Beckwith v. Giles, WD58185

CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
PartiesThis slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Michelle B. (Giles) Beckwith, Respondent, v. Bruce Giles, Appellant. WD58185 Missouri Court of Appeals Western District Handdown Date:
Docket NumberWD58185
Decision Date05 December 2000

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.

Michelle B. (Giles) Beckwith, Respondent,
v.
Bruce Giles, Appellant.

WD58185

Missouri Court of Appeals Western District

Handdown Date: 12/05/2000

Appeal From: Circuit Court of Clay County, Hon. James Edward Welsch

Counsel for Appellant: Party Acting Pro Se

Counsel for Respondent: Andrea Paige Bolstad

Opinion Summary: Bruce Giles appeals from the judgment modifying his divorce decree of Divorce with Michelle B. (Giles) Beckwith. The modification terminated the parties' joint legal custody, awarded Ms. Beckwith sole legal and physical custody of the parties' minor child, restricted Mr. Giles' visitation with the minor child, and increased his child support obligation.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.

Division III holds:

1. Where a motion for change of judge was filed more than sixty days after the date of service and thirty days after the designation of the trial judge, the motion was not filed timely. The trial court is not obligated to sustain a motion for change of judge that was not timely filed. Therefore, the trial court's denial of appellant's motion for change of judge is affirmed.

2. A prisoner's personal attendance in a civil proceeding is not required where the prisoner fails to demonstrate that no reasonable alternative means by which the prisoner could have obtained meaningful access to the court existed. Accordingly, the trial court's denial of appellant's application for a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum is affirmed.

3. Where no evidence was introduced at the child custody modification hearing regarding the relevant factors in the determination of the best interest of the minor child including those factors enumerated in section 452.375, the trial court had insufficient evidence to decide what custody arrangement would be in the best interest the minor child. The judgment is, therefore, reversed, and the case is remanded to the trial court to hear and consider evidence regarding the best interests of the minor child.

4. Where the trial court denies or restricts the non-custodial parent's visitation privileges, the court, when requested by a party, must make specific findings that the visitation would endanger the child's physical health or impair his emotional development. The portion of the judgment restricting the non-custodial parent's visitation with the minor child is, therefore, reversed, and the case is remanded to the trial court to make the specific findings of fact as requested by the non-custodial parent.

5. Where the trial court increased the non-custodial parent's child support obligation from $300.00 per month to $350.00 per month, in the absence of a motion or pleading before the court stating a claim or making a prayer for such increase, the court's judgment is void to the extent that it grants relief beyond what was requested by the parties in the pleadings. The portion of the judgment modifying the non-custodial parent's child support is, therefore, void, and the case is remanded to the trial court to amend the judgment as it pertains to Mr. Giles child support obligation by changing the amount of monthly payments from $350.00 to $300.00 per month.

Opinion Author: Robert G. Ulrich

Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED IN PART, AND REVERSED IN PART. Smith, P.J., and Ellis, J., concur.

Opinion:

Bruce Giles appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Clay County modifying his Decree of Divorce with Michelle B. (Giles) Beckwith. The judgment of modification terminated the parties' joint legal custody, awarded Ms. Beckwith sole legal and physical custody of the parties' minor child, restricted Mr. Giles' visitation with the minor child, and increased his child support obligation. Mr. Giles contends that the trial court erred in (1) overruling his motion for change of judge; (2) overruling his application for writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum; (3) transferring sole legal and physical custody of the minor child to Ms. Beckwith; (4) restricting his visitation with the minor child; and (5) raising his child support obligation to $350.00 per month. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part, and reversed in part.

I. Facts

Upon dissolution of the parties' marriage in 1991, the parties were awarded joint legal custody of their minor child with Ms. Beckwith receiving primary physical custody subject to Mr. Giles rights of reasonable visitation. Sometime after the parties...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • Speer v. Colon, No. 25685 (MO 8/31/2004), No. 25685
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • August 31, 2004
    ...the modification is necessary to serve the best interests of the child, only if there is a modification of custody. Beckwith v. Giles, 32 S.W.3d 659, 664 (Mo.App. W.D. Here, Father and Mother were initially awarded joint legal and physical custody, with Mother granted the primary care and c......
  • Maasen v. Shaw, No. ED 82750.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • April 27, 2004
    ...and the trial court's declaration that defendant could widen the road anywhere within the fifty foot easement is void. Beckwith v. Giles, 32 S.W.3d 659, 665 (Mo.App.2000); Dolan v. Dolan, 540 S.W.2d 220, 221 (Mo. App.1976). Point three is Conclusion The judgment of the trial court declaring......
  • Dowell v. Dowell, WD59556
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • February 19, 2001
    ...substantial evidence, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law." Beckwith v. Giles, 32 S.W.3d 659, 662 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000). The trial court is in the best position to weigh the evidence, and we should affirm the judgment "under any r......
  • Harold E. Meadows Jr. v. Meadows, No. SD 30426.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • January 11, 2011
    ...overriding significance, prisoners must be afforded meaningful access to the courts and an opportunity to be heard.’ ” Beckwith v. Giles, 32 S.W.3d 659, 663 (Mo.App.2000) (quoting State ex rel. Kittrell v. Carr, 878 S.W.2d 859, 862 (Mo.App.1994)) (emphasis omitted); see also Call, 925 S.W.2......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Speer v. Colon, No. 25685 (MO 8/31/2004), No. 25685
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • August 31, 2004
    ...the modification is necessary to serve the best interests of the child, only if there is a modification of custody. Beckwith v. Giles, 32 S.W.3d 659, 664 (Mo.App. W.D. Here, Father and Mother were initially awarded joint legal and physical custody, with Mother granted the primary care and c......
  • Maasen v. Shaw, No. ED 82750.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • April 27, 2004
    ...and the trial court's declaration that defendant could widen the road anywhere within the fifty foot easement is void. Beckwith v. Giles, 32 S.W.3d 659, 665 (Mo.App.2000); Dolan v. Dolan, 540 S.W.2d 220, 221 (Mo. App.1976). Point three is Conclusion The judgment of the trial court declaring......
  • Dowell v. Dowell, WD59556
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • February 19, 2001
    ...substantial evidence, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law." Beckwith v. Giles, 32 S.W.3d 659, 662 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000). The trial court is in the best position to weigh the evidence, and we should affirm the judgment "under any r......
  • Harold E. Meadows Jr. v. Meadows, No. SD 30426.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • January 11, 2011
    ...overriding significance, prisoners must be afforded meaningful access to the courts and an opportunity to be heard.’ ” Beckwith v. Giles, 32 S.W.3d 659, 663 (Mo.App.2000) (quoting State ex rel. Kittrell v. Carr, 878 S.W.2d 859, 862 (Mo.App.1994)) (emphasis omitted); see also Call, 925 S.W.2......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT