C.R.S. v. C.M.H., ED 105098
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
| Citation | 539 S.W.3d 54 |
| Docket Number | No. ED 105098,ED 105098 |
| Parties | C.R.S., Respondent, v. C.M.H., Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 24 October 2017 |
539 S.W.3d 54
C.R.S., Respondent,
v.
C.M.H., Appellant.
No. ED 105098
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR.
FILED: October 24, 2017
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: Robert Norman Hamilton, John R. Fenley, Co-Counsel, 2016 South Big Bend Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63117, REINKER, HAMILTON & PIPER, LLC.
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT: Christy R. Stephan, Pro Se, 810 Point Drive, St. Louis, MO 63125.
OPINION
Mary K. Hoff, Judge
C.M.H. ("Father") appeals from the trial court’s judgment granting a full order of child protection ("Full Order of Protection") against him. We dismiss this appeal as untimely.
Factual and Procedural Background
Father and C.R.S. ("Mother") were married in 2000, and two children were born of the marriage, a son and a daughter ("Daughter"). On August 24, 2012, Mother and Father dissolved their marriage in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, and the dissolution court granted them joint custody of their children. Thereafter, Father moved to Fort Worth, Texas.
On May 18, 2015, while Daughter was at Father’s home in Texas, Father committed an act of domestic violence against Daughter, causing her to suffer from a concussion, lacerations to various parts of her body, and contusions to her head, chest wall, and rib cage. After receiving medical treatment, Daughter obtained a flight back to Missouri the following day to reunite with Mother.
On July 2, 2015, Mother filed an ex parte petition for an order of protection against Father on behalf of her children in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, where the children resided. The court granted an ex parte order of protection the same day, setting a hearing for a full order of protection for July 16, 2015. Father received service of the ex parte order in Texas on July 7, 2015, but he did not appear at the July 16 hearing.
At the hearing, Mother testified that when Daughter last saw Father on May 18, 2015, Father repeatedly punched Daughter, kicked her, and threw her into a bathtub, causing her to strike her head and lose consciousness before reawakening and sneaking out of the house. Based upon Mother’s testimony, the court determined that Mother had proved the allegations of domestic violence in the Petition and, on July 16, 2015, entered its Full Order of Protection preventing Father from contacting or communicating with the children. The court also granted Mother sole custody of the children and child support. The court further granted an automatic one-year renewal of the Full Order of Protection effective July 15, 2016, pursuant to Section 455.516.1
Father did not file an appeal from this final judgment of July 16, 2015. Additionally, Father did not request a hearing contesting the automatic renewal of the Full Order of Protection under Section 455.516, and therefore, the Full Order of Protection renewed on July 15, 2016. On July 20, 2016, Father filed his "Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction" ("Motion"). On November 10, 2016, Father filed an amended motion to dismiss, or in the alternative to amend and vacate the child support obligation of the Full Order of Protection ("Amended Motion"). On November 30, 2016 the trial court denied Father’s Amended Motion.
Thereafter, Father filed a notice of appeal on December 9, 2016, stating that he appeals from the Full Order of Protection dated July 16, 2015 contesting the child support ordered therein. After Father filed
this appeal, the Full...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barbieri v. Barbieri
...control over its judgment for up to 90 days from the date such motion was filed. Rules 78.04 and 81.05(a)(2)(A); C.R.S. v. C.M.H., 539 S.W.3d 54, 56 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017). In circumstances like here, where the court has not ruled on the after-trial motions, Rule 81.05 provides that "[i]f a p......
-
Barbieri v. Barbieri
...control over its judgment for up to 90 days from the date such motion was filed. Rules 78.04 and 81.05(a)(2)(A) ; C.R.S. v. C.M.H., 539 S.W.3d 54, 56 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017). In circumstances like here, where the court has not ruled on the after-trial motions, Rule 81.05 provides that "[i]f a ......
-
Loggins v. State
...M. Clayton III, J., Angela T. Quigless, J.ORDER PER CURIAM.Vernell J. Loggins, Jr. appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for 539 S.W.3d 54post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. We find that the motion court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are not cle......