Sendlein v. Sendlein
Appeal from The Circuit Court of Franklin County to Missouri Court of Appeals – Eastern District
NO: ED110187
Filed: October 4, 2022
Outcome: Trial Court Ruling Affirmed
The parties, A. Sendlein (hereinafter “Mother”) and B. Sendlein (hereinafter “Father”) are the parents of one minor child and divorced in 2018. At the time of the divorce, both parties were granted joint physical and joint legal custody of the minor child. After some back and between the parties, it was decided that the address of the marital home, which is located in Franklin County, would be the designated address for school enrollment purposes. At the time, the parties agreed that the minor child would attend a parochial school, St. John the Baptist, which is located in St. John’s parish.
Father remained in the marital home whereas Mother eventually purchased her own in home in Franklin County. Mother later filed a motion to modify the dissolution decree to designate her address as the child’s address for mailing and education purposes.
In June of 2020, Father sent Mother a letter informing her that he intended to buy a home in either Wildwood, Eureka, Ballwin or Ellisville because it would allow him to live in the Rockwood School District which had one of the best school systems in the state of Missouri. Six weeks later, Father sent Mother another letter reiterating that he intended to relocate to one of the above-mentioned cities and that he wanted to enroll the child in the Rockwood School District.
Mother filed objections to Father’s relocation in the circuit court. Mother’s objection did not focus on Father’s chosen address, but instead, claimed that Father’s stated intention to unilaterally move the child to the Rockwood School District was a violation of the dissolution decree and parenting plan. Additionally, Mother’s Motion to Modify was still pending.
A hearing was held on Mother’s Motion to Modify on July 12, 2021. The trial court ruled in favor of Mother and granted her Motion to Modify. The trial court found that modification of the child’s residential address was necessary to serve the child’s best interests and that the child should continue to attend school at St. John’s. The trial court heard testimony that the child was well adjusted in her school and community, Mother and her family lived close to the school and help with pick up and drop off and also found that Father had failed on a number of occasions to communicate meaningfully as to issues of transportation, exchanges, and school selection. Specifically, the circuit court noted Father’s inconsistent positions as to whether the child should attend St. John’s.
Father filed a 2-point appeal and alleged the following: (1) Father argues that the circuit court’s modification of the child’s designated residential address was unsupported by substantial evidence because both parties testified that they did not want the child to attend the public school associated with Mother’s address and (2) Father argues that the circuit court did not have authority to order the child’s attendance at private school over his objection. Father also asserts the circuit court’s order that the child continue in private school was unsupported by substantial evidence because both parties testified the child did not have particular educational needs.
Count I: The Supreme Court of Missouri has held that designation of a residential address is a sub-issue of custody and that the “the best interests of the child” standard pursuant to Section 452.375.2 must be applied.
In it’s ruling, the Appellate Court held that, “The parent whose residence is so designated is sometimes referred to as the “residential parent,” but this designation does not appear in any statute or confer 9 any particular benefit or additional authority on the parent.” Gaudreau v. Barnes, 429 S.W.3d 429, 433 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014).
The circuit court’s judgment finding that modification of the child’s residential address was necessary to serve the best interests of the child was supported by substantial evidence. The Appellate Court agreed with the trial court’s “best interest of the child” analysis and upheld the trial court’s ruling. The Appellate Court also noted that the record demonstrates Father later moved from his residence to several temporary locations, including one out of state, while Mother remained in Franklin County.
Count I denied.
Count II: Father’s second count on appeal is that the trial court’s ruling that it is in the best interests of the child to enroll her in St. John’s is flawed for two reasons: (1) the circuit court did not have the authority to select a school because the dissolution decree required Mother and Father to agree and (2) the circuit court’s finding that there was a particular educational need for the child to attend a private school was not supported by substantial evidence because both parents testified their child had no such need.
The Appellate Court emphasized that Father misunderstood the standard that the circuit court applied to its ruling. The Appellate Court noted that when parties are unable to agree then they have to turn to the courts to resolve their disputes. Specifically, the Appellate opinion emphasized that, “Section 452.410 permits the circuit court to make modifications to issues of custody in the appropriate circumstances. The fact that the previous parenting plan required the parents to agree on where their child went to school does not prevent a parent from later seeking modification of an issue of custody based on the best interests of the child.”
With regards to Father’s second argument, the Appellate opinion pointed out that Father relies on the wrong standard when dealing with a sub-issue of custody. The Appellate Court agreed with the findings that the trial court made in determining that is in the best interests of the minor child to continue to attend school at St. John’s.
Trial Court Ruling affirmed.
