Schupann v. Ramos
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Jasper County to the Missouri Court of Appeals – Eastern District
No. SD37503
Filed March 31, 2023
Outcome: Reversed and Remanded Part and Affirmed in Part.
Schupann (hereinafter “Mother”) and T. Ramos (hereinafter “Father”) are the parents of one child. The parties divorced in 2020. Pursuant to the divorce judgment, the parties were to have joint legal and joint physical custody of the child. In January of 2021, Mother filed a Motion to Modify Custody and requested sole legal and sole physical custody. Father also filed a counter-motion requesting sole legal and sole physical custody and also requested that a GAL be appointed.
A bench trial was held on March 16, 2022. Each side presented the necessary evidence and the GAL provided their recommendation that that Mother receive sole legal and sole physical custody and Father have supervised visits with the child every other weekend with Father’s parents serving as supervisors.
Following the trial, the Court ruled that Mother shall have custody every first and third weekend. In the event that Mother moves to Joplin, Missouri metropolitan area, her parenting time will be one week on and one week off.
Mother filed a two point appeal of the Judgment and Decree of Modification issued by the trial court. Mother argued that: (I) “[t]he trial court erred in entering a parenting plan that includes an automatic change to a term relating to child custody upon the happening of some event in the future because such a parenting plan misapplies [] Section 452.377[.]” and (II) the trial court erred in awarding the parents joint legal and physical custody, awarding Father more custodial time than Mother and awarding custodial time contrary the GAL’s recommendations all of which are contrary to the best interests of the child.
With respect to Point I, the Appellate Court agreed with Mother. The Appellate Court noted that making custody provisions contingent on future events that may or may not occur goes against the intent of RSMO 452.377. The relocation statute has made clear provisions regarding relocation procedures. As a result, the Appellate Court held that, “a limited remand for entry of an amended judgment consistent with this opinion is appropriate for clarity of the record and for purposes of future enforcement of the amended judgment.”
With respect to Point II, the Appellate Court held that, “Mother’s second point that the trial court erred by deciding Child’s best interests without following the GAL’s recommendation lacks merit.“ The Appellate Court further noted that the trial court is not obligated to follow the GAL’s recommendation and a decision contrary to the GAL’s recommendation does not necessarily go against the best interests of the child. It is also important to note that in the present case the GAL did not provide any reasons for their recommendation. Point II denied.
