Opinion Filed August 24, 2021
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Platte County to Missouri Court of Appeals – Western District
Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part; remanded to trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion
The parties are the parents of one child and were divorced in 2014. The child has special needs and requires 24-hour supervision and medical attention.
This case has a lengthy procedural history. Litigation in this case continue even after the trial court entered the divorce judgment. In March of 2019, the trial court entered a “First Amended Judgment of Modification” which permitted Mother to relocate with the child to Texas, granted her sole legal and sole physical custody of the minor child and ordered Father to pay $3,000/month in child support. The Judgment allowed Father to have supervised visits and access to the child’s medical and educational records.
In November 2019, Father filed a Motion to Modify Custody and Support alleging a substantial and continuing change in circumstances ad that Mother was preventing him from having contact with the child and was also violating provisions of the First Amended Judgment of Modification.
Mother filed a Motion to Dismiss alleging that on October 11, 2019, the March 2019 First Amended Judgment of Modification was registered in Tarrant County, Texas; that Father was served with the Tarrant County, Texas registration of foreign judgment and provided with specific instructions and a time period to object to the registration; that, to the best of her knowledge, Father did not object to the registration; and that the time for Father to object had passed. Mother argued that Tarrant County was the proper jurisdiction to file the pleadings and the trial court should dismiss all of Father’s pending pleading with prejudice.
Mother also filed a Statement of Judgment of Remaining Balance Due alleging that a total unsatisfied judgment balance of $53,638.20 was still owed. Father filed a Motion to Quash the garnishment of his wages, arguing that Mother was trying to garnish more than was permitted by law.
In August of 2020, the trial court entered a Judgment of Dismissal that I lacked exclusive and conclusive jurisdiction and that Tarrant County, Texas was the more appropriate forum. The trial court also dismissed all pending motions.
Father filed an appeal on the following grounds: Father raises two points on appeal. In his first point, he contends that the trial court erred in failing to make findings of fact and conclusions of law that he requested under Rule 73.01(c). In point two, he asserts that the trial court erred in dismissing his family access motion and motion to quash Mother’s garnishment of his wages under sections 452.745 and 452.770.
Point 1 on Appeal:
In his first point on appeal, Father contends that the trial court erred in not making findings of fact and conclusions of law on the issues that he requested under Rule 73.01(c).
Father did not make an oral record of his request for findings of fact and conclusions of law before the introduction of evidence at the July 20, 2020 hearing. Father also did not apprise the court or Mother of an email he sent to the Circuit Clerk on the morning of the hearing requesting findings of fact and conclusions of law. Mother was also not a recipient of this email. Father also did not make an oral record of his request in writing. In its opinion, the Appellate Court also noted that one is also required to comply with Rule 43.02 (filing of pleading) and Rule 43.01 (notice).
Point One Denied.
Point 2 on Appeal:
Section 452.745.1 provides that a court that has made an initial child custody determination “has exclusive continuing jurisdiction over the determination” until certain determinations under the statute are made. A court that has continuing jurisdiction under section. 452.745 to make a child custody determination may, however, decline to exercise its jurisdiction if it determines that it is an inconvenient forum under section 452.770. § 452.745.2.” Therefore, the trial court erred in dismissing Father’s Motion Quash Garnishment of Wages.
With respect to the Family Access Motion, the Appellate Court noted that, “The UCCJEA does not expressly address the enforcement of a custody determination made by a court of a state that no longer has jurisdiction to modify that determination under section 452.745. In re Marriage of Medill, 40 P.3d 1087, 1096 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
The Trial Court erred in entering an order dismissing Father’s Family Access Motion. Point Granted.
The judgment dismissing Father’s motion to quash garnishment of his wages and his family access motion is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings. The judgment is affirmed in all other respects.
