law will help survivors sever legal ties with abusers more quickly. The legislation passed unanimously in both the Missouri House and Senate. Why It Matters Before this change, Missouri was one of only a handful of states where pregnancy could effectively "pause" a divorce. Pregnancy status can no longer keep a woman legally anchored to a marriage she wishes to leave. This law will take effect on August 28, 2026.

Steps in a Divorce in Jackson County, Missouri Divorce can be a complex and emotional process that significantly impacts the lives of everyone involved. If you are considering a divorce in Jackson County, Missouri, it’s essential to understand the various steps involved in this legal journey. Each step requires careful consideration and, often, the guidance of legal professionals to ensure that your rights and interests are protected. Below is a comprehensive outline of the divorce process in Jackson County. 1. Determine Eligibility for Divorce Before you can file for divorce, it is crucial to ensure that you meet the residency requirements set forth by Missouri law: At least one spouse must have lived in Missouri for a minimum of 90 days prior to filing for divorce. This residency requirement is essential as it establishes the court’s jurisdiction over the case. You should file your divorce petition in Jackson County if you are a resident of that county or if your spouse resides there. This ensures that the case is handled in the appropriate jurisdiction, which can affect the proceedings. If children are involved, they must have lived in Missouri for a minimum of 6 months to establish jurisdiction over custody. Even if both parties agree immediately, you cannot be legally divorced in fewer than 30 days. 2. Grounds for Divorce Missouri is a no-fault state for divorce: No-fault: The most commonly cited ground for divorce is irreconcilable differences, which means that the marriage has broken down beyond repair, and there is no reasonable hope for reconciliation. 3. Filing the Petition To initiate the divorce process, you will need to file a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage with the court: If you have chosen to hire an attorney to represent you, your attorney will take care of all the paperwork. Your attorney will provide you with a list of the information required. Once that is provided, your attorney will prepare and file all necessary pleadings. If filing pro se (without representation) you will need to obtain the necessary forms from the Jackson County Circuit Court website. It is essential to ensure that you have the correct and most up-to-date forms to avoid any delays. Carefully complete the forms, providing detailed information about the marriage, including any children, shared assets, and debts. Accuracy is vital, as errors can lead to complications in the proceedings. Once the forms are completed, file the petition with the court and pay the required filing fee. 4. Serving the Spouse After filing the petition, you must serve your spouse with the divorce papers, which is a critical step in the process: You can use a professional process server or the local sheriff’s department to deliver the documents. Proper service is crucial as it ensures that your spouse is officially notified of the divorce proceedings. Your spouse is given 30 days to respond to the petition if they are served within Missouri. This response period is important, as it sets the timeline for the subsequent steps in the divorce process. 5. Response from Spouse Once served, your spouse has several options regarding how they can respond to the divorce petition: If they agree with the divorce and the terms that will later be outlined in the separation agreement, they can file an answer acknowledging this agreement. If they disagree, they may contest the divorce, which could lead to a court hearing where both parties present their arguments. This contested process can prolong the divorce and may require additional legal representation. 6. Case Management Conference In Jackson County, contested cases involve a Case Management Conference. The Judge or Commissioner will set the timeline until trial Mediation will be discussed, and ordered. Any outstanding issues will be brought to the attention of the court. If children are involved the Judge will ensure both parents have taken the mandatory co-parenting class FOCIS. 7. Temporary Orders If necessary, you can request temporary orders during the divorce proceedings to address urgent matters such as: Child custody and support, ensuring that the needs of any minor children are met during the divorce process. Spousal support, which may be necessary if one spouse requires financial assistance while the divorce is pending. Division of property, to protect assets and ensure that neither party disposes of shared property before the final settlement. 8. Discovery Process The discovery process is a vital stage in which both parties will exchange pertinent information and documents related to their finances, assets, and debts: Utilize tools such as interrogatories (written questions), requests for production of documents, and depositions (sworn statements) to gather comprehensive information from the other party. This process is designed to promote transparency and fairness, allowing both sides to understand the full scope of the marital estate and facilitating informed negotiations. 8. Negotiation and Settlement It is important to note that most divorces settle out of court, and engaging in negotiations can help resolve key issues: Both parties should actively engage in discussions to resolve contested issues such as property division, child custody arrangements, and support obligations. Consider using mediation, where a neutral third party can facilitate discussions, helping both spouses reach a mutually acceptable agreement without the need for a trial. In Jackson County, mediation is ordered by the Court. 9. Finalizing the Divorce If an agreement is reached through negotiation or mediation, the next step is to finalize the divorce: Draft a Marital Settlement Agreement that clearly outlines all agreed-upon terms, including custody arrangements, financial obligations, and property division. Draft a Joint Parenting Plan if children are involved, ensuring all provisions outlined in R.S.Mo. 452.310 are included. This agreement must be submitted to the court for approval, ensuring that it meets legal standards and adequately addresses the needs of both parties. If no agreement is reached, a court trial may be necessary, where a judge will hear evidence from both sides and make the final decisions on contested issues. 10. Obtain the Final Judgment Once the court approves the settlement or concludes a trial, a Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage will be issued: This critical document finalizes the divorce and includes all terms regarding child custody, support obligations, and the division of property and debts. It is vital to obtain certified copies of the Final Judgment for your personal records, as these documents may be needed for future legal or financial matters. 11. Post-Divorce Considerations After the divorce is finalized, there are several important considerations to keep in mind: Update all legal documents, such as wills, trusts, and insurance policies, to reflect your new marital status and any changes in beneficiaries. Ensure compliance with the terms outlined in the divorce decree, including any obligations related to child support, spousal support, or property division. It may be beneficial to consult with a financial advisor for post-divorce financial planning to help you adjust to your new financial situation and set future goals. Conclusion Divorce in Jackson County, Missouri, involves several steps that require careful attention, legal knowledge, and often, emotional resilience. Whether you choose to navigate the process independently or seek legal assistance, understanding these steps can significantly aid you in managing your divorce more effectively. Being well-informed can help you make better decisions, reduce stress, and ultimately lead to a smoother transition into the next chapter of your life. Reach out to Weavers Law to schedule a consultation.

Legal hurdles involving your family are never "just business." They are deeply personal, often exhausting, and can feel like a crossroads for your entire future. At Weavers Law LLC, we believe you deserve more than just a document filer; you deserve a dedicated advocate who sees the human being behind the case number. Our approach to family law is built on a simple premise: Your peace of mind is our priority. We don’t just process cases—we protect people. Beyond Paperwork: A Personal Approach to Legal Support Navigating the legal system shouldn't feel like walking through a maze alone. We provide a shield and a compass, ensuring that your rights are fiercely protected while offering the compassionate guidance you need to stay grounded. Whether you are redefining your family structure or protecting your children’s best interests, we offer personalized advocacy in: Empowered Transitions: Navigating divorce and separation with a focus on your long-term stability. Protecting the Next Generation: Crafting child custody and visitation plans that prioritize your child’s well-being. Securing Your Foundation: Ensuring fair child and spousal support and the equitable division of assets. The Weavers Law Difference: Why Advocacy Matters In family law, "winning" isn't always about a court order—it’s about reaching a resolution that allows you to breathe again. Here is how our personal approach changes the experience: We Listen First: We take the time to understand your unique family dynamics and your specific goals. You are the expert on your life; we are the experts on the law. Strategic Negotiation: We advocate for collaborative solutions whenever possible to save you from the stress of a trial, but we never compromise on what matters most to you. A Formidable Presence in Court: When a fair agreement can’t be reached at the table, we stand as your bold representative in front of a judge, ensuring your story is heard. Transparent Partnerships: No legal jargon or hidden fees. We believe in clear communication and honest pricing because trust is the foundation of any good advocacy. Taking the First Step Toward Resolution You don’t have to carry this burden by yourself. Taking action early is the best way to regain control over your situation. If you’re ready to move forward, we suggest a few simple steps: Define Your "Why": Think about the most important outcome for you and your children. Gather Your History: Collect any relevant documents, but don't worry if you're missing pieces—we'll help you fill the gaps. Connect With Us: Schedule a consultation to experience a supportive environment where your concerns are met with professional expertise. Moving Forward with a Partner in Your Corner Navigating family law issues can be challenging, but you do not have to face them alone. With the right support, you can protect your rights and work toward a positive resolution. Weavers Law LLC will provide the expertise and guidance you need to move forward with confidence. Whether you are dealing with divorce, custody, or other family matters, we are ready to help you every step of the way.

Divorce consultations can feel overwhelming, especially when you’re unsure what to bring or prepare. Having the right documents and information ready can make your meeting more productive and help your lawyer understand your situation clearly. This guide walks you through the essential paperwork and details you should gather before your divorce consultation to ensure you’re fully prepared. Personal Identification and Marriage Records Start by collecting your personal identification and marriage-related documents. These form the foundation of your case and verify your identity and marital status. Government-issued ID: Driver’s license, passport, or state ID to confirm your identity. Marriage certificate: This proves your legal marriage and is essential for filing divorce papers. Previous divorce decrees or annulments: If either spouse was previously married, bring these documents to clarify legal history. Having these documents ready helps your attorney confirm your legal standing and speeds up the initial paperwork process. If you do not have access to these documents, you need to know the information. Financial Documents and Records Divorce often involves dividing assets and debts, so your financial information is critical. Bring detailed records to give a clear picture of your financial situation. Bank statements: Checking, savings, and investment accounts for the past 6 to 12 months. Tax returns: Federal and state returns for the last two to three years. Pay stubs and income records: Recent pay stubs, bonus statements, or other income proof. Retirement and pension statements: Documents showing balances and terms of any retirement accounts. Credit card and loan statements: Details of debts, including mortgages, car loans, and credit cards. Property deeds and mortgage papers: Proof of ownership and outstanding mortgage balances. Business financials: If you or your spouse own a business, bring profit and loss statements, tax returns, and valuation reports. We know that tracking down years of tax returns and bank statements can be overwhelming, especially if your spouse handled the finances. Don’t worry about perfection—bring what you can. These documents aren't just paperwork; they are the tools we use to advocate for your financial independence and ensure you receive your fair share. These documents help your lawyer assess your assets and liabilities, which is crucial for fair division and support arrangements. During the divorce process, these documents will be required. Information About Children If you have children, your consultation will likely cover custody, visitation, and support issues. Prepare documents that clarify your children’s needs and your current arrangements. Birth certificates: Proof of parentage for all children involved. Custody agreements or court orders: Any existing legal documents related to custody or visitation. Childcare and education expenses: Receipts or statements for daycare, school fees, extracurricular activities, and medical costs. Health insurance information: Details about coverage for your children. Special needs documentation: If your child has unique educational or medical needs, bring those records. Our goal is to advocate for a parenting plan that doesn't just meet legal standards, but actually supports your child's specific routine and well-being. This information helps your attorney understand your family dynamics and plan for child-related issues in the divorce. Legal Documents and Agreements Gather any legal paperwork that might affect your divorce proceedings or settlement. Prenuptial or postnuptial agreements: Contracts that outline asset division or support terms. Wills and trusts: Documents that may be impacted by the divorce. Court orders: Any restraining orders, protection orders, or previous family court rulings. Correspondence with your spouse: Emails or letters relevant to your separation or negotiations. In today’s world, much of your story lives in texts and social media. If there are messages that illustrate your concerns or agreements, screen-capture them. Having these organized helps us build a narrative that truly reflects your reality. These documents provide context and can influence the strategy your lawyer recommends. Personal Notes and Questions Divorce consultations are your opportunity to get clarity and guidance. Prepare a list of questions and notes about your situation. Goals for the divorce: What outcomes do you want regarding custody, property, and support? Are you hoping to stay in the family home? Is a specific holiday tradition non-negotiable? Advocacy starts with your vision for the future, so let’s talk about your goals as much as your records. Concerns or issues: Any worries about safety, finances, or communication with your spouse. Timeline and availability: Your preferred schedule for proceedings and any urgent matters. Witnesses or evidence: Names and contact details of people who can support your case. Having your thoughts organized helps you communicate clearly and ensures your lawyer addresses your priorities. What to Expect During the Consultation Think of these documents as the map for our journey together. While the list might look long, remember that you don't have to navigate it perfectly. Bring what you can, and we will help with the rest. At Weavers Law, we don’t just see a case file—we see a person ready for a fresh start, and we are honored to stand by your side. The consultation typically covers: Overview of your marriage and separation Review of financial and legal information Discussion of child custody and support if applicable Explanation of divorce process and timelines Initial strategy and next steps Being prepared with the right information makes this meeting more efficient and less stressful.

In the state of Missouri, child custody decisions are fundamentally governed by the overarching principle of prioritizing the child's best interest. However, a significant shift in Missouri law now dictates that the court must begin with a rebuttable presumption that equal or approximately equal parenting time is in the child’s best interest. This means the court starts with the assumption of an equal or substantially equal split unless a parent can prove—by a preponderance of the evidence—that such an arrangement would be detrimental to the child. To evaluate these claims and determine the final arrangement, Missouri judges meticulously apply a set of eight specific statutory factors ( R.S.Mo. 452.375 ). Gaining a comprehensive understanding of these factors and how they interact with the presumption of equal time can significantly enhance a parent's ability to navigate the process and advocate for their child's well-being. 1. The Wishes of the Parents & Parenting Plans The court first considers the custody wishes of the parents and the specific details of the parenting plans they each submit. This is the starting point for the judge's analysis. 2. The Relationship & Parenting Ability The law looks at the child's need for a "frequent, continuing, and meaningful relationship" with both parents and the willingness of each parent to actively perform their duties. Judges place great emphasis on understanding and evaluating the comprehensive needs of the child, which encompass physical, emotional, and educational dimensions. This assessment involves a careful examination of the child's health, stability, and overall well-being. The court will consider factors such as the child’s developmental needs, their emotional state, and their educational requirements. Additionally, the ability of each parent to meet these needs will be scrutinized, including their capacity to provide emotional support, access to healthcare, and a conducive learning environment. This holistic approach ensures that the child's welfare remains at the forefront of custody decisions. 3. Interaction with Family & Others The court examines how the child interacts with parents, siblings, and any other person who may significantly affect their life (such as grandparents or step-parents). This factor underscores the importance of nurturing relationships and active participation in the child's life, which can significantly influence custody outcomes. 4. Which Parent is More Likely to Allow Contact The court favors the parent who is more likely to allow the child frequent and meaningful contact with the other parent. 5. The Child’s Adjustment to Home, School, and Community The child’s current adjustment to their home environment, school, and broader community is a crucial factor in custody determinations. Courts generally prefer to minimize disruption in a child’s life, as stability in these areas is essential for healthy development. Judges will consider how well the child is adapting to their current living situation, their relationships with peers and teachers, and their overall sense of belonging within their community. Maintaining continuity in these aspects of a child's life is often prioritized to support their emotional and social well-being. 6. Mental and Physical Health (Including History of Abuse) This factor covers the health of all parties. Crucially, if there is a pattern of domestic violence, the court must make specific written findings. This is a safety-first factor that can override others. 7. Intention to Relocate The court must consider if either parent intends to move the child's principal residence. This is a standalone factor because relocation often makes 50/50 custody impossible. 8. The Wishes of the Child One factor in custody cases is the child's preference. The court will take into account the child's wishes if the child is of a sufficient age and maturity level to articulate a reasoned preference. This aspect highlights the importance of acknowledging and valuing the child's voice in custody matters. Judges may consider the child's opinions during interviews or through reports from child psychologists, ensuring that the child's perspective is integrated into the decision-making process. This factor not only empowers children but also fosters a sense of agency in their own lives. Conclusion Navigating a custody case can be an emotionally charged and challenging experience. However, by understanding the eight critical factors and the legal presumption of equal parenting time, parents can better prepare themselves for court proceedings. It is important to remember that while the law favors a 50/50 split, that presumption can be overcome if the evidence shows it is not what is best for the child. Ultimately, the goal of the Missouri court system is to ensure that the child's needs are met comprehensively in a safe and supportive environment. Parents are encouraged to focus on fostering cooperation and maintaining open lines of communication, as the court looks favorably upon those who prioritize the child’s relationship with both parents.

When facing a divorce, finding the right legal support is crucial. You want a professional who understands your situation and can guide you through the process with clarity and care. Lee's Summit offers several top-rated divorce legal experts who specialize in helping individuals and families navigate this challenging time. This article will help you understand what to look for in a divorce lawyer, the services they provide, and how to choose the best one for your needs. Understanding Divorce Legal Experts in Lee's Summit Divorce legal experts are attorneys who specialize in family law, particularly divorce cases. They handle everything from filing paperwork to negotiating settlements and representing you in court if necessary. In Lee's Summit, these professionals are familiar with Missouri state laws and local court procedures, which can make a significant difference in your case. When you work with a divorce legal expert, you can expect: Clear explanations of your rights and options Assistance with child custody and support arrangements Guidance on property division and spousal support Representation during negotiations and court hearings Choosing a lawyer with experience in your specific situation is important. For example, if you have children, look for someone skilled in custody and visitation matters. If your case involves complex assets, find a lawyer who understands property division thoroughly. Eastern Jackson County Courtroom How to Choose the Right Divorce Legal Expert Selecting the right divorce legal expert requires careful consideration. Here are some practical steps to help you make an informed decision: Research Local Lawyers Start by looking for attorneys who practice family law in Lee's Summit. Check their websites, reviews, and any available ratings. Check Credentials and Experience Verify their qualifications, years of practice, and areas of expertise. A lawyer with a strong track record in divorce cases is preferable. Schedule Consultations Meet with a few lawyers to discuss your case. Pay attention to how they communicate and whether they listen to your concerns. Discuss Fees and Costs Understand their fee structure upfront. Some lawyers charge hourly rates, while others may offer flat fees for certain services. Evaluate Comfort Level You should feel comfortable and confident with your lawyer. Trust and clear communication are key to a successful partnership. By following these steps, you can find a divorce legal expert who meets your needs and helps you move forward with confidence. What is the Average Cost of a Divorce in Missouri? Understanding the financial aspect of divorce is important. In Missouri, the average cost of a divorce can vary widely depending on the complexity of the case and the lawyer's fees. Here are some factors that influence the cost: Type of Divorce : Uncontested divorces, where both parties agree on terms, tend to be less expensive. Contested divorces, involving disputes over custody or property, usually cost more. Lawyer Fees : Hourly rates for divorce lawyers in Missouri typically range from $250 to $350 per hour. Some lawyers may offer flat fees for specific services. Court Fees : Filing fees and other court-related expenses can add to the total cost. Additional Services : Mediation, expert witnesses, and other services may increase expenses. On average, a simple uncontested divorce might cost between $2,000 and $4,000, while more complex cases can exceed $15,000. It is wise to discuss costs with your lawyer early on to avoid surprises. Services Offered by Divorce Legal Experts in Lee's Summit Divorce legal experts provide a range of services tailored to your unique situation. Here are some common services you can expect: Legal Advice and Case Evaluation They will review your case details and explain your rights and options clearly. Filing Divorce Papers Handling all necessary paperwork to start the divorce process. Negotiation and Settlement Working to reach agreements on child custody, support, and property division without going to court. Court Representation If negotiations fail, your lawyer will represent you in court hearings and trials. Post-Divorce Modifications Assisting with changes to custody or support arrangements after the divorce is finalized. Each case is different, so your lawyer will tailor their approach to fit your needs. Having a knowledgeable legal expert by your side can reduce stress and improve your chances of a favorable outcome. Certificate of Dissolution Why You Should Consider a Divorce Lawyer in Lee's Summit Choosing a local divorce lawyer has several advantages. A divorce lawyer in Lee's Summit will have: Local Court Knowledge Familiarity with the judges, court staff, and procedures in Lee's Summit and Jackson County. Community Understanding Awareness of local resources and support services that may benefit you and your family. Accessibility Easier to schedule meetings and attend court sessions without long travel times. Personalized Service A commitment to serving the local community with personalized attention. Working with a lawyer who knows the area and legal system well can make the divorce process smoother and less intimidating. Taking the Next Step with Confidence Divorce is never easy, but having the right legal expert can make a significant difference. By choosing a top-rated divorce legal expert in Lee's Summit, you gain a partner who will guide you through each step with professionalism and care. Remember to: Research and meet with several lawyers Ask clear questions about their experience and fees Choose someone you trust and feel comfortable with With the right support, you can navigate your divorce with confidence and work toward a positive future. If you are ready to start, consider reaching out to a trusted local firm to schedule a consultation . Taking this first step is an important move toward resolving your legal matters effectively.

by Lee's Summit Divorce Attorney Samantha Weavers: When you face legal challenges, having a reliable and knowledgeable law firm by your side can make all the difference. Weavers Law LLC offers comprehensive legal services designed to help you navigate complex legal matters with confidence. Whether you need assistance with family law, estate planning, or civil litigation, this firm provides clear guidance and practical solutions tailored to your unique situation. Understanding Comprehensive Legal Services in Lee's Summit from Divorce and Family Law Attorney Comprehensive legal services mean that a law firm covers a wide range of legal areas, offering you a one-stop solution for your legal needs. At Weavers Law LLC, you can expect support in various fields such as: Family law, including divorce, child custody, and support Estate planning, including wills, trusts, and probate Real estate transactions and disputes Civil litigation and dispute resolution Business law and contract review This broad scope ensures that you do not have to look elsewhere when your legal needs change or expand. The firm’s attorneys work closely with you to understand your goals and develop strategies that protect your interests. Legal office with books and documents Why Choose Comprehensive Legal Services? Choosing a firm that offers comprehensive legal services means you benefit from continuity and consistency. You won’t have to explain your situation repeatedly to different lawyers. Instead, the same team will handle your case from start to finish, providing: Personalized attention: Your lawyer understands your history and goals. Efficient communication: Fewer delays and misunderstandings. Cost-effectiveness: Bundled services can reduce overall legal fees. Strategic planning: Lawyers can anticipate related legal issues and advise accordingly. For example, if you start with estate planning but later face a family dispute, the same firm can assist without delay. This approach saves time and reduces stress during difficult times. Key Areas of Legal Expertise at Weavers Law LLC Weavers Law LLC offers a variety of legal services that cover many common and complex issues. Here are some of the key areas where you can find expert help: Family Law Family law matters can be emotionally challenging. The firm handles cases involving: Divorce and separation agreements Child custody and visitation rights Child and spousal support Adoption and guardianship We work to protect your rights and the best interests of your family. You are provided clear explanations of your options and are guided through negotiations or court proceedings. Estate Planning Planning for the future is essential. Weavers Law LLC helps you create wills, trusts, and powers of attorney to ensure your wishes are respected. Civil Litigation If you are involved in a legal dispute, the firm provides representation. They handle cases such as contract disputes, personal injury claims, and other civil matters. Business Law For small business owners, Weavers Law LLC offers assistance with: Business formation and registration Contract drafting and review Dispute resolution This comprehensive approach helps you protect your business interests and avoid legal pitfalls. Reaching an agreement How to Access Weavers Law LLC Services Getting started with Weavers Law LLC is straightforward. You can schedule a consultation to discuss your legal needs and receive an honest assessment of your case. During this meeting, the attorneys will explain the process, potential outcomes, and fees involved. To make the most of your consultation: Gather all relevant documents related to your case. Prepare a list of questions or concerns. Be ready to share your goals and priorities. This preparation helps the lawyers provide tailored advice and develop an effective plan. You can learn more about the range of Weavers Law LLC services and how they can assist you by visiting their website or contacting their office directly. Building Trust Through Quality and Affordability One of the firm’s core goals is to be the trusted legal partner in Jackson and surrounding counties. They understand that legal issues can be stressful and costly. That is why they focus on delivering high-quality legal counsel at reasonable prices. By working with Weavers Law LLC, you gain: Transparent fee structures with no hidden costs Clear communication throughout your case Practical advice that focuses on your best interests A supportive team that values your peace of mind This commitment helps you face legal challenges with confidence and achieve the best possible outcomes. Taking the Next Step with Weavers Law LLC If you are dealing with a legal issue or want to plan for the future, consider reaching out to Weavers Law LLC. Their comprehensive legal services cover a wide range of needs, ensuring you have expert support every step of the way. Remember, having the right legal partner can make a significant difference in resolving your case efficiently and effectively. Contact Weavers Law LLC today to schedule your consultation and take control of your legal matters. By choosing a firm that offers comprehensive legal services, you ensure that your legal needs are met with professionalism and care. Weavers Law LLC stands ready to assist you with practical solutions tailored to your unique situation.

When you face family-related legal matters, understanding your rights and protections is essential. Family law covers sensitive issues such as divorce, child custody, support, and property division. Knowing the family legal safeguards in place helps you navigate these challenges with confidence and clarity. This article will guide you through the key protections available to you, practical steps to take, and how to work effectively with your legal counsel. What Are Family Legal Safeguards? Family legal safeguards are rules and procedures designed to protect your interests during family law cases. These safeguards ensure fairness, confidentiality, and respect for your rights throughout the legal process. They also help prevent abuse, coercion, or unfair treatment. Some common family legal safeguards include: Confidentiality of sensitive information : Your personal and financial details are protected from public disclosure. Right to legal representation : You can hire an attorney to advocate for your interests. Fair hearing and due process : You have the opportunity to present your case and respond to claims. Protection from domestic violence : Courts can issue restraining orders to keep you safe. Child welfare considerations : The court prioritizes the best interests of children in custody and support decisions. Understanding these safeguards helps you recognize when your rights are upheld or if you need to take action to enforce them. Jackson County Courthouse How Family Legal Safeguards Work in Practice When you engage in a family law case, these safeguards come into play at every stage. For example, if you are filing for divorce, the court will require full disclosure of assets and debts. This transparency protects both parties from hidden financial information. If child custody is involved, the court will consider factors such as each parent's living situation, ability to provide care, and the child's needs. This ensures decisions are made fairly and with the child's best interests in mind. You also have the right to: Receive clear explanations of your legal options. Access court documents and evidence. Request mediation or alternative dispute resolution. Appeal decisions if you believe errors were made. By knowing these protections, you can actively participate in your case and avoid surprises. Working with Your Legal Counsel Having a knowledgeable attorney is one of the strongest family legal safeguards you can use. Your lawyer will: Explain your rights and the legal process. Help gather and organize evidence. Negotiate on your behalf. Represent you in court hearings. Ensure all deadlines and procedures are met. To get the most from your attorney, be honest and provide all relevant information. Ask questions if anything is unclear. Remember, your lawyer is your advocate and partner in achieving the best outcome. Legal documents symbolizing preparation and client protection Practical Tips to Protect Yourself in Family Law Matters You can take several steps to safeguard your interests during family law proceedings: Keep detailed records : Document communications, financial transactions, and parenting activities. Understand court orders : Follow all court instructions carefully to avoid penalties. Communicate respectfully : Maintain polite and clear communication with the other party and your attorney. Seek support services : Counseling or mediation can help resolve conflicts without prolonged litigation. Stay informed : Research your rights and local laws to make informed decisions. These actions help you stay in control and reduce stress during what can be a difficult time. Moving Forward with Confidence Navigating family law issues requires knowledge and support. By understanding the available family legal safeguards, you protect your rights and those of your loved ones. If you want to learn more about family law client protections , reach out to a trusted legal professional who can guide you through your specific situation. Taking proactive steps and working with experienced counsel will help you achieve the best possible outcome. Remember, you do not have to face these challenges alone. With the right information and support, you can move forward confidently and securely.

November 2025- No error shown in procedure for guardianship and conservatorship  The appellant initiated the action as to the protectee. The probate division issued an earlier judgment of incapacity and disability and appointing a guardian and conservator. Because the appellant prevailed, the appellant had no standing to appeal the earlier judgment or challenge that judgment as void for violation of due process. “Constitutional rights are personal to the affected party, and third parties do not have standing to challenge their violation.” No hearing was necessary before the probate division also issued a later judgment approving the conservator’s final settlement. The appellant could not appeal the earlier judgment by appealing the later judgment. The appellant could not appeal the later judgment by taking a position inconsistent with the appellant’s position in circuit court. When a successor public administrator took over the protectee’s assets, the appellant was not due a receipt and the appellant did not show any error in the protectee’s inventory.  IN THE MATTER OF: SHIRLEY MAE BUTLER, INC/DSB, GREGORY LEE, Petitioner-Appellant v. KIMBERLY CLARK, Respondent-Respondent, LORETTA ROUSE and REBECCA ALLEN, Intervenors-Respondents  Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38425 November 2025- Will filed too late  Nothing barred an heir from appointment as personal representative. Statutes governing the probating of wills described the application for application for letters of administration, supplements to that application, and notice that letters of administration have issued. That notice started the time to file a will for probate unless the notice was defective. The notice was not defective because the application was not defective and did not require any supplement. Even if a supplement was necessary, the supplement would have extended the time for filing a will, and would not have started a new time. The appellants filed a purported will too late, rendering it null. In the Matter of Edward L. Eisenstein, Deceased Margaret Delacy vs. World Wildlife Fund, Missouri Botanical Garden, Cousteau Society, The Nature Conservancy, and Ecohealth Alliance, Inc., Successor-In-Interest to Wildlife Preservation Trust International  Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87821 Commissioner orders needed judge’s confirmation  The Missouri Court of Appeals had jurisdiction over final judgments of circuit courts. Circuit courts had authority under the Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Act to review orders in a case transferred from a Georgia State court and could do so through a probate commissioner. But probate commissioner orders were not final unless confirmed in a timely manner by a probate division judge. The commissioner denied motions to set aside Georgia court orders, reconsider, and reopen the action. The judge’s orders, confirming those commissioner orders, were untimely so the action and the motions remained pending in circuit court. The Court of Appeals “firmly” dismissed the appeal, remanded the action to circuit court, and instructed the probate division to timely renew and confirm all the orders that were the subject of the appeal.   In the matter of: Lauren Micaela Taylor  Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113222 July 2025- Hearing was necessary on objections to final settlement   On objections to a final settlement, properly pleaded, a hearing must occur. But after the filing of a petition for discovery of assets, and objections to the settlement, the circuit court issued judgment, then scheduled a hearing on the objections. The Missouri Court of Appeals vacated the judgment and remanded the action for a hearing on the objections and resolution of the petition for discovery of assets.  In the Estate of QUENTIN LEE JONES, Deceased.  Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38886 June 2025- Appeal from interlocutory order was too late   The parties were co-guardians and co-conservators seeking to revoke each other’s letters. An order denying relief to appellant, and granting relief to respondent, was subject to appeal as provided generally for judgments. Judgments were generally subject to appeal on notice filed 10 days from finality. Finality for interlocutory orders occurred when the circuit court entered such orders and no after trial motions were authorized to extend that time. Entry of the order appealed was more than 10 days before the appellant filed the notice of appeal, so the notice of appeal vested no jurisdiction in the Missouri Court of Appeals, and the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal.  In the Matter of Arthur C. Claypoole, Protectee; Janet Ravenscraft vs. Jennifer Claypoole  Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD86931 June 2025- No difference, no standing   To bring any claim, plaintiffs had to have standing: a directly threatened legally protected interest. Testatrix had a pour-over provision benefitting a trust. Generally, an invalidated trust left only intestate succession to dispose of the estate. But testatrix’s will also provided, if the trust were invalidated, a distribution identical to the trust’s provisions. Therefore, whether the trust was valid or not, plaintiff was subject to the same distribution and so had no standing to seek invalidation of the trust. The circuit court dismissed the action and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. Cary Shippert vs. Terry Shippert, et al.  Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87482 June 2025- Estate re-opened  Operation of law discharged personal representatives six months after filing a statement of account unless, within that time, someone filed an action. Such action was not limited to the personal representative’s liability and included an action to remove the personal representative. Pending such action the circuit court prematurely held that the estate closed and the representative discharged, but it corrected that error by an order re-opening the estate. Opposition to that action benefitted the personal representative, not the estate, and so did not require an award of attorney fees to the personal representative. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s rulings.  In the Estate of: Betty L. Shippert, Deceased Terry G. Shippert, Personal Representative vs. Cary Shippert, Shari D. Pitts, Sarah E. Lawrence, and Bryon E. Shippert  Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87348   May 2025- Undue influence shown  The circuit court’s finding of undue influence had support in evidence that beneficiaries controlled testator due to testator’s poor mental health, and secretly met with testator’s lawyer without testator’s knowledge or consultation. Insurance proceeds deposited into a joint deposit with a beneficiary conferred a benefit on the beneficiary, which supported a claim for unjust enrichment. In an action for discovery of assets, when a circuit court found wrongful disposition of assets, the circuit court had authority to award “losses, expenses and damages sustained, if any, but not including attorney fees[.]” The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the award of attorney fees.  Barbara J. Bonin, as Personal Representative for the Estate of Thomas R. Keener, Respondent, v. Janie Gould, Darrin Phillips, and Amanda Phillips, Appellants.  Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112704 May 2025- Standing and waiver barred appeal  A petitioner for conservatorship and guardianship had standing to appeal the judgment, but only as to disability and incapacity, so the Court of Appeals dismissed points challenging other rulings. And appellant waived any argument that the sister’s disability and incapacity were partial, because appellant’s petition had alleged that the sister’s disability and incapacity were total, so the Court of Appeals denied those points. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment.  In the Matter of Queen Johnson Doze; DeAndre Doze vs. Mariah Doze  Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD86809 March 2025- Matters moot or unpreserved for appeal  Actions to appoint a guardian or conservator were adversary proceedings so rules of civil procedure applied, including the duty to seek a remedy for error in circuit court. “Because appellate courts merely review for trial errors, there can be no review of a matter which has not been presented to or expressly decided by the trial court. . . . This is so by court rule, statute, and controlling case law.” A motion to vacate a judgment of guardianship or conservatorship initiated an action separate from the guardianship or conservatorship action, so appeal of the guardianship or conservatorship judgment did not include the motion to vacate. The motion to vacate left the circuit court’s authority on the filing of a notice of appeal in the guardianship or conservatorship judgment. The death of a ward or protectee mooted an order of incapacity.  In the Matter of KYONG SPRUILL, An Adult, J-PIA SPRUILL, Petitioner-Respondent v. ARTHUR SPRUILL, JR., Intervenor-Appellant  Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38541 February 2025- No self-dealing under durable power of attorney  The Missouri Court of Appeals removed from the record exhibits related to a separate appeal. The appellants’ breach of rules regarding an appeal from summary judgment did not require the Court of Appeals to depart from its neutrality while resolving the appeal. The Durable Power of Attorney Act imposed fiduciary duty on attorneys in fact, so the authority to alter beneficiary designations must be “expressly enumerated and authorized[, and] general language authorizing an agent to change a beneficiary designation was insufficient to authorize the attorney[s] in fact to designate [themselves] the transfer-on-death beneficiary of … assets.” A broad and vague grant of authorization, for the attorneys in fact to use assets for their own benefit, did not authorize changing a payable-on-death designations to themselves. Spoken instructions were irrelevant. The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment against the attorneys in fact.  First Community Credit Union v. Samuel Rowley, Sheryl A. Rowley, Appellants, and Archdiocese of St. Louis, Respondent.  Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED112630 February 2025- Actions survived plaintiff’s death  Appellate courts reviewed only the circuit court’s announced reason for dismissal. Dismissal was possible for a petition in circuit court that did not state a claim for relief. Tort actions, which abated on the death of a party at common law, survived under statutes that preserved actions for personal injury. Personal injury included damages to a person’s rights at law, including the Human Rights Act and the Public Employee Whistleblower Statute. The amended petition, substituting the personal representative for decedent plaintiff, stated a claim and the circuit court erred in dismissing the action. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment and remanded the action for reinstatement.  Hazel Erby, Appellant, vs. St. Louis County, Respondent.  Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District - ED112783 December 2024- Briefing deficiencies required dismissal  Appellate rules set forth how to give the courts and other parties notice of the issues, which was the purpose of appellant’s brief, and protect the courts’ neutrality. The statement of facts had to be fair and concise and refer to the record. Points relied on had to identify the challenged ruling and state wherein and why a ruling constituted reversible error. The argument had explain the standard of review and cite authority and could not cure a deficient point or revive a waived claim. Appellant’s failure to comply preserved nothing for review. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal.  In the Matter of the James A. Long Trust Dated December 13, 2007 as Amended. Sharon Long, Successor Trustee vs. Kevin Long, Et al.  Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD86738 consolidated with WD86759 November 2024- Tortious interference with an inheritance expectancy explained   A claim for civil conspiracy is a theory of joint and several liability and required more than one defendant. A judgment dismissing a claim for failure to join necessary and indispensable parties was erroneous without an analysis of how the parties not joined were necessary and indispensable. The elements of tortious interference with an inheritance expectancy included the absence of an adequate remedy under probate law. Remedies under probate law directed against a trustee, removal or damages for breach of trust, were adequate as to the assets of one trust, but not another where the settlor-trustee was still living. As to the latter, plaintiff trust beneficiaries had standing to make claims on their own behalf against third parties. Plaintiffs timely filed their claims within five years of the settlor’s death because settlor’s death gave rise to the plaintiffs’ property interest. The circuit court erred in dismissing that claim. Rule treated a premature notice of appeal as filed when judgment became final. A dismissal without prejudice constituted a final judgment when the dismissal concluded that the action belonged in probate division and terminated the action in plaintiffs’ chosen forum of circuit court and an amended petition would have been futile. An error in specifying the judgment appealed did not thwart the Court of Appeals’ jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals remanded the action to circuit court for further proceedings including a determination as to whether a judgment of the probate division collaterally estopped the circuit court action.  Forrest K. Backer, Jr., Et al. vs. David A. Backer, Et al.  Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD86908 (Consolidated with WD87068) November 2024- No standing to appeal appointment of guardian Circuit court appointed a relative as guardian for children and children’s foster parent appealed. Rule required appellant’s brief to include a jurisdictional statement to support appellant’s standing to appeal a judgment. Standing to appeal a judgment existed by statute, and statutes governing probate judgment granted standing to an interested person, also defined by statute. That statute did not include appellant foster parent. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. IN THE INTEREST OF: Z.N.B. and A.L.C., Minor children under seventeen years of age, CARTER COUNTY JUVENILE OFFICER, Petitioner-Respondent v. B.L.C., Intervenor-Appellant Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD38171, 38174, 38175 & 38176 October 2024-Notice required to remove conservator Statutes required notice to a conservator before replacing any conservator. On a petition of a minor ward’s conservator for approval of certain expenses consented by minor, no pleading, notice, or mention at hearing raised the replacement of the conservator. Nevertheless, the circuit court sua sponte replaced conservator with the public administrator. “Given this lack of notice and opportunity to respond at a hearing to the removal question, the circuit court cannot be said to have complied with the statutorily-mandated due-process procedure for removing [the] conservator.” The statute authorizing the appointment of a guardian ad litem did not apply. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment except as to replacement of the conservator, as to which the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment and remanded the action to the circuit court for reinstatement of the conservator. In the matter of: E.S.S. Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District - ED112400 September 2024-Appointment of successor guardian and conservator denied In an action to appoint a guardian or conservator, the statutes set forth a preference for family members, but that preference does not apply to a successor. Statutes allow a ward or protectee to file a motion for change of guardian or conservator but not to personally select a successor as a matter of right. Because the movants did not allege or prove that the original guardian and conservator — the public administrator — had lapsed in any duty, the circuit court did not err in denying the appointment of a successor, and substantial evidence supported that ruling. In the Matter of Isaiah Boydston vs. Lorene Boydston; Carla Drummond; and Shanna Burns, Public Administrator Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD86231 September 2024-Standing to contest will shown Courts did not exercise their authority unless the party starting the action had standing to do so as shown by the petition and undisputed facts. The use of undisputed facts suggested summary judgment as a method for disposition. In defending against the petition by motion for summary judgment, the personal representative failed to support a critical allegation with admissible evidence and so could not prevail. Besides, dismissal, not a ruling on the merits like summary judgment, was the remedy for an action brought without standing. Standing to bring a will contest was subject to a statute that granted standing to any person who would “either gain or lose under the contested will[.]” Alternatives to the contested will included a revoked trust. The trust included all the decedent’s property as of the creation of the trust. After the creation of the trust, more assets came into the decedent’s estate. But those assets were not in the trust because the trust did not include property acquired after the creation of the trust, an earlier will pouring over assets into the trust was never timely offered for probate, and no mechanism existed to transfer any property into the trust if acquired after the creation of the trust. Therefore, if the plaintiffs were successful in their will contest, intestate succession would pass the assets to the plaintiffs. The plaintiff therefore stood to lose from the contested will and thus had standing to contest the will. Judgment for defendant personal representative vacated and remanded. MICHAEL C. LAWS, JR., and MALINDA A. SALINGER, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. J. CHRISTOPHER ALLEN, Personal Representative, and SUBSTITUTED PARTIES MOREAU, Defendants-Respondents Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD37525 August 2024-Motion to substitute personal representative denied Statutes required administration of any decedent’s estate in the county of decedent’s permanent residence, which was shown by decedent’s “actual personal presence” and an “intention to remain” indefinitely. Evidence supporting the circuit court’s determination, that decedent changed his permanent residence from Hickory County to Polk County, included: decedent’s departure from a Hickory County residence to a Polk County residence, living in the Polk County residence ever after, never expressing any intent to return to the Hickory County residence, changing his address to the Hickory County residence, and appellant spouse’s ex parte order of protection barring him from the Hickory County residence. Statutes gave decedent’s spouse a preference, but only if otherwise qualified, and allowed any interested person to apply when spouse had not applied within 20 days. Appellant showed no prejudice from a delay in setting a hearing. The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s denial of appellant’s motion to substitute herself as personal representative. In the Estate of QUENTIN LEE JONES, Deceased, MARY BETH JONES, Appellant v. ADAM CHRISTOPHER JONES, Respondent Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD38239 August 2024-Damages awarded against attorney-in-fact A durable power of attorney’s authority to make gifts on the principal’s behalf did not apply when the principal had no donative intent. Self-gifts required express authority. Statute governing actions against an attorney-in-fact providing standing to successors in interest, defined to “include” certain persons. That language was not exclusive and expressed enlargement rather than limitation. An attorney-in-fact’s fiduciary duties include protecting the principal’s estate plan as shown by a will even if not probated. The circuit court imposed a constructive trust but failed to specify the trust’s res, which was error, but required no remand because the Missouri Court of Appeals entered judgment ordering appellant to pay specified money damages “cash” to respondents. Remanded to determine an award of attorney fees. David Broy, et al., Respondents, v. Diane Broy, Appellant. Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED111275 July 2024-Means for waiver of jury trial were limited and exclusive The plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment, defendant did not raise an issue of authority, the circuit court granted the motion in an interlocutory order, later made final as a judgment, and the defendant raised the issue of circuit court authority in a motion for new trial, preserving error. Statutes gave the probate division of the circuit court exclusive authority over property belonging to decedent, but the disputed property belonged to decedent and plaintiff jointly with rights of survivorship, so the disputed property was not subject to probate division authority. Replevin determines the right to possession, not ultimate ownership, of property as between the plaintiff and defendant; so no third party was necessary or indispensable. Constitutional provisions protected defendant’s right to a jury trial on damages, which the defendant could waive only as provided by statute and rule, so no other mechanism — even the circuit court’s inherent powers — could deprive defendant of a jury trial. Therefore, to make an interlocutory order into a final judgment as a sanction for defendant’s failure to appear at a pre-trial conference was an abuse of discretion. The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the judgment for a jury trial on actual and punitive damages. Ethel Barry Masters, Respondent, vs. Jacob Dawson, Appellant. Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED111696 May 2024-Settlor's Intent of Trust Construction of a trust seeks to give effect to the settlor’s intent as discerned from the trust instrument’s four corners including legal terms of art. Settlor directed designated a contingent beneficiary, the contingency being that a son of settlor predeceased settlor without issue. The trust also directed a sale of and distribution from trust property starting on that son’s 65th birthday and continuing over a reasonable time, but that sale was not an additional contingency, so whether a reasonable time had passed was irrelevant. Circuit court’s interlocutory judgment, ruling that appellant was not a contingent beneficiary to a trust, disposed of all claims as to that party and so was properly certified for appeal. The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed that judgment and entered judgment for appellant. Rebecca Lynn Larson, Et al. vs. Alvin Winkler Et al.; Kevin Goucher and Alisa Goucher Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD86359 April 2024-IRA was non-probate property Stipulating to the admissibility of an exhibit waived objection to the exhibit’s entry into the record and consideration by the circuit court. Decedent’s individual retirement account listed a contingent beneficiary and a primary beneficiary. The primary beneficiary agreed to transfer all “right, title and interest” in the account to decedent but decedent never altered the beneficiary designations. The beneficiary designations were deemed altered by statute, except those designated as unaltered by dissolution of marriage, which was the context of the transfer. The transfer was merely a disclaimer of the account as marital property and post-dissolution events showed that the decedent intended the primary beneficiary to have it on death. The circuit court’s award of the account to the primary beneficiary had support in the evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. Michael Grabb vs. Teresa Lurinda Grabb a/k/a Terry Grabb and Amanda Huffman, Public Administrator for Morgan County, Missouri, Personal Representative of the Estate of Ronald E. Grabb Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD86056 April 2024-Date of death determined heirs Decedent’s heirs were determined as of the date of decedent’s death and not as of the date on which someone filed an application to determine heirship. Decedent’s sole heir when decedent died was a biological daughter. The biological daughter’s later adoption into adoptive family did not alter that result because statutes provided that adoption was effective prospectively only. The biological daughter’s delay in seeking to determine heirship did not alter that result, either, because statutes expressly allowed a determination of heirship after the time for administering an estate had passed and a five-year statute of limitations did not apply. Whether title to disputed property had changed by adverse possession or otherwise was not at issue in circuit court so it is not before the Missouri Court of Appeals. In the Estate of Michall Duncan, Deceased. Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED111925 April 2024-Discovery of assets inapplicable to non-probate assets Plaintiffs sought a ruling on assets of decedent and the circuit court dismissed the action for lack of personal jurisdiction over the personal representative of decedent’s estate. But decedent’s estate was not at issue, only non-probate assets already bearing a beneficiary designation, so the statutes governing probate procedure, including discovery of assets, did not apply. Judgment of dismissal reversed and remanded.  Susan Fenlon, et al., Appellants, vs. Rebecca Fenlon, Respondent. Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED111819 January 2024- No attorney fees from estate for beneficiary In an action to contest a will, “the ultimate object—the real object—is to determine the rights of the parties to the property.” Equity allows an award of attorney fees to a litigant whose litigation protects the estate but not to a litigant whose litigation protects the litigant’s own interest. Therefore, the circuit court lacked authority to award attorney fees, and the Court of Appeals reverses the judgment as to that award. In the Estate of: Anna Lois Tyner Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District - ED111494 December 2023-Appellant’s briefing deficiencies preclude review Failure to comply with rules governing the statement of facts, points relied on, and argument make it impossible for an appellate court to “competently rule on the merits of [the Appellants’] argument without first reconstructing the facts . . . and then refining and supplementing [their] points and legal argument.’” Appeal dismissed. In the Matter of Janet P. Marvin; Charles Basham vs. Christine Louise Kensinger Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD86118 December 2023-Judgment affirmed in battle of co-trustees Missouri Uniform Trust Code allows the removal of a trustee for incapacity or misconduct but only when those facts show jeopardy to the trust. Appellants challenged the finding that no breach of fiduciary duty occurred as against the weight of the evidence, and the order to make respondent sole trustee as lacking support in substantial evidence, but failed in both because appellants did not address the evidence favoring those rulings. Citations to the record without applying any law preserve no argument. Statutes allow an award of litigation expenses without regard to which party prevails. Remanded to determine litigation expenses on appeal. Donald A. Riead, Co-Trustee of the John T. Riead, Jr. Revocable Trust, et al. vs. John T. Riead, III, Co-Trustee of the John T. Riead, Jr. Revocable Trust, et al. Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD85899 & WD85916 September 2023-Beneficiary deed prevails Decedent, through attorney in fact, contracted to sell decedent’s house, but that house was already the subject of a beneficiary deed to respondent. Respondent received the house on decedent’s death by operation of law under the beneficiary deed. A beneficiary deed terminates upon a transfer inter vivos, but the transfer was incomplete when decedent died, so the beneficiary deed remains effective. Statute, governing the performance of executory contracts through decedent’s personal representative, does not change that result. “Life inherently exists with vagaries, and the law can be used, ideally, to mitigate such uncertainty [; f]ailing to take such proactive action, however, the matter was left to chance and Appellant ultimately lost.” IN THE ESTATE OF ANTHONY M. VRANA, DECEDENT, SANDRA FIDURA-PHILLIPS, Appellant vs. AARON WILSON, Respondent Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD37889 September 2023- Self-dealing unauthorized under durable power of attorney Statutes provide that a power of attorney creates a principal/agent relationship with fiduciary duties and bars the attorney-in-fact from making any transfer without express written authorization in the power of attorney. Power of attorney generally authorized respondents to make gifts to principal’s family, which included respondents, but also specifically barred respondents from making transfers to themselves. Spoken authorization, good faith, and substantial compliance are not defenses. Those transfers are void and did not pass title, so the transferred property belongs to the estate of decedent principal. Equitable remedies include reformation of a deed and, unlike law, equity may grant any relief supported by facts either pleaded or tried by consent, even when not prayed for. Trial by consent occurs implicitly on the introduction of evidence relevant to no pleaded issue and appellants’ objection negated consent. Also, the elements of reformation include mutual mistake, and the quantum of proof required is clear, cogent, and convincing evidence; but respondents had evidence only of respondent’s intent, not decedent principle’s intent, and so could not carry the burden of proof. ESTATE OF NANCY MCKEAN, DECEASED BY AND THROUGH PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE CHRISTI EGLOFF, Appellant v. GLORIA D. BAKER, KENNETH BAKER, and JUSTIN BLAKE, Respondents Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD37650 and SD37651 August 2023-No record, no appeal In an action for guardianship and conservatorship, the circuit court’s judgment relied in part on an earlier emergency hearing, but the transcript from that emergency hearing is absent from the record on appeal. “Here, it is apparent no record of the first hearing exists to file with this Court.” Reversed and remanded to make a record. In the Matter of: Timothy Lee Isreal, Appellant. (Overview Summary) Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District - ED111010 JULY 2023-Conservator liable Statutes and common law impose a fiduciary duty on conservator, require conservator to preserve protectee’s property for protectee’s benefit, and bar commingling. Circuit court’s blanket ratification of conservator’s transactions erroneously declared or applied the law. “The probate court’s dispensation of the annual settlement requirement in April 2000 was not also a dispensation of the final settlement requirement. Those are two separate requirements mandated by two separate statutes.” Respondent conservator appropriated protectee’s savings and deposited income from protectee’s real property and social security in accounts owned by conservator and conservator’s spouse. Conservator and conservator's spouse had a duty to provide basic ordinary support for protectee but diverted protectee’s social security survivor benefit for that purpose. That conduct constituted a breach of fiduciary duty. Conservator’s poor record-keeping does not excuse her from liability, it just lowers the bar for protectee to prove damages. Whether the conservator still has the money or has already spent it is irrelevant. Reversed and remanded to determine amounts due protectee. Andrea E. Stockman vs. Brian G. Schmidt (Overview Summary) Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD85691 and WD85694 MAY 2023-Claim for reformation of trust was timely The Missouri Uniform Trust Code limits the time to file an action regarding a trust: ten years generally, and two years for contesting validity specifically. The latter did not apply to an action for reformation, because reformation challenges only provisions drafted under mistake of fact or law, and does not contest the validity of the trust. When a statute of limitations applies, laches will not apply, absent “special facts demanding extraordinary relief.” Appellant did not show that there was any prejudicial delay by respondent. Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD37567 MARCH 2023-Trustee cleared Statutes provide the grounds for removing a trustee, but the grounds must be evident, and the ruling is subject to review for abuse of discretion. Substantial evidence supported the circuit court’s findings, that the trustee faithfully executed the provisions of the trust. But according to the trust’s provisions, no such finding is necessary to fill a vacant co-trustee position, so the Court of Appeals remands the case for appointment of a co-trustee. Motion for attorney fees denied. Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD84894 JANUARY 2023- No Interlocutory Appeal from Denial of Summary Judgment Probate code allows an appeal from any ruling that fully adjudicates and disposes of a specified petition, immediately rather than ten days later, even without denomination as a judgment. A notice of appeal divests the circuit court of authority over that matter. On a petition under the safe harbor provision to determine whether a no-contest clause applies, circuit court denied petitioner’s motion for summary judgment, but that ruling does not determine the petition. Whether the no-contest clause applies “remains pending and undetermined.” Therefore, the ruling is not subject to appellate review and the Court of Appeals dismisses the appeal. LOUIE R. KEEN, Appellant vs. AMBER WOLFE, individually and in her capacity as Trustee of the April 4, 2011 Restatement of Revocable Trust Agreement of Rosetta Keen, and CYNTHIA KEEN, Respondents Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD37345

March 2026- Designation of address was necessary  A finding on the child’s best interest was necessary to determine which school the child should attend and written findings of fact were required on that matter. But no motion to amend was necessary to preserve that matter when the appellate theory was the absence of any substantial evidence in support. Substantial evidence supporting the ruling included the parties’ proximity and work schedules, and the child’s close relations with half-siblings who all attended the chosen school. The appellant’s agreement to pay private tuition at another school constituted substantial evidence that the appellant should pay private tuition at the chosen school. The circuit court had to designate a parent’s residence as the child’s address for education and mailing purposes, and base that determination on the child’s best interests, but failed to do so. The Missouri Court of Appeals remanded the action for the required findings and designation, and otherwise affirmed the judgment.  Wade Curtis Brandl, Individually and as Next Friend for H.C.B., Appellant, vs. Adria Sophia Anderson, Respondent. Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD88111 March 2026- Move out of state supported motion to modify  The elements of a motion to modify child custody included a change in the circumstances existing when the previous custody order issued. To change from joint to sole, the change had to be substantial, but not when the change was from sole to joint. The movant met that standard by alleging that one parent was moving out of state, so the circuit court erred in dismissing the motion. The Missouri Court of Appeals vacated the judgment and remanded the action to determine the child’s best interests.  David Lee Couzens, Jr., Respondent, vs. Devyn Lea Post, Appellant. Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD88021 March 2026- Child support calculated on appeal  Stock options constituted contingent benefits subject to distribution as marital property. Their contingent nature notwithstanding, the appellant did not show any abuse of discretion in the property division, because the judgment showed that circuit court carefully considered all relevant factors including risk. The appellant argued that no substantial evidence supported the date at which the circuit court calculated a pension’s value but the appellant ignored evidence that favored that date, so the appellant did not show error. The face of the judgment showed that the circuit court’s calculation of child support rested on a miscalculation of each party’s overnights, so the Missouri Court of Appeals estimated the number of overnights due the appellant, and the amount of child support due on that number, and entered judgment accordingly.  In RE the Marriage of: Kelly Ann Bennett, Respondent, vs. Travis Warren Bennett, Appellant. Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87984 March 2026- No final judgment without property distribution Appellate courts always examine their own jurisdiction. Appellate jurisdiction included final judgments, meaning judgments that ruled on all issues as to all parties. In actions for dissolution of marriage, circuit courts had to distribute property. The earlier judgment distributed respective dollar amounts of property, but not by item, so the earlier judgment was not final. Therefore, earlier judgment did not start the time by which the circuit court lost authority over the action, and the later judgment was timely. The later judgment was final, and unchallenged on appeal, so the Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District affirmed the later judgment.  Kyle Wagner, Appellant, v. Tammy Wagner, Respondent. Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED113807 February 2026-Grandparent relationship preserved in adoption  In an action for adoption, circuit courts did not determine custody, they determined whether creating a parent/child relationship was in the child’s best interest. The grandparent appellant did not show that the evidence weighed against that element, in that evidence of a threat to the appellant’s relationship with the child did not outweigh the respondent’s evidence of respect for that relationship. A ruling that preserved that relationship was the relief that the appellant requested, so the appellant could not challenge that ruling on appeal.  In re the Adoption of: K.L.C.B., N/K/A K.L.C.S.; D.B., Appellant, vs. J.A.S., Respondent Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD88045 February 2026-Maintenance denied  The appellant’s points relied on had to be concise and phrased in a summary fashion, with a list of authorities, and the related argument had to link those authorities to the facts of the appellant’s case. Failure to comply with those requirements barred appellate review because appellate review would require an appellate court to build an argument for appellant, which no appellate court would do. The purpose of maintenance was to bridge the gap between a receiving spouse’s income and reasonable expenses subject to the paying spouse’s ability to pay. Awards of maintenance were discretionary while the factors determining the amount were mandatory. In determining a maintenance, circuit courts had to avoid counting the paying spouse’s resources already awarded in the property division. The circuit court did so by separating a business’s return on investment from the amounts that the business paid that spouse. But even including return on investment, the circuit court found a negative cash flow that supported a denial of maintenance.  In re the Marriage of: Stacey L. Noble, Appellant, vs. Bradford R. Noble, Respondent. Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87485 February 2026- No action for third-party visitation  Visitation with, and custody of, a child were available to a person unrelated to the child by blood or marriage in a pending action for divorce, separation, or paternity, but not by independent action. The judgment awarding custody when outside a pending action in which custody was not at issue aggrieved the appellant adoptive parent, so the appellant had standing to appeal. The Supreme Court of Missouri entered judgment for the appellant.  In re the matter of: A.L.P. and S.H.P., minors; Alicia Smith, Respondent, vs. Lora Martinez, Appellant.  Supreme Court of Missouri - SC101121 February 2026-Appellant’s brief abandoned theories  The appellant challenged the circuit court’s ruling on the respondent’s income as against the weight of the evidence but failed to include the evidence supporting that finding. The appellant challenged the circuit court’s ruling on child support as a misapplication of the law requiring a downward adjustment for visitation, but no downward adjustment was required when, as here, the appellant did not exercise visitation. The appellant challenged the circuit court’s ruling denying an abatement of child support, alleging that the circuit court excluded supporting evidence, but the record refuted that allegation. Omitting a preservation statement also abandoned review for all but plain error. Plain error’s elements included an obviously erroneous circuit court ruling that resulted in a manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice. The circuit court’s findings favoring the appellant did not support the award but the appellant did not show a manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice. The appellant challenged the circuit court’s ruling on attorney fees as an abuse of discretion but  could not show a manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice, especially having omitted the transcript. M.D.M, Appellant, v. A.W.S., Respondent  Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED113141 January 2026-Status quo ante property division affirmed  “[A]dopting a faulty proposed judgment … may indicate a lack of judicial consideration.” Nevertheless, in actions for dissolution of marriage, circuit courts did not have to divide property evenly. Property division had only to be fair and equitable under circumstances that included the source of funds and marital misconduct. “These factors alone are sufficient to support” a property division that returned the parties to their status quo ante the marriage, and the appellant’s improved post-marriage earning power strengthened that conclusion. The same standards applied to the division of debt. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded the marital residence to the respondent, did not remove the appellant’s name from the mortgage, and ordered the respondent to hold the appellant harmless on that debt.  Alexander Cooper Komes, Appellant, v. Jason Joseph Grote, Respondent  Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED113243 January 2026-One basis for termination of parental rights was enough Arguments not raised in a point relied on were abandoned and rulings not shown in the record were no basis for reversal. A single statutory basis was sufficient to terminate the appellant parent’s parental rights if termination was in the child’s best interests. Any challenge to the circuit court’s findings had to appear in a motion to amend judgment. Even if the parent had met that requirement, the parent would still lose on appeal because clear, cogent, and convincing evidence showed that the children were under the juvenile division’s authority for the appellant parent’s neglect during the last year and that the neglect — caused by drug addiction — continued with no improvement likely. No additional or alternative findings were necessary. The same evidence preponderated in favor of a conclusion that termination was in the children’s best interest. In the Interest of: S.K.J., A.L.L., A.L.L., and A.L., Juveniles; and Juvenile Officer vs. J.B. defendant and A.L. Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD87944 consolidated with WD88052, WD88053, and WD88054 December 2025-Abuse and neglect supported TPR  Because parental rights were fundamental, the Missouri Court of Appeals exercised its discretion in favor of reviewing deficient arguments and performing plain error review. Neither adverse rulings, nor presiding at the trial of multiple actions involving the same persons, overcame the presumption of judicial impartiality and showed bias. Parental rights were subject to termination when, in the child’s best interests, on a finding of specified grounds. Such grounds included abuse and neglect, which the State showed with clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that the appellant parent committed severe and recurrent physical abuse on her children. The circuit court’s findings, including its projections of future events from past events, were not against the weight of de minimis evidence of efforts at reform. Paul W. Bringer, et al., Appellants, v. Stephen Bringer, et al., Respondents. Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113352 December 2025-Party’s interview request did not govern GAL  On motions to modify custody, circuit courts could appoint guardians ad litem, whose duty was to advise the circuit courts on children’s best interests. Guardians ad litem were subject to disqualification on a party’s motion for good cause. Guardians ad litem had the duty to interview the child and “persons having contact with or knowledge of the child in order to ascertain the child’s wishes, feelings, attachments[,] and attitudes.” That language did not require the guardian ad litem to interview anyone for the purpose of impeaching the movant’s adverse party. The circuit court’s denial of a motion to remove the guardian ad litem was not an abuse of discretion, at least not where the movant did not show that the child’s best interest suffered, or what information would have been revealed, and the movant could have called any prospective interviewee as a witness. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of modification.   CRAIG ALLEN RICE, Respondent v. MADASYN SCARLETT, Appellant Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38873 December 2025-No award to non- party  Due process concerns required an opportunity to be heard for any person affected by an award. In an action for dissolution of marriage, a property division required the circuit court to divide the marital property between the spouses, and third parties with an interest in marital property were subject to joinder and could intervene. That did not happen, and the spouses were the only parties, yet the circuit court awarded marital property to a non-party creditor: a trust. That ruling misapplied the law, so the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the action.  In RE the Marriage of: James A. Starke vs. Deborah S. Starke  Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87819 December 2025-Deficiencies in appellant’s brief required dismissal  Rules of appellate practice protected the neutrality of appellate courts. Failures to draft a complete statement of facts, announce a theory reporting reversal, show the preservation of an appealed ruling, and file a controverted exhibit as part of the record on appeal required the Missouri Court of Appeals to dismiss the appeal.  In Re the Marriage of: Elke Gonzales-Flaharty vs. Mathew Flaharty  Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87625 December 2025-Notice was required before ruling on motions  Due process required notice before depriving any person of property. The circuit court gave notice of a hearing on some pending motions, but not other “intertwined” motions regarding maintenance, and then entered judgment on the maintenance motions. “While the circuit court believed it had all of the evidence, a circuit court’s judgment should be based on evidence presented by the parties rather than the circuit court’s speculation regarding the evidence parties might present.” Judicial economy did not prevail over due process so the Missouri Court of Appeals vacated the maintenance rulings and remanded the action.  Sherry L. Thompson, Appellant, v. Anthony Thompson, Respondent.  Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113248 December 2025-Employability thwarted maintenance  The presence of evidence in the record supporting relief for the appellant did not require reversal of a judgment denying that relief when that judgment also had support in the record. Unemployment did not, alone, require an award of maintenance and evidence of employability supported an imputation of income. Factors affecting property division included marital misconduct but extramarital affairs after separation did not require a more unequal division, nor did past alcohol addiction under recovery for the past six years. The circuit court had discretion as to pro-rata payment of a child’s uninsured health expenses. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion when denying a motion to re-open the record for determinations of the Social Security Administration because those determinations were not binding on the circuit court and the evidence supporting the determination was cumulative. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment.  Matthew J. Callow, Respondent, v. Danielle N. Callow, Appellant.  Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113129 December 2025-Postnuptial agreement was invalid  A spouse could waive their interest in marital property by postnuptial agreement. Postnuptial agreements were valid only on conscionable terms, including consideration, and if entered into “freely, fairly, knowingly, understandingly and in good faith and with full disclosure.” Those principles applied whether the property interests were inchoate or vested. The record showed that respondent had no chance to consider, consult counsel, and negotiate. Previous cohabitation in the marital residence did not constitute adequate consideration for waiver of marital rights in that residence. The circuit court did not err in treating the respondent’s waiver as a postnuptial agreement and denying enforcement so the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. Nicole M. Graham, Appellant, v. Douglas E. Graham, Respondent.  Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112970 December 2025-End of custody, end of child support  Absent the adverse party’s request, any motion for continuance had to be in writing with a supporting verification or affidavit, and denial of a motion for failure to comply with those requirements was never an abuse of discretion. And re-opening the record for the appellant’s evidence negated any prejudice. In court-tried cases, reversal for erroneous admission of evidence cumulative of properly admitted evidence was “practically impossible” because the appellants could not show prejudice. Evidence of party statements in settlement negotiations was inadmissible. In determining child custody, the passage of time supported rebuttal testimony to update the circuit court on the child’s best interests. A “breakdown in communication and cooperation alone is sufficient to constitute a change of circumstances warranting the modification of legal custody” and the circuit court applied statutory factors in determining the child’s best interests. The respondent’s motion to custody asked for a corresponding adjustment to respondent’s child support obligation, which supported an end to that obligation when respondent received full sole physical and legal custody, and no finding of inability to pay that obligation was needed to eliminate the obligation. Calling the result “termination” instead of “elimination” did not alter that outcome. Circuit courts could award child support retroactively and the circuit court’s retroactive date was not arbitrary. An amended judgment required more than an expression of intent, and more than granting a motion to amend the judgment, it required the issuance of amended judgment; and when an amended judgment did not issue in time, the judgment was not amended and the motion to amend was overruled by operation of law. The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the judgment on appellant’s child support obligation, as the parties agreed, and otherwise affirmed the judgment.   S.W., Respondent, v. K.H., Appellant.  Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED112541 November 2025-Termination of parental rights affirmed  The appellant’s brief did not comply with rules, but the deficiencies did not impede review and the rights at stake were grave, so the Missouri Court of Appeals did not dismiss the appeal. The appeal did not include a re-weighing of evidence. A motion to amend the judgment was necessary to preserve error as to findings required by statute, and “the plain language of the meticulously detailed ‘factor analysis’ performed by the trial court in its judgment” satisfied that requirement. Circuit courts could terminate parental rights on findings described by statute, including statutory grounds by clear and convincing evidence and the child’s best interest by a preponderance of the evidence, and the same evidence could be relevant to both. And, for both, a finding of a single factor was enough to withstand appellate review. Failure to rectify a dangerous condition had support in evidence showing why the juvenile division assumed and continued authority over the child. The circuit court correctly projected the future from the past. A finding on that ground mooted error as to any other ground. The adequacy of a social service plan was not a defense. A social study investigative report was necessary on the child’s best interest, and was not admissible as to the statutory grounds, but was cumulative of other evidence. And the parent did not preserve that issue or include the report in the record on appeal. Also, parent’s objections to parts of the report could not exclude the whole. The Court of Appeals remanded the action to determine an attorney fees due parent’s appointed counsel.  In the Interest of: K.M.D. and R.M.D. Juvenile Officer vs. S.M.D  Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87912 consolidated with WD87913 October 2025-Change in circumstances supported change in custody  Circuit courts could modify their awards of custody if a substantial change in the child’s or custodian’s circumstances made a modification of custody in the child’s best interests with no presumption favoring a parent. Though modification judgments did not have to include written findings of fact, the judgment addressed the allegations in the motion. Denial of visitation supported modification of custody. On appeal, “Appellants’ failure to address the record is not a winning strategy.”  C.M.L., et al., Appellants, v. S.R.B.-F., Respondent.  Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District – ED113155 August 2025- Contempt order not final  Statutes alone determine whether a party had any right to, and whether an appellate court had authority to hear, an appeal. Appeals were generally possible only from final judgments, which did not describe orders of contempt until enforced. Enforcement of the appellant’s contempt order was by fine, on which the respondent had not attempted to execute, so the order was not subject to appeal. A ruling could also be subject to appeal if the matter ruled on was discrete from other pending matters and a circuit judge certified that there was no just reason for delay. A later order met none of those requirements. The Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal.  Donna J. Scalise, Respondent, vs. William J. Scalise, Appellant.  Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED112945 August 2025- Repentance preserved parental rights  Appellate courts had discretion to review a point relied on that did not comply with appellate rules. To grant a petition for adoption without the parents’ consent required termination of parental rights, which focused on the parent/child relationship. One parent’s relationship with the child remained strong personally despite financial neglect. Neglect did not necessarily constitute abandonment, because abandonment depended on the parent’s intent to abandon, which mere token contacts did not negate. But the circuit found meaningful contact and parental repentance, especially in the six months before the filing of the petition, and that finding had support in the record. That finding barred any grant of the petition and whether the circuit court erred in denying termination of the other parent’s rights was therefore moot. The circuit court denied the petition, and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment.  In the Matter of: K.W.C.B., now legally known as K.W.C.W., a Minor Child; D.S.B. vs. A.L.B. (Mother) and K.W.W., (Father)  Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87594 August 2025- Attorney fee award affirmed   Judgments of contempt were not final until “[a]ctual enforcement — and not the mere threat of enforcement[.]” Enforcement of a fine occurred on execution. No execution had occurred on the judgment appealed, only a withdrawn order of commitment on an earlier judgment, so the Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed the point appealing the contempt judgment. A contempt judgment’s award of attorney fees was, however, subject to appeal because it was not a coercive mechanism. The award was presumptively correct subject to an abuse of discretion that the record did not show. The Court of Appeals affirmed the award.  Renee T. Vaught (a/k/a Renee Lepper, a/k/a Renee Wilde) vs. Shawn Vaught Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87742 August 2025- Termination of parental rights affirmed   The appellant waived review of the social study’s admission into evidence by stating “no objection” and objecting in a motion for new trial was no substitute for a timely objection. Sufficient evidence supported a finding that five out of seven statutory factors showed that termination of parental rights was in the child’s best interest. Abuse of discretion occurred when circuit courts denied motions to re-open the evidence and no inconvenience to the circuit court or disadvantage to any party would have followed, which was usually the case when the motion occurred before judgment. But after judgment, the appellant’s motion to re-open the evidence constituted a great inconvenience to the circuit court and would have been unfair to the respondent county juvenile office. Asking an appellate court to re-weigh the evidence constituted a failure to resolve disputed evidence in favor of the judgment as required for an against-the-weight-of-the-evidence challenge.  IN THE INTEREST OF D.J.Z., a minor child under seventeen years of age, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, CHILDRENS DIVISION, and, CRAWFORD COUNTY JUVENILE OFFICE, Petitioners-Respondent v. D.Z., Respondent-Appellant  Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38618 July 2025- Consent judgment reviewed  For an evidentiary hearing, any error in the appointment of a special master was rendered moot by the parties’ settlement. Parties who received a judgment in accordance as requested were not aggrieved, but that principle assumed that the circuit court acted on the parties’ valid consent. Consent was not valid due to a head injury, the appellant alleged, so the Missouri Court of Appeals reviewed whether the judgment embodying the parties’ settlement was unconscionable. That matter was the subject of the appellant’s motion for new trial, on which the circuit court made a record, on which the circuit court’s findings of fact were due deference in the Court of Appeals. The record supported the rulings, including an award of attorney fees for the respondent. Rulings on untimely motions were void, including an order on an after-trial motion filed more than 30 days after entry of judgment, so the Court of Appeals dismissed the point relied on appealing such a ruling.  Matthew J. Weiss, Respondent, vs. Mary D. Weiss, Appellant.  Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112738 July 2025- Record supported parenting plan  “[G]reater deference than other decisions” was due the rulings of circuit courts on child custody. Child custody decisions were subject to appellate review for abuse of discretion. Abuse of discretion might not occur even when the record did not “clearly preponderate in favor of either parent” so, when the evidence could support a determination for either party, appellate courts affirmed the circuit court’s determination. Factors that guided custody determinations included the parents’ proposals, the child’s relationships and contacts with parents and other family, the child’s adjustment to social settings, relocation issues, and the well-being of all individuals involved. On each factor, substantial evidence supported the circuit court’s rulings, so the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment.  S.P.S., by their next friend, E.W.S., and E.W.S., individually, Respondents, vs. K.A.E., Appellant.  Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED113100 June 2025- Income imputed  Though the appellant’s brief departed from the analysis required for an against-the-weight-of-the-evidence challenge, was deficient as to its statement of facts, and the facts necessary to resolution appeared in respondent’s brief, the Missouri Court of Appeals reached the appeal’s merits. In calculating a party’s income, circuit courts could impute income to a party who voluntarily reduced their earning capacity, and the record supported such imputation to the appellant. In calculating child support, parochial school expenses could not constitute basic obligations but could constitute extraordinary education expenses, if a party showed an educational need. No educational need appeared in the record, merely one party’s preference, so the Court of Appeals reversed the award as to parochial school tuition. Jennifer J. McKenna vs. Steven E. McKenna  Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87213 June 2025- Child support amount must stand on record  Circuit courts that rejected the parties’ Form 14s had to prepare their own Form 14s based on the record. Circuit court-drafted Forms 14 were presumptively correct subject to a finding that they are “unjust or inappropriate[.]” The circuit court made a record on the amount of child support due. Based on that record, the circuit court rejected the parties’ Form 14s and drafted its own Form 14. It then rejected its own Form 14, without any finding that any amount was unjust or inappropriate, and entered an amount in accordance with an interlocutory order four years old. That ruling constituted a misapplication of law, so the Missouri Court of Appeals entered judgment awarding child support in accordance with the circuit court’s Form 14.  C.A.W., Respondent, vs. N.K.D., Appellant.  Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District – ED112725 June 2025- Income imputed, calculations explained Circuit courts could impute income to parties whom the courts found underemployed. Such a finding had support in a party’s resignation from, and abandonment, of a lucrative career in favor of self-employment. A property division awarding assets 58/42 was not an abuse of discretion, and the circuit court correctly calculated maintenance and support, in that order. Joy Janelle McVean, Respondent, vs. Anthony David McVean, Appellant. Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District - ED112557 June 2025- Termination of parental relationship affirmed   Grounds for termination of parental rights included failure to rectify the conditions that required state action. That ground had support in evidence of inconsistent compliance with a service plan, especially as to unsafe and unsanitary household conditions despite extra ordinary agency support, and irreversible mental impairment. Grounds for termination of parental rights also included unfitness to parent, of which a presumption arose when the child had spent a specified amount of time in foster care, bolstered by evidence of household conditions and child’s ingestion of marijuana. The state showed the child’s best interest was in termination of parental rights with evidence of that there was no parent/child bond and parent’s disinterest during visits. The circuit court did not err in denying a parent’s motion to re-open the record solely as a back-up strategy when the parent’s primary strategy failed.  In the Interest of: S.R.W.  Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED87157 May 2025- Sole physical custody affirmed  Joint physical custody with equivalent parenting time was presumed to be in the best interests of the children, subject to specified factors. Evidence relevant to such factors included appellant’s paranoiac and controlling behavior, removal from family contacts including appellant’s side, and threats of dilatory legal tactics. Relevant evidence of abuse was not limited to violence against the children but included abuse against respondent, which was especially probative when it occurred in the children’s presence. The circuit court’s award of sole physical custody to respondent did not misapply the law and was not against the weight of the evidence. In Re: The Marriage of Brian L. Campbell vs. Shelbie E. Campbell  Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87402 May 2025- Texas orders did not require dismissal of Missouri motion to modify child support  The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act presumed that the first state to adjudicate child custody or support retained continuing and exclusive authority over those matters, subject to orders from and discussions with courts of another state, which other states could enforce pending final judgment. Under that law, a Texas court order temporarily modifying child custody supported the circuit court’s dismissal of movant’s motions for access and contempt. Holding otherwise “would create the possibility of inconsistent enforcement of the Texas Order and subvert the purpose of the [act] ‘to avoid jurisdictional competition and conflict.’” But the act did not govern child support, so the Texas orders did not support dismissal of movant’s motion to modify child support, and the circuit court erred in dismissing the motion to modify child support.  Jennifer L. Schutter vs. Paul J. Seibold Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD86995 May 2025- No support for educational expense award   Judgment on a motion to modify a parenting plan and child support was subject to review for abuse of discretion. No abuse of discretion occurred when the circuit court rejected appellant’s challenge to the presumed child support amount based on additional travel expenses because the judgment showed that the circuit court generally considered all the evidence and specifically considered travel expenses. The presumed child support amount covered a child’s ordinary living expenses, including education, and any further award of expenses had to be extraordinary. Zero dollars was the circuit court’s finding as to extraordinary expenses, so an additional award for educational expenses was duplicative, and the Court of Appeals reversed that award.  Jonathan Hereth vs. Brandy Hereth  Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87174 April 2025- Third-party visitation affirmed  The non-waivable nature of subject matter jurisdiction issues like standing means that a party may challenge the standing once but may still waive it later. Visitation with and custody of a child were available to a person unrelated to the child by blood or marriage. Such an award was available by independent action on grounds that included having acted a primary parent, unfitness of the primary custodian, and the child’s best interest and welfare. When a proposed judgment came before a circuit court, and the parties agreed to it, the circuit court could enter it as a consent judgment. Consent described the parties’ visitation schedule but the judgment was otherwise subject to the circuit court’s review of and determinations on the parties’ filings. The Missouri Court of Appeals denied respondent’s motion for sanctions because respondent’s argument were not frivolous, just unsuccessful. In Re the Matter of: A.L.P. and S.H.P., Minors; Alicia Smith vs. Lora Martinez  Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87406 consolidated with WD87522 April 2025- No notice of right to appointed counsel was necessary  Constitutional provisions gave appellant parent the right to appointed counsel when parental rights were at stake. In an action to terminate parental rights, statutes required notice of the right to appointed counsel. Appellant received no notice of the right to appointed counsel and received no appointed counsel until after judgment was final. Appointed counsel then preserved the matter of notice for appellate review by raising it at the first opportunity. But appellant was not party to an action to terminate parental rights; appellant was party to an action for adoption without parental consent because of abandonment. That action had the effect of terminating parental rights, but no statute required notice to appellant of the right to counsel. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment.  IN THE INTEREST OF A.D.S.: N.A.W., Respondent vs. R.L.S., II, Appellant  Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38621 April 2025- Counsel not shown ineffective   In an earlier action, the juvenile division found appellant biological parent guilty of neglecting child, and parent did not appeal that judgment. That finding rendered parent’s consent unnecessary in a later action by respondent guardians to adopt child and, in effect, terminate parent’s parental rights. In an action to terminate parental rights, parent had the right to appointed counsel. Appointed counsel had to be “effective in providing his [or her] client with a meaningful hearing based on the record.” The record on appeal from the later judgment did not include documents from the earlier action even if included in an appendix to the record on appeal from the later judgment. Parent included those documents to show that the earlier judgment was jurisdictionally flawed because he received no notice of the action as the putative father. But parent’s biological fatherhood was revealed only at the end of the earlier action, so no such notice was due in the earlier action. And, even if notice was due in the earlier action, a challenge to the earlier judgment in the later action would have constituted a collateral attack on the earlier judgment. For those reasons, arguments related to the earlier judgment would have been meritless arguments that trial counsel need never make to be effective. To be ineffective meant that trial counsel was effectively absent, which the record of trial counsel’s rebutted, with trial counsel’s examination and cross-examination of witnesses on the allegations in dispute in the later action. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment granting the respondent guardians’ adoption of child.  IN THE MATTER OF A.R.H., a minor, J.M.J. and B.L.N.J., Respondents vs. E.R.T., Jr., Appellant Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38536 March 2025- No Set Format for Considering Custody Factors Statutory factors guiding contested awards of child custody included any history of abuse and adjustment to school. During elementary school attendance over the course of four years, child received inappropriate touches from fellow students twice. The circuit court set forth its consideration of those incidents, did not have to give appellant’s testimony more weight than it did, and did not have to set forth that consideration under the factors of abuse and adjustment to school. The circuit court denied the motion to modify child custody and the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. In Re: The Marriage of J.J., Petitioner-Appellant v. D.J., Respondent-Respondent Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD38576 March 2025- Termination of parental rights affirmed  Substantial evidence showed that that appellant had failed to rectify the circumstances that brought appellant’s children into the circuit court’s authority more than a year before, and the circuit court found that evidence clear, cogent, and convincing. The evidence included: incomplete parenting education, counseling, and substance abuse treatment; unstable home and employment; and failure to communicate with Children’s Division and visit children. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the best interests of the children favored termination of parental rights. The circuit court terminated appellant’s parental rights and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment.    In the Interest of L.M.S. & L.S.S., Minors.  Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112602 and ED112603 March 2025- No right to appear at trial The absence of a written motion was sufficient grounds to deny a continuance. No continuance was necessary to permit appellant’s appearance when released from jail because “A party has no constitutional or statutory right to appear in person at a civil trial. It is well settled that a prisoner is not entitled to perfect access to the courts; an incarcerated person is entitled to meaningful access. This right of access is satisfied by the presence of sufficient alternatives to a personal appearance when the prisoner makes a timely request” Zealous counsel, with whom appellant had met during a previous continuance, sufficed as an alternative to a personal appearance at trial. A challenge to a judgment as against the weight of the evidence required consideration of all evidence supporting the judgment, which appellant omitted. The circuit court’s finding that termination of appellant’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest had support in evidence that appellant failed to visit the children consistently and provide support during foster care. “When a parent refuses ‘to cooperate with and fail[s] to progress in services offered, the court may find that additional services would be useless.’” In the Interest of K.G.K. and A.R.K., MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, CHILDREN'S DIVISION, Respondent v. S.J.K., Appellant Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD38474 and SD38654 March 2025- Maintenance re-calculated  One party’s transfer of assets into a trust with the other spouse’s property raised a presumption of transmutation from separate to marital property, which required clear and convincing evidence to rebut, which the appellant did not offer. In calculating maintenance, the circuit court erred in reducing the respondent’s income by gross income by itemized deductions and Child Tax Credit. In calculating the appellant’s liability for child support, Form 14 prescribed a three-year income average, but allowed departure from that standard, and the circuit court did not err in using a four-year average. That average supported including private school tuition in child support. Judgment reversed and remanded for the circuit court to order maintenance and child support in amounts as found by the Missouri Court of Appeals.  Melissa M. Carter, Respondent, vs. Drew B. Carter, Appellant.  Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED112335 February 2025- Income evidence was stale  Maintenance was due for parties with insufficient property to support their reasonable needs without employment. The award of maintenance was not against the weight of the evidence because the evidence showed that reasonable expenses were greater than current income. But the circuit court awarded child support on evidence that did not reflect current earning capacity so that award was against the weight of the evidence. A physical custody award less than three out of 14 days did not constitute joint physical custody, but that award had support in the evidence that favored one parent with five out of eight statutory factors, the remaining factors favoring neither party. The circuit court did not err in finding that relocation of the parties’ children was in good faith and in the children’s best interest and designating the relocating parent’s address for educational purposes. The Missouri Court of Appeals remanded the action for the circuit court to characterize custody as sole custody and re-calculate child support using current information.  CLAIRE S. WILKERSON, Respondent v. CLAY M. WILKERSON, Appellant  Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38454 February 2025- No action for non-paternity  A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim tested only whether the petition’s allegations described facts on which the law offered relief. The Uniform Parentage Act allowed challenges to an affidavit of paternity based on material mistake of fact. The elements included evidence not considered before a judgment of paternity, which the petition negated: The plaintiff alleged that he knew, before signing the affidavit of child’s paternity, that the plaintiff was not the child’s father. The court did not err in dismissing the petition.  C.M.G., Petitioner/Appellant, vs. B.M.C., Respondent/Respondent, O.R.C., Minor, and State of Missouri, Dept. of Social Services, Family Support Division, Respondent/Respondent. Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED112716 February 2025- Child support payment affirmed  In an action to determine child support due, the record supported the calculations of the Missouri Family Services Division, including the division’s correction of its earlier error. The record also showed that the appellant obligor had counted Kansas payments twice. Therefore, the circuit court did not err in affirming the division’s decision.    Bryan L. Oliver vs. Lindsay King, F/K/A Lindsay Oliver, State of Missouri, Department of Social Services, Family Support Division  Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87471 February 2025- Good cause was no defense to civil contempt  Parties were liable for civil contempt on proof that they failed to meet an obligation imposed by a decree of dissolution of marriage. The circuit court found that the obligor’s failure to pay child support was willful and contumacious but also found that the obligor had good cause. Good cause applied to actions for failure to pay child support, not to actions for civil contempt. The earliest that a circuit court could order a retroactive modification of child support was the date on which the responding party received personal service of a motion to modify filed in Missouri, not the motion to modify filed in Kansas. The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the judgment as to the retroactive date and reconsideration of civil contempt and an award of attorney fees in the contempt action.  Jon P. Whitton vs. Heather A. Whitton (NKA Peterson)  Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD86940 consolidated with WD86952 January 2025-Joint legal custody required  Appellant’s briefing violations did not impede appellate review so the Missouri Court of Appeals denied respondent’s motion to dismiss the appeal. Statutory grounds for dissolution of marriage included a finding that the marriage was irretrievably broken, which the record supported with a “prolonged history of discord[.]” But that finding did not require an award of sole legal custody, and the record showed a “commonality of belief in parenting decisions” that supported an award of joint custody as favored by statute. The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the judgment as to sole legal custody and remanded the action for the circuit court to enter a judgment for joint legal custody.  Deborah S. Thornburg, Respondent, vs. James T. Thornburg, Appellant.  Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED112178 January 2025- Parenting time was “approximately equal” For child custody, statutes established a presumption favoring “approximately equal parenting time to each parent[.]” That presumption did not require a 50-50 split, and the standard remained the child’s best interest, which depended on the circumstances before the circuit court. The circuit court applied that standard to the facts, as the circuit court found them, and consistently with its credibility determinations. Contrary evidence was not relevant on appeal, even though appellant was a physician. “[A]n expert’s opinion is not entitled to more weight, as a matter of law, than a lay witness’s testimony or even any weight at all[.]” Frank Chan vs. Elizabeth Chan Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD87136 December 2024- Custody award and property division affirmed  Circuit court determinations on child custody were due even more deference than determinations in other cases. In determining custody, circuit courts had to apply factors set out by statute for determining the child’s best interests, but only as made applicable by the evidence, and did not have to discuss factors not at issue. The circuit court’s “meticulous” findings of fact addressed the applicable factors. The record showed that the circuit court carefully weighed the evidence and its judgment was not against the weight of the evidence. The record supported a range of valuations for the parties’ real property ands the circuit court’s chosen amount was within that range.  Aylicia D. Mickow, Appellant, vs. Cody F. Mickow, Respondent  Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District – ED111927 December 2024- Grandparent lacked standing to seek visitation  In an action for guardianship, one statutory subsection set forth factors for ruling, but the circuit court applied factors for ruling on custody. The Missouri Court of Appeals remanded the action to apply the correct factors to claims for co-guardianship and co-conservatorship. The circuit court also awarded visitation to a grandparent. Grandparents had standing to move for visitation only as the statutes provided: when denied reasonable visitation for a prescribed period, with one of several other specified facts. The movant did not show either element. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment as to granting visitation.  In the Matter of: G.H.,  Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112324 November 2024- Joint custody reversed  In an action for paternity, the statutes favored joint custody, in which the parents confer with one another and make decisions together. When the circuit court found that “To date, neither parent has demonstrated a willingness to communicate with the other parent or to involve the other parent in the child’s life[,]” and found the parents unable “to co-parent without disputes and the complaints from both parents regarding the behavior of the other parent during exchanges and in the child’s presence at doctor appointments[,]” awarding joint custody was an abuse of discretion. Evidence supporting a change to the child’s surname included evidence that the child already had two middle names, so a hyphenated surname would be cumbersome, and the parties’ earlier agreement that the child would bear the father’s surname. Objections to notice of the name change and Form 14 calculations, not made in circuit court, are unavailable on appeal. Evidence that the special-needs child was “well-adjusted and thriving” in the child’s current school supported assigning the father’s address to the child over the mother’s, especially when the mother wanted to move to North Carolina. Ron Elliott Irving, Individually, and I.D.A.A., Minor Child, by Next Friend, Ron Elliott Irving vs. Jenny Anne Angstrom  Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD86648 November 2024- Termination of parental rights affirmed  Statutes allowed termination of parental rights on facts described by statute and the children’s best interests. The statutory grounds included failure to rectify the conditions that brought the children into circuit court, which the state showed with evidence that the parent had a chemical dependency that she refused to treat, and that disabled the parent from parenting. Facts relevant to the children’s best interest included parent’s irregular visits, spending on chemicals instead of children, failure to follow a plan of correction, children’s distress during visits with the parent, and parent/child role reversal. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment terminating parental rights.  In the Interest of A.D.G. and B-J.J.  Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112626 November 2024- Paternity judgment changed child’s surname  No presumption assigned either parent’s name to a child born outside of marriage. Statute governing paternity actions authorized circuit court to make any order on “[a]ny matter in the best interest of the child.” That included changing the child’s name. Factors guiding circuit court’s exercise of discretion included local custom, comfort, and fostering a relationship with parents bearing the same name. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the child to bear a hyphenated surname composed of the parents’ surnames.  In Re the Matter of: H.G., By Their Next Friend, K.B., and K.B., Individually vs. C.G.  Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD86704 October 2024- Time in foster care supported termination of parental rights  Statutes allowed termination of parental rights, if in a child’s best interests, on proof of a statutory ground. The statutes provided multiple grounds for terminating parental rights but only one was necessary. Grounds for terminating parental rights included parental unfitness, which the statute presumed if the child had spent a specified amount of time in foster care. That included foster care resulting from parent’s incarceration, though the incarceration was not per se cause for terminating parental rights, depending on the effect on the child. The circuit court did not err in finding that time in foster care allowed termination of parental rights. As to whether termination of parental rights was in the child’s best interests, the statutes provided multiple factors to determine, of which any one supported termination. Therefore, so a challenge to less than all factors found left unchallenged factors supporting termination, requiring affirmation of the judgment terminating parental rights.  In the Interest of Z.R.L.C., GREENE COUNTY JUVENILE OFFICE, Respondent vs. C.R.A.W., Appellant  Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38520 October 2024- Record had to be re-opened for required documents   In an action for adoption, the most important factor was the child’s best interest, and statutes informed that determination by requiring investigations and the filing of reports. On a motion to re-open the record, the moving party’s lack of diligence was grounds for denying the motion. Incomplete and stale compliance show that no independent determination occurred and could not support a judgment. Post-judgment compliance was irrelevant. The circuit court abused its discretion by denying a motion to re-open the record for the filing of required reports. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment and remanded the action with the abjuration that an adoption proceeding’s primary purpose is not to litigate paternity.  In the Matter of M.D.P., a minor., Respondent, vs. T.P., Appellant.  Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED112029 October 2024-Self-employed income discussed A rule specifically preserved the right to enter a limited appearance without waiving any challenge to personal jurisdiction. The defendant entered a limited appearance to challenge personal jurisdiction via a motion to dismiss so, even though the circuit court denied that motion, a later motion did not waive that challenge. After multiple issuances of summonses and multiple attempts at service, service of process occurred within the time required by rule from the issuance of the respective summons. That date set the earliest time for retroactive abatement of child support for failure to send documentation on higher education. Such abatement was within the circuit court’s discretion, which the circuit court did not abuse. Pre-trial proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law did not constitute a request for written findings of fact and conclusions of law; and, even if it did, the judgment was sufficiently detailed to avoid prejudice. Any error in denial of discovery on financial information was invited when the parties agreed as to which financial information to use. A party who agreed to a transfer of property could not appeal it and, even if that party could appeal, no prejudice occurred where the transferred property remained dedicated to the agreed purpose. The merits of such transfer was “outside the record.” Rule included the form for calculating child support, including imputation of income, to which a comment allowed judicial notice of specified published statistics. The circuit court did not err in calculating income for a self-employed parent. Stale evidence could not support a finding on income, but the record showed that an old loan application went only to impeachment and was not substantive evidence. Expanding the record was impossible once an appeal started. Evita Tolu, Appellant, vs. Robert J. Stientjes, Respondent. Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED112115 October 2024-“Deteriorating” mental health supported change in custody  Deficiencies in appellant’s brief supported dismissal of the appeal but the respondent’s statement of facts made a review on the merits possible. In an action for dissolution of marriage, after an initial custody determination, statutes allowed a modification of custody. The elements of a motion to modify custody included a change in circumstances, including facts unknown at the initial determination. “When deciding a physical custody modification, the court only considers changes related to the custodial parents’ abilities to care for the children.” That included a party’s mental health issues because that party did not comply with treatment, the severity of the party’s mental illness was increasing, and the mental illness constituted a threat to the children’s health. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment modifying custody.  Scott Lavery vs. Rebecca Lavery  Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD86668 September 2024-Grandparent intervention was an unconditional right Grandparent filed motion to modify the parenting plan and a timely motion to intervene on the issue of visitation. Rule required a circuit court to grant any timely motion to intervene on the issue of visitation filed by a grandparent. Nevertheless, the circuit court denied the motion to intervene based on the merits of the motion to modify without an evidentiary hearing. The Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court. IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF BRITTANY M. SMITH, Respondent v. PATRICK A. SMITH, Respondent and GOLDIA M. KRANAWETTER, Proposed Intervenor/Appellant Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD38151 August 2024-Attorneys-in-fact gained termination of parental rights The petitioners were a parent’s attorney-in-fact and sued to terminate a parent’s parental rights in connection with adoption. Statute allows an attorney-in-fact to exercise care, custody, and control on a parent’s behalf but not to consent to parental termination of parental rights on that parent’s behalf. That statute was irrelevant to the judgment terminating the defendant’s parental rights because consent did not include petitioning, and the termination stood on evidence of neglect on the record. In the Interest of A.J.C.: L.E.R. and L.C.R. vs. A.J.C. Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD86706 August 2024-Unauthorized adoption statute construed Statute barring unauthorized adoption forbad the surrender or transfer of a child’s custody without court order but did not bar a parent from placing their child with someone if the parent retained custody. The defendant and defendant’s parents lived together. The defendant left their child with the defendant’s parents with instructions to keep the child safe. Those facts did not show a surrender or transfer of custody from the defendant to the defendant’s parents. The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the child’s conviction. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. CHAZ D. LEWIS, Appellant Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD37815 August 2024-Change in circumstances must be substantial to modify custody, not parenting plan On a motion to modify an order of child custody, the governing statute required movant to show a “change has occurred in the circumstances of the child or his custodian and that the modification is necessary to serve the best interests of the child.” as to any provision except physical and legal custody. As to legal and physical custody, case law required movant to show the change in circumstances was “substantial.” Health care decisions could be “allocated, apportioned, or decreed” in one parent without altering physical and legal custody. Therefore, no substantial change in circumstances was necessary to modify provisions on visitation or provisions on health care decisions, only a change in circumstances. The circuit erred in applying a higher standard to the motion than authorized by statute, so the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment, and remanded it for a determination under the statutory standard. BRANDON SCHIESSWOHL, Appellant v. BOBBI SPAIN, Respondent Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD38173 July 2024-Squandering found In an action for dissolution of marriage, the circuit court had to divide marital property, which it had to value, and such valuation included squandered marital assets. The accusing party had the burden of persuasion but, on a “relatively low” prima facie showing of squandering, the accused party had the burden of production: to show where the assets were, or that the assets went to marital liabilities and reasonable living expenses. The circuit court’s determination of credibility were due deference on appeal. And appellant did not claim that the property division was inequitable, which abandoned the matter. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. LEROY F. GILBERT, Respondent v. ANDREA D. CHRISMER-STILL, Appellant Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD37929 July 2024-Parties mutually breached settlement agreement In an action for dissolution of marriage, a settlement agreement incorporated into a judgment constituted a contract. Evidence of a breach did not constitute a collateral attack on the judgment. The parties’ breach of their obligation under a contract deprived the contract of consideration so, in a probate action, the circuit court did not err in refusing to enforce the agreement. Deborah Pagoria, Appellant, vs. Jerrold Pagoria, Personal Representative of the Estate of Nick S. Pagoria, Respondent. Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED111518 June 2024-Award of Sole Custody Inconsistent  In a bench trial, appellant must preserve any point on appeal by presentation to the circuit court in some manner but not necessarily in a post-trial motion. Rule on a motion to amend judgment related only to the form, language, or omission of findings in a judgment; not to errors of law. A judgment could order a change in parenting time on the occurrence of a future event only if the event was definite and unconditional, like the child entering school or reaching the age for statutorily compulsory school attendance, so a remand was necessary to specify such an event. The resulting change in parenting time did not change the award of joint physical custody into sole physical custody. On the occurrence of that event, the judgment could also order an accompanying change in child support. The judgment purported to award sole legal custody, but included so much authority for the non-custodial parent that it looked more like joint legal custody, resulting in an internally inconsistent judgment that required reversal and remand. Form 14 distinguished child-rearing expenses as ordinary or extraordinary, and the commingling of ordinary expenses with extraordinary expenses was error, requiring reversal and remand. An award of attorney fees did not constitute an abuse of discretion.  J.W., Juvenile by her next friend K.C.G. and K.C.G. Individually as next friend for J.W. vs. N.R.W.  Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD86515  May 2024-Attorney fees discussed To show that departure from the technicalities of a local rule constituted reversible error, appellant had to show that the departure “materially affecting the merits of the action.” As to a motion to withdraw by appellant’s attorney, the record showed no opposition by appellant until a verified motion for new trial, which the circuit court was free to disbelieve. Substantial evidence supporting an award of attorney fees was not confined to ability to pay and included conduct during the marriage and in litigation. In a dissolution of marriage, when a party seeks maintenance, the circuit court must determine whether that party can meet their reasonable needs through property, separate and divided marital, and employment. The circuit court erred in finding that appellant did not seek maintenance, so the Missouri Court of Appeals remands the judgment to resolve that matter. Shawn Bitters vs. Darryl Olive Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD86502 May 2024-Pleadings struck Constitutional language stated that circuit courts have plenary subject jurisdiction, so defects in pleading affect only circuit court authority. In an action for dissolution of marriage, statutes required the circuit court to determine custody of all unmarried minor children, which pleadings partially resolved by identifying child. The pleadings contested custody, visitation, and support; which gave the court authority to determine those issues and appoint a guardian ad litem. Rules governing discovery provided for sanctions, including striking pleadings, and service of a motion for such sanctions constituted notice that the sanction could happen. A complete disregard of the circuit court’s discovery orders supported striking the pleadings. A re-assigned circuit judge had authority to modify and execute any such order. Rule governing continuances requires a motion in writing, absent which no denial is an abuse of discretion. Stephen C. Kronk vs. Aleek J.C. Awan Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD86233 May 2024-Maintenance modification reversed Statute provided modification of maintenance only for unknown and unforeseeable “changed circumstances so substantial and continuing as to make” the current maintenance unreasonable. Such circumstances included a relationship in substitute for marriage, by permanency and financial co-dependence, that equitably constitute abandonment of maintenance. The circuit court’s findings, supported by the record, show no financial benefit to obligee defendant respondent. Nothing required a party to consume assets for an award or continuing receipt of maintenance, and the circuit court’s findings on that matter had no support in the record. Imputed income and speculative returns on assets awarded in the dissolution action were not unknown and unforeseeable. An abuse of discretion occurs when a circuit court omits judicial consideration, including the adoption of “a faulty proposed judgment[.]” The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the judgm ent modifying maintenance and awarding attorney fees. Carol Cullen, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, vs. Robert Bernstein, Appellant. Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED111233 May 2024- Investigation and social study conducted as ordered In an action to terminate parental rights, a statute mandated the circuit court to order an investigation and study. The circuit court first issued five orders, one for each of the five children, by the Children’s Division Ozark County office. The circuit court then issued a sixth order for all five children by the Children’s Division without restriction. The report submitted did not comply with the first five orders. But the report complied with the sixth order. “Mother presents no challenge to the [sixth order], or argument that [the] preparation of the report was not responsive therewith.” The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of termination. IN THE INTEREST OF A.R.S., J.D.S., J.E.S., L.K.S., and T.E.S., MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, CHILDREN'S DIVISION, Respondent vs. G.D.S., Appellant Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD38292, SD38293, SD38294, SD38295, and SD38296 Consolidated May 2024- Termination of parental rights affirmed Appellant raised issues on appeal not raised in circuit court, so there was no record on which to review them, even for plain error. Even if the juvenile office and Wayne County Children’s Division offered no services to appellant, those facts do not constitute circuit court error. Having affirmed one ground for termination, and one ground for termination being sufficient to affirm the judgment, the remaining point was moot, and the Missouri Court of Appeals chose not to reach it. Challenging only one of several findings on the children’s best interests leaves the unchallenged findings as support the circuit court’s conclusions on the children’s best interests. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. IN THE INTEREST OF M.L.P. and M.R.P., WAYNE COUNTY CHILDREN'S DIVISION, Respondent vs. A.N.B., Appellant  Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD38069 April 2024-Child’s best interest prevails over stipulation In an action for dissolution of marriage, the circuit court has a duty to independently determine provisions of custody and visitation according to the child’s best interests and may do so without regard for the parties’ agreement. On the morning of trial, appellant offered to settle for custody and visitation on the terms set forth in respondent’s petition three years before, but the circuit court heard evidence anyway and issued judgment with different provisions accordingly. Derek Maxwell, Respondent, vs. Christina Maxwell, Appellant. Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED111647 April 2024-Uniform parentage act analyzed A partial judgment became final and subject to appeal on voluntary dismissal without prejudice of unadjudicated claims. The Missouri Uniform Parentage Act provided a procedure for determining parentage, including cases of adoption or same-sex couples, and was gender-neutral. For artificial insemination, the Act also set forth a procedure for generating and maintaining records of parentage, but departure from that procedure did not negate parentage. The Act set forth how to raise presumptions, resolve conflicting presumptions, and rebut presumptions. The Act also provided that a blood test was conclusive as to non-parentage, but not as to parentage, so other evidence was relevant to parentage. “[S]uch evidence included the knowing and intelligent agreements entered into between [parties and donors]; that Respondent had been held out to the Children and the world as the natural parent of the Children, and actively participated in raising them as a parent; and that [donors] never had parenting time with the Children, were never involved in decision-making concerning the Children, and were never asked to provide emotional, financial or physical support of the Children.” That analysis led the circuit court to conclude that both parties were “natural” parents and genetic donors were not. In Re the Matter of: A.I.A.K. & E.H.K. by S.A.K. as Next Friend and S.A.K. Individually vs. T.M.K., M.L.K., R.J.R. Missouri Court of Appeals. Western District - WD86240 and WD86241 consolidated March 2024-Stale valuation requires remand for recalculations In an action for dissolution of marriage, when dividing property, the circuit court was required to value property as of the time of trial, unless the property division occurred later than reasonably proximate to trial, which could necessitate another hearing. Seventeen months was not reasonably proximate and increased the value of a 401(k) substantially. The court of appeals remands the action to circuit court for proceedings on property division and consequent ruling on maintenance. JEANETTE PICKENS, Petitioner-Appellant v. JAMES EDWARD PICKENS, Respondent-Respondent Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD37791 March 2024-Parental rights not terminated In an action to terminate parental rights, the juvenile officer had the burden of proof, and the respondent had no burden of proof, so a judgment for respondent needed no support in substantial evidence, though substantial evidence did support the judgment. The judgment could terminate parental rights only on grounds pleaded in the petition, so the circuit court did not err in denying termination on grounds not pleaded, and the circuit court’s application of the facts to the law negated any showing of prejudice. Events after the petition’s filing date were relevant and substantial evidence supported the circuit court’s finding that the circumstances alleged in the petition had changed. That conclusion mooted appellate review of whether termination was in the child’s best interests. In the Interest of: K.A.L.; Juvenile Officer vs. H.L. Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD86314 Consolidated Case: WD86374 March 2024- Marital debt adjusted Substantial evidence supported a finding that a payment to the parties was a loan and not a gift. Evidence that each party could earn enough to support their child rebutted the presumed child support amount. Statutes require a substantially equal division of marital property and debt, absent statutory factors, of which the record contains no evidence. Rule allows an appellate court to render the judgment that the circuit court should have, so the Court of Appeals adjusts the assignment of a marital debt equally between the parties. Katey L. Gipson, Respondent, vs. Joseph L. Gipson, Appellant. Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District - ED111391  March 2024- Child support: Only agency addresses arrearage, courts address modification only When the statutes committed a matter to an executive branch agency, the statutory procedures included a hearing, which constituted administrative remedies that a party must exhaust before judicial review of the agency decision. To decide arrearages in past child support, statutes mandated one procedure, which was an action initiated before an agency. To decide modifications of future child support, statutes permitted two options: an action initiated before an agency, or an action initiated in circuit court. None of those procedures were interchangeable. When an action to modify was pending before the agency, obligor defaulted, and obligor did not seek judicial review of the resulting default decision. “[Obligor’s] failure to use the administrative framework provided to challenge the [default decision] preclude[d] judicial review of any challenge to [the default decision].” While the agency action was pending, obligor filed a motion to modify in circuit court. The circuit court eventually stayed enforcement of the eventual default decision, but the obligor’s motion to modify in circuit court did not constitute a petition for judicial review of the default decision because, no hearing and decision had occurred, when obligor filed the motion to modify. Obligor voluntarily dismissed the motion to modify in circuit court, which lifted the stay. On the agency’s motion, the circuit court issued a judgment determining that obligor’s child support obligation was as decided in the default decision. Because the circuit court did not have any authority to alter past amounts accrued under the default order, and obligor abandoned efforts to modify future amounts by dismissing the motion to modify in circuit court, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. STATE OF MISSOURI, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES KIMBERLY LEAVELL, Respondents v. ERIC ADAMS, Appellant Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD38023 March 2024-Substitute for marriage not shown  Maintenance could be decretal: determined by the circuit court’s judgment and enforced like any other judgment; or contractual: by the parties’ contract not incorporated into the judgment and enforced by an action in contract; or a separation agreement decretal maintenance: contracted and incorporated into the judgment. “This hybrid is decretal for purposes of enforcement and contractual for purposes of modification.” That describes the parties’ maintenance provisions. Statutes allowed the parties to make a separation agreement providing that maintenance was non-modifiable, even by circuit court, and incorporating such a provision into a judgment barred the circuit from modifying maintenance. Maintenance on such a judgment terminated only on death or remarriage of the receiving party, or the receiving party’s equivalent of re-marriage. Equivalent of re-marriage refers to a degree of permanence, financial support, and holding out as “man and wife.” On those matters, the record supported the circuit court’s rulings: that the relationship did not afford respondent the protections of marriage, respondent and respondent’s partner were respectively economically self-sustaining, and that the relationship was not the equivalent of re-marriage. The circuit court did not err in denying appellant’s motion to terminate maintenance. Appellant showed no authority to procure discovery of records from non-parties and no prejudice from the denial of such discovery. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in ordering appellant to pay a portion of respondent’s attorney fees.  Kristen L. Main, Respondent, vs. Donet C. Main, Appellant, and Ethan Main, Intervenor.  Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District - ED111716 February 2024-Termination of parental rights affirmed In an action to terminate parental rights, the elements include a statutory ground for termination and a “finding that termination is in the child’s best interest [, which] is a subjective assessment based on the totality of the circumstances.” The circumstances relevant to both elements can be the same. The circuit court’s findings on the child’s best interest had support in evidence that appellant parent, not the State, prevented a relationship between parent and child. Such evidence included parent’s inability to care for herself and failure to attempt any relationship during three years of foster care. Reasonable efforts at reunification by the Division of Children’s Services are not a promise of visitation or reunification, and statutes bar returning a child to a parent who has sexually abused the child. In the Interest of: B.K.B.; Juvenile Officer vs. D.M.G. Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD86407 February 2024-Findings on child’s best interest explained In an action to terminate parental rights, statutes required the State to show a statutory ground for termination and required the circuit court to make written findings of fact on those grounds. The statutes also required the State to show that termination was in the child’s best interests according to statutory factors and required the circuit court to make written findings of fact on those factors. The statutes further set forth policy considerations to guide statutory construction but did not require the circuit court’s written findings of fact on the child’s best interests to address those policy considerations. Because no such findings were required, the circuit court did not err in omitting such findings from its judgment.  In the Interest of: E.R.; Children's Division vs. A.G. Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD86297 February 2024-Must consider childcare costs on Form 14 Rule requires circuit court to calculate child support via Form 14, which requires consideration of a custodial parent’s child-care expenses necessitated by work or school. That rule also allows omission of such expense if supported by findings of fact. Circuit court ordered each parent to bear their own child-care expenses, but entered no amount, and made no findings of fact supporting that omission. Only one party appealed the judgment, but the Court of Appeals remans the judgment for additional findings of fact on child-care expenses of both parties. Matter of: M.D.P.-W., a Minor, by B.N.W., as Next Friend, and B.N.W. vs. M.P. Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD86394 January 2024-Visitation enforced by order for family access Statutes governing custody and visitation require a custodial parent to provide notice of relocation, which no party can prevent, and requires no court approval if unopposed. Any party may seek to revise visitation, but no revision occurs automatically on relocation even if proposed in the notice. Judgment awarded custodial authority to grandmother during visitation without affecting mother’s sole custody. Statutes governing visitation authorize a circuit court to enforce its judgment through specified remedies. Those remedies include contempt. An order of contempt is final when enforced, which ordinarily means a fine or incarceration, but the statutes provide other enforcement mechanisms. Those enforcement mechanisms include compensatory time, a judgment for which is final when the compensatory time occurs. That event started the time for filing a notice of appeal, and appellant’s notice of appeal was timely in accordance with a “special order of the appellate court that permits a late filing of the notice of appeal [,]” as authorized by appellate rule. Nevertheless, all compensatory time has already occurred, so an appeal of that award is moot. Samantha Smith vs. Kevin C. Smith and Angela Wilson-Smith Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD86052

When facing a divorce, having the right legal support can make a significant difference. Divorce is a complex process that involves many legal and emotional challenges. You need experienced local divorce attorneys who understand the laws and procedures specific to your area. In Lee's Summit, finding a knowledgeable and compassionate lawyer can help you navigate this difficult time with confidence. Why Choose Local Divorce Attorneys in Lee's Summit? Local divorce attorneys bring several advantages to your case. They are familiar with the local court system, judges, and procedures. This knowledge allows them to prepare your case more effectively and anticipate potential challenges. Additionally, local attorneys often have established relationships with other professionals, such as mediators and financial experts, who can assist in your case. Choosing a local attorney means you can meet face-to-face easily, which is important for building trust and clear communication. You can discuss your case in detail and receive personalized advice tailored to your unique situation. Benefits of Hiring Local Divorce Attorneys Knowledge of local laws and court rules Familiarity with local judges and court staff Access to local resources and experts Convenient meetings and communication Personalized and attentive service Eastern Jackson County Courthouse How Experienced Divorce Lawyers Can Help You An experienced divorce lawyer understands the complexities of family law. They can guide you through every step of the process, from filing the initial paperwork to finalizing the divorce decree. Their role is to protect your rights and interests, whether it involves child custody, property division, or spousal support. For example, if you have children, your lawyer will help you develop a parenting plan that works for everyone. They will also ensure that child support is calculated fairly based on your income and expenses. If there are assets to divide, your lawyer will work to secure your fair share. Experienced lawyers also help reduce stress by handling negotiations and court appearances on your behalf. They can explain legal terms in simple language and keep you informed about your case status. If you are looking for a reliable divorce lawyer in Lee's Summit , you want someone who listens carefully and acts in your best interest. What is the average cost of a divorce in Missouri? Understanding the cost of divorce is important when planning your next steps. In Missouri, the average cost of a divorce can vary widely depending on the complexity of the case and whether it is contested or uncontested. Uncontested divorce : This type usually costs less because both parties agree on major issues. The average cost can range from $2,000 to $4,000. Contested divorce : When disputes arise over custody, property, or support, costs increase. Legal fees, court costs, and expert consultations can push the total to $15,000 or more. Additional factors that affect cost include: The hourly rate of your attorney The amount of time spent in negotiations or court Whether mediation or other alternative dispute resolution methods are used To manage costs, consider discussing fee structures with your attorney upfront. Some lawyers offer flat fees for certain services, while others bill hourly. You can also ask about payment plans or other options. Legal documents related to divorce proceedings Steps to Take When Hiring a Divorce Lawyer in Lee's Summit Finding the right divorce lawyer involves more than just choosing the first name you see. Here are practical steps to help you make an informed decision: Research local attorneys : Look for lawyers who specialize in family law and have experience with cases similar to yours. Check credentials and reviews : Verify their license, years of practice, and client feedback. Schedule consultations : Meet with a few lawyers to discuss your case and ask questions. Discuss fees and payment options : Understand how they charge and what services are included. Evaluate communication style : Choose someone who listens well and explains things clearly. During your consultation, ask about their approach to resolving disputes and how they handle sensitive issues like child custody. A good lawyer will be honest about your case’s strengths and challenges. How to Prepare for Your Divorce Case Preparation is key to a smoother divorce process. Here are some tips to help you get ready: Organize financial documents : Gather bank statements, tax returns, pay stubs, and property records. List assets and debts : Make a detailed inventory of what you own and owe. Document parenting concerns : If children are involved, note any important information about their care and needs. Write down your goals : Be clear about what you want to achieve in the divorce. Keep communication respectful : Try to maintain civility with your spouse to reduce conflict. Being organized will help your lawyer build a strong case and negotiate effectively. It also reduces delays caused by missing information. Moving Forward with Confidence Divorce is never easy, but with the right support, you can move forward with confidence. Experienced local divorce attorneys in Lee's Summit are ready to help you protect your rights and achieve the best possible outcome. Whether you need help with custody arrangements, property division, or support issues, a skilled lawyer will guide you through the process step-by-step. Taking the time to find the right legal partner can make a lasting difference. You deserve clear advice, honest communication, and dedicated representation during this challenging time. If you want to learn more or schedule a consultation, consider reaching out to a trusted local firm that understands your needs and the local legal landscape. Your future starts with the right support today.