Date: 06-03-2022

Case Style:

Jennifer Robin Moore vs. Jared Moore

Case Number: WD84782

Judge:

: Alok Ahuja

Harold L. Dump, II

Court:

MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS

On appeal from The Henry County Circuit Court

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Click Here to Watch How To Find A Lawyer by Kent Morlan

Click Here For The Best St. Louis, MO Divorce Lawyer Directory

Tell MoreLaw About Your Litigation Successes and MoreLaw Will Tell the World.

Re: MoreLaw National Jury Verdict and Settlement

Counselor:

MoreLaw collects and publishes civil and criminal litigation information from the state and federal courts nationwide. Publication is free and access to the information is free to the public.


MoreLaw will publish litigation reports submitted by you free of charge


Info@MoreLaw.com - 855-853-4800

Defendant's Attorney:
Audara Lutjen

Description:

St. Louis, MO - Divorce lawyer represented appellant with appealing the circuit court’s award of sole legal custody to Father.

Mother and Father married in 2016, and separated in May of 2019. They had
two children during their marriage. Mother filed a petition for dissolution of the
marriage in June 2019. The dissolution proceeding was tried to the court in three
hearings between January and April 2021.
Father and Mother filed several parenting plans. Although the parenting
plans differed concerning the parties’ respective parenting time, and concerning
child support arrangements, all of the parties’ proposed parenting plans requested
that they be awarded joint physical and joint legal custody of the children. Mother’s
2
proposed parenting plan specified that the children would be homeschooled, and left
unvaccinated, while Father’s proposal provided that the children would attend
public school in his residential district, and receive all required vaccinations.
Lauren Knuth served as an occupational therapist for one of the children,
who had been diagnosed with autism. Knuth recommended that the child attend a
public school to access special education programs in the district. Knuth also
testified that the child would benefit from social interactions in the classroom.
Mother hired Rocky Lee as a private investigator to investigate Father “on
and off for a six-week period.” Lee testified that he placed surveillance cameras to
watch Father’s residence.
During his testimony, Father admitted that he had made “bad choices” with
alcohol in the past, but he claimed that he did not currently have an alcohol
problem. Father testified that he never drank around the children, and that he was
never intoxicated during his video calls with the children while they were in
Mother’s custody. Father testified that Mother told him that she could get him fired
from his job, and afterwards he was laid off from his job because someone
wrongfully reported to his employer that Father had lost his driver’s license.
During two exchanges of the children, Mother called the police to report Father
driving without a license, with the intent of having him arrested. During both
incidents, Father waited for police to arrive, and only left with the children after
proving to the responding officers that he did indeed have valid driving privileges,
or a licensed driver available to transport him.
Mother testified that she believed Father was lying to her about who he had
watching the children, that the children came back from his house with medical and
psychological problems, and that Father was an alcoholic with an angry and
depressed demeanor while drinking. Mother stated that she had found child
pornography on Father’s computer. Mother told the court that Father had been
3
abusive to the children in the past, although she did not report it. Mother admitted
that she does not believe what Father tells her, and that she hired the investigator
Lee to prove that Father was lying. Mother testified that she worries for the
children’s safety while they are staying with Father. Despite this, Mother
acknowledged that she does not call or have videoconferences with the children
while they are in Father’s custody, even though she is entitled to that
communication.
Mother testified to three separate occasions in which she took the children to
the hospital immediately following a custody exchange, once for bruised fingers,
another time for a 101-degree fever, and a third time when one of the children was
purportedly unresponsive. On each of these occasions, Mother blamed Father, and
did not communicate about the medical visits to Father. During one of the hospital
visits, Mother told medical personnel that she was not going to call Father because
“I do not trust him, and he will lie anyways.”
Mother submitted as an exhibit a text conversation between herself and
Father, which reflected that Father was identified as “Narc Asshole” in her phone.
Mother admitted telling Father’s boss and his employer that she believed Father
was going to lose his driver’s license – an exercise which the circuit court found was
an attempt to have Father fired. Mother also acknowledged that she had made
several posts on Facebook calling Father “filth,” accusing Father of cheating on her
during the marriage, and stating that she was contemplating taking out a billboard
near Father’s girlfriend’s work place, accusing her publicly of having participated in
an adulterous relationship with Father.
During her testimony, Mother was confronted with a text message exchange
in which she told Father that she had secured alternative health insurance for the
children, and he therefore did not need to pay the premium for insurance he had
obtained. Despite this text exchange, she later filed a motion for contempt against
4
Father, in which she contended that he had cancelled the children’s insurance
without her knowledge. Mother claimed she had forgotten about the exchange of
text messages when she filed her contempt motion.
When she was asked during trial whether she believed it would be in the
children’s best interest to have Father’s home designated as the children’s residence
for educational and mailing purposes, Mother responded, “absolutely not.” She
explained:
Because [Father] will not be honest with me about who's caring
for the children. He's leaving them with random people. They're
having a lot of issues. They're spending a week at his house. They're
having medical issues, they're having psychological issues. He lives
right next to a main highway with no fence.
The following colloquy occurred during Mother’s testimony, concerning
whether she believed she could co-parent with Father:
Q. Do you think you'll ever be able to trust [Father] enough
to co-parent with him and communicate with him on a regular basis
about your kids?
A. I would love to be able to do that. I would love to be able
to do that, if he could be honest with me about what's going on with
them.
Q. When has he lied to you about what's going on with them,
about – with the kids?
A. He – he lies – he lies about the – every – he lies about
who's watching them, he lies about whether he's going to work and
leaving them at home, he lies about, you know, their injuries.
When asked whether she trusted Father “to protect [her] children in his own way,”
Mother responded that, “I don’t trust him to make good decisions.”
The guardian ad litem recommended joint legal and joint physical custody,
with Father’s home designated as the children’s address for mailing and
educational purposes. The guardian ad litem testified about his concerns regarding
Mother’s refusal to communicate the children’s medical visits to Father, Mother’s
5
willingness to take the children on the road and away from Father, and Mother’s
lack of video or phone contact with the children while they were in Father’s care,
despite her accusations that he was neglecting or abusing them. The guardian ad
litem admitted that he believed the “co-parenting relationship between these
parents is damaged mostly because, in my opinion as it relates to best interest of
the kids, mother’s inability to co-parent with the father because of prior history.” In
regards to Father’s consumption of alcohol, the guardian ad litem testified that he
did not hear “any credible evidence” that Father’s consumption was a current
concern; the guardian ad litem also noted that Father had been exercising shared
custody of the children for an extended period of time without problems. The
guardian ad litem expressed concerns about Mother’s desire to leave the children
unvaccinated, and have them homeschooled, despite professional recommendations
to do otherwise.
On May 13, 2021, the trial court entered its Judgment of Dissolution of
Marriage granting the parties joint physical custody, but awarding Father sole legal
custody of the children. In discussing which parent was more likely to permit the
children to have frequent, continuing and meaningful contact with the other parent,
the judgment makes the following findings:
During the pendency of this matter, Mother has acted in such a
fashion as to attempt to limit the amount of time Father has with the
children. She has called law enforcement to child custody exchanges
claiming that Father did not have a valid driver’s license, but on both
occasions, it was found that Father was able to drive or had a licensed
driver and was able to leave with the children. She has attempted to
get Father fired from his employment by contacting his employer. She
has taken the children to the hospital after child custody exchanges
attempting to find something to allow her to withhold visitation from
Father. Furthermore, she hired a private investigator to track Father
in an attempt to find something that he did wrong.
Mother actually submitted into evidence her Exhibit 8 wherein
she has him saved in her contacts as “Narc Asshole”. This behavior is
6
concerning to the Court that Mother will continue in the future to limit
the contact the children have with Father.
Mother testified that she had concerns for the children while in
Father’s custody, but fails to utilize her ability to video chat with the
children while they are in Father’s care. It would appear to the Court
that if Mother actually had reasonable concerns about the children’s
safety, then she would utilize every opportunity to check in on the
children. This would include video chatting with the children when
she was able.
The judgment also found that “Mother has such an extreme amount of animosity
toward Father that it will make their ability to co-parent in the future difficult.”
The circuit court’s judgment also specifically rejected Mother’s claims
regarding Father’s current alcohol consumption:
The Court notes that Father did admit to pushing Mother while
under the influence of alcohol in a text message. This is concerning to
the Court that Father can behave in an aggressive manner when
consuming alcohol. Mother is rightly concerned that Father could
cause harm to the children when drinking. However, Father testified
that he has followed the Court’s order and not consumed alcohol with
the children were in his care. Mother disputes this, but was unable to
submit any credible evidence to the contrary. The Court finds Father’s
testimony on this fact credible.
Ultimately, although the circuit court concluded that joint physical custody
was appropriate, its judgment awards sole legal custody to Father, “based upon
[Mother]’s behaviors and her inability to co-parent with [Father].”
Mother appeals, challenging the circuit court’s award of sole legal custody to
Father.
Standard of Review
“[C]hallengers to a custody award bear a heavy burden.” White v. White, 616
S.W.3d 373, 380 (Mo. App. W.D. 2020).
“This Court will affirm the trial court's decision as to an award
of child custody unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it
is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or
applies the law.” “The trial court has broad discretion in child custody
7
matters, and we will affirm its award of custody unless we are firmly
convinced that the children's welfare requires otherwise.”
K.T.L. by Next Friend K.L. v. A.G., No. ED109375, 2021 WL 6121845, at *2 (Mo.
App. E.D. Dec. 28, 2021) (citations omitted).
Appellate courts act with caution in exercising the power to set aside a
decree or judgment on the ground that it is against the weight of the
evidence. [A] claim that the judgment is against the weight of the
evidence presupposes that there is sufficient evidence to support the
judgment. The against-the-weight-of-the-evidence standard serves
only as a check on a circuit court's potential abuse of power in
weighing the evidence, and an appellate court will reverse only in rare
cases, when it has a firm belief that the decree or judgment is wrong.
When reviewing the record in an against-the-weight-of-the-evidence
challenge, this Court defers to the circuit court's findings of fact when
the factual issues are contested and when the facts as found by the
circuit court depend on credibility determinations. A circuit court's
judgment is against the weight of the evidence only if the circuit court
could not have reasonably found, from the record at trial, the existence
of a fact that is necessary to sustain the judgment. When the evidence
poses two reasonable but different inferences, this Court is obligated to
defer to the trial court's assessment of the evidence. This Court rarely
has reversed a trial judgment as against the weight of the
evidence . . . .
Bowers v. Bowers, 543 S.W.3d 608, 615 (Mo. 2018) (quoting S.S.S. v. C.V.S., 529
S.W.3d 811, 815-16 (Mo. 2017)).
Discussion
Mother’s single Point asserts that the circuit court’s award of sole legal
custody to Father was against the weight of the evidence.
Sections 452.375.5(1) and (2), RSMo, provide that, before awarding joint
physical custody and sole legal custody to one parent, the court must consider
“[j]oint physical and joint legal custody to both parents.” Thus, “[t]he legislature
has ‘expressed a public policy preference for joint custody where such an
arrangement is in the best interests of the child.’” White, 616 S.W.3d at 380
(citation omitted). Despite that legislative preference, however,
8
[j]oint custody is not appropriate and not in the best interest of the
children when parents are unable to make shared decisions concerning
the welfare of their children. The parents’ ability and willingness to
communicate and cooperate is crucial in considering whether joint
legal custody is proper. Joint legal custody may be proper even if there
is some level of personal tension and hostility between the parents,
provided there is substantial evidence that despite this acrimony the
parties nonetheless have the ability and willingness to fundamentally
cooperate in making decisions concerning the children's upbringing.
Id. (citing Morgan v. Morgan, 497 S.W.3d 359, 373 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016)). A
judgment granting sole legal custody must be based on a finding that the parties
lack a commonality of beliefs concerning parental decisions, and lack the
willingness and ability to function as a unit in making those decisions. Reno v.
Gonzales, 489 S.W.3d 900, 905 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016).
In its judgment, the circuit court specifically discussed a number of factors
which, in its view, justified the conclusion that Mother and Father would not be
able to effectively co-parent, and which justified an award of sole legal custody to
Father. Those factors included:
o Mother’s and Father’s “substantial differences in opinion about
parenting and what they feel is in the best interest of their children.”
o Mother’s attempts to have Father arrested by calling law enforcement
to child exchanges and falsely claiming Father did not have a driver’s
license.
o Mother’s attempt to have Father fired from his job by calling Father’s
employer.
o Mother’s taking the children to the hospital immediately after their
visits with Father, without informing Father, to attempt to collect
information to support a claim that he was abusing or neglecting the
children.
o Mother’s use of a private investigator to follow and surveil Father.
o Mother’s listing of Father in her phone as “Narc Asshole.”
o Mother’s preference to have the children homeschooled and left
unvaccinated, despite opposing recommendations from their therapist
and guardian ad litem.
9
o Mother’s failure to communicate with the children while they were in
Father’s custody, despite her claims that she was concerned about
their welfare while in his care.
With the above evidence, the trial court concluded that “Mother has such an
extreme amount of animosity toward Father that it will make their ability to coparent in the future difficult.” The fact that Mother testified repeatedly that she
does not trust Father, and that she believes he is consistently dishonest with her
concerning the children’s care and welfare, additionally supports the conclusion that
Mother and Father would be unable to successfully co-parent.
In order to challenge the circuit court’s award of sole legal custody to Father
based on the weight of the evidence, Mother was required to “identify a challenged
factual proposition, the existence of which is necessary to sustain the judgment”
(here, that Father and Mother would not be able to successfully co-parent), and then
“identify all of the favorable evidence in the record supporting the existence of that
proposition.” Houston v. Crider, 317 S.W.3d 178, 187 (Mo. App. S.D. 2010). Yet,
although she contends that the circuit court’s award of sole legal custody is against
the weight of the evidence, in her argument Mother completely ignores the evidence
described above, which plainly supports the circuit court’s conclusion that an award
of sole legal custody to Father was warranted. Mother’s failure to acknowledge, and
respond to, the copious evidence supporting the circuit court’s judgment requires
that we reject her weight-of-the-evidence challenge.
Rather than addressing the evidence supporting the circuit court’s judgment,
Mother contends that the circuit court ignored the Missouri public policy reflected
in § 452.375.5, RSMo, which gives a preference to the award of joint legal and joint
physical custody. As we have explained above, however, this statutory preference is
just that – a preference. That preference is overcome where, as here, the evidence
establishes that “parents are unable to make shared decisions concerning the
welfare of their children.” White, 616 S.W.3d at 380. Despite the statutory
10
preference for joint legal custody, this Court has affirmed innumerable judgments
awarding sole legal custody to one parent where the evidence warranted it,1 and we
have reversed awards of joint legal custody where the evidence fails to demonstrate
the parties’ ability to make joint decisions in the best interests of their children.
See, e.g., Reno, 489 S.W.3d at 903; Halford v. Halford, 292 S.W.3d 536, 545-46 (Mo.
App. S.D. 2009); Kroeger-Eberhart v. Eberhart, 254 S.W.3d 38, 49 (Mo. App. E.D.
2007); Marriage of Sutton, 233 S.W.3d 786, 791-93 (Mo. App. E.D. 2007).
Mother cites several cases where appellate courts affirmed a trial court’s
judgment granting joint legal custody, despite evidence of an acrimonious
relationship between the parents. These decisions simply reflect, however, the level
of deference afforded to circuit courts in making fact-intensive custody
determinations. The fact that the circuit court in this case arguably could have
awarded the parties joint legal custody does nothing to suggest that it acted against
the weight of the evidence in making a contrary custody award. This Court will not
overturn a child custody award merely because the evidence may have permitted
the circuit court to order a different custody arrangement.
Mother also argues that the circuit court’s award of sole legal custody is
against the weight of the evidence, because neither Mother nor Father, nor the
guardian ad litem, proposed that Father be awarded sole legal custody. The fact
that both parties proposed parenting plans providing for joint legal custody is some
evidence from which the circuit court could have concluded that the parties would be
able to co-parent, despite their past mistrust and acrimony. The parties’ proposals
were not binding on the court, however – and Mother cites no authority giving the

1 See, e.g., Lynch v. Lynch, 592 S.W.3d 806, 815-16 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020);
Meseberg v. Meseberg, 580 S.W.3d 59, 69 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019); J.F.H. v. S.L.S., 550 S.W.3d
532, 540-41 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017); Sutton v. McCollum, 421 S.W.3d 477, 483-84 (Mo. App.
S.D. 2013).
11
parties’ proposed parenting plans dispositive weight. Section 452.375.2, RSMo,
expressly provides that “[t]he court” – not the parties or the guardian ad litem –
“shall determine custody in accordance with the best interests of the child.” The
statute provides that the court must consider “[t]he wishes of the child’s parents as
to custody and the proposed parenting plan submitted by both parties,”
§ 452.375.2(1) – but it does not give the parents’ wishes controlling weight. Indeed,
even where the parents agree to a custody arrangement, the statute specifies that
the court need not endorse it, if the court “determines such arrangement is not in
the best interest of the child.” § 472.375.6. The fact that the parents may have
submitted parenting plans – or even a joint parenting plan – is not dispositive;
instead, the statute specifies that “in all cases, the custody plan approved and
ordered by the court shall be in the court's discretion and shall be in the best
interest of the child.” § 452.375.9. The fact that both parties in this case were
willing to propose a joint legal custody arrangement does not – by itself – establish
that the award of sole legal custody was against the weight of the evidence.

Outcome: The judgment of the circuit court, which awarded sole legal custody of the
parties’ children to Father, is affirmed.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: