Harris v. Harris
ED110533
Date Published: April 4, 2023
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Marion County to Missouri Court of Appeals – Eastern District
Outcome: Affirmed in part and Reversed and Remanded in Part
M. Harris (hereinafter “Mother”) filed for divorce from D. Harris (hereinafter “Father”) in 2020. At issue was the custody of the couple’s two children. There was a Guardian Ad Litem (hereinafter “GAL”) that was appointed to the case. The GAL advised that Mother should have sole legal and physical custody of the minor children, while Father should have supervised visits with the children. Each party also submitted a proposed parenting plan.
Instead the court submitted its own parenting plan and which was attached to the divorce judgment entered by the Court on December 22, 2021.
On April 21, 2022, the circuit court filed an amendment to the December 22 Judgment by interlineation to include written findings on the best-interest factors provided in section 452.375.2. Father subsequently filed another motion for new trial and/or to amend the judgment, which argued inter alia that, even with the April 21 Amendment, the circuit court’s judgment failed to include all required findings and custodial arrangements.
Father filed a 5 point appeal. Only point 4 on appeal was considered by the Court. The Appellate Court agreed that the circuit court erred in failing to make the required written findings in compliance with RSMO 452.375.6 and RSMO 452.375.9.
Pursuant to RSMO 452.375.6. “Specific written findings are therefore required to be included in the judgment where: “(1) the parties have not reached an agreement on all issues related to custody, including a sub-issue of custody such as the parenting-time allocation; or (2) the court rejects a proposed custodial arrangement.” Once this section is triggered, the “three distinct categories of written findings required under 452.375.6 [are as follows]: (1) findings detailing the relevant best-interest factors; (2) findings based in the public policy providing for frequent, continuing, and meaningful contact with both parents; and (3) findings detailing the specific relevant factors resulting in the rejection of Father’s proposed custodial arrangement.”
In the instant case, the trial court failed to make findings as to why Father’s proposed parenting plan was rejected. Therefore, the Appellate Court held that, “these omissions necessitate reversal and remand to the circuit court for it to adopt a parenting plan that conforms to the statutory requirements.”
