Hanson v. And
| Decision Date | 22 November 2016 |
| Docket Number | ED103530 |
| Parties | MARY HANSON and DAVID HANSON, Appellants, v. MARGARET CARROLL and, BRIDGET CARROLL Respondents. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis
1522-FC00797
Honorable Christopher E. McGraugh
Introduction
Mary Hanson and David Hanson (together, Grandparents) appeal from the judgment of the circuit court dismissing their motion for visitation and custody of their minor grandchild, R.C.H., over whom Margaret Carroll and Bridget Carroll (together, Guardians) have guardianship. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Facts and Background
R.C.H. was born in 2007. The probate court appointed Margaret Carroll, his maternal great-grandmother, as guardian of R.C.H. in 2009 upon her motion, and appointed Bridget Carroll, R.C.H.'s maternal aunt, as co-guardian in 2014. In 2015, Grandparents filed this petition1 for visitation and custody in the circuit court, citing Chapter 4522 generally. The petition alleged that "it is in the best interest of the Minor Child and the welfare of the Minor Child requires that [Grandparents] continue to be a part of the Minor Child's life and that [Grandparents] and [Guardians] should be granted joint physical and joint legal custody of the Minor Child." Grandparents asserted that they were the paternal grandparents of R.C.H. and that, since R.C.H.'s birth, they had had liberal custody and visitation with him, nurtured him and supported him financially, developed a strong bond with him, and established a parent/child relationship with him. Since Guardians were granted guardianship over R.C.H., Guardians had discontinued R.C.H.'s contact with Grandparents.
Guardians moved to dismiss the petition for lack of standing and for failure to state a claim, arguing Grandparents failed to meet the statutory requirements of Section 452.402.1 for grandparent visitation. At a hearing on the motion to dismiss, the parties made arguments concerning grandparent visitation under Section 452.402 and third-party visitation under Section 452.375.5(5), and Grandparents abandoned their claim for joint custody. The circuit court dismissed the petition, ruling that Grandparents had not stated a claim upon which relief could be granted under either Section 452.402 or Section 452.375.5(5). The dismissal was with prejudice. The court did not rule on the standing issue. This appeal follows. Grandparents appeal only the circuit court's dismissal of their petition for failure to state a claim under Section 452.375.5.
Discussion
Guardians have filed a motion to dismiss the pending appeal, arguing that Grandparents lack standing both below and on appeal. "Where ... a question is raised about a party's standing, courts have a duty to determine the question of their jurisdiction before reaching substantive issues." White v. White, 293 S.W.3d 1, 8 (Mo. App. W.D. 2009) (citation omitted). Standing is a jurisdictional matter that requires courts to determine whether the party seeking relief has a legally cognizable interest in the subject matter and, if so, whether that interest is threatened with actual injury. Id.; Matter of Adoption of E.N.C., 458 S.W.3d 387 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014). We resolve standing as a matter of law based on the petition and the undisputed facts. White, 293 S.W.3d at 8.
Guardians here argue that because Grandparents did not bring their petition for visitation within the context of a pending custody determination they do not have standing under Section 452.375.5. We disagree. The law in Missouri was previously that a third party could not seek custody under Section 452.375.5 except in the context of an ongoing custody determination. See, e.g., White, 293 S.W.3d at 21 (). However, the Missouri Supreme Court in In re T.Q.L., 386 S.W.3d 135 (Mo. banc 2012), allowed the petitioner, who had believed that he was the biological father of the minor child until DNA testing revealed he was not, to amend his action for paternity and custody to state a claim for third-party custody over the minor child pursuant to Section 452.375.5(5). Id. at 139.
Missouri courts have since interpreted In re T.Q.L. as establishing the right of a third party to file an independent action seeking child custody and visitation. See McGaw v. McGaw, 468 S.W.3d 435, 444-45 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015) (); D.S.K. ex rel. J.J.K. v. D.L.T., 428 S.W.3d 655, 660 n.7 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) (). The Western District in McGaw specifically noted that the narrow construction of Section 452.375.5(5) espoused in White was "necessarily overruled" by the Missouri Supreme Court's decision in In re T.Q.L. McGaw, 468 S.W.3d at 444.3
Following In re T.Q.L., as we must,4 we find that Grandparents here are entitled to seek third-party custody and visitation under Section 452.375.5(5) in an independent action, and thus they have standing to appeal from the denial of their petition. Guardians' motion to dismiss the appeal and for sanctions is denied.
Point I
In their first point on appeal, Grandparents argue the circuit court erred in dismissing their petition because they stated a claim for custody and visitation under Section 452.375. We agree.5
We review de novo a trial court's dismissal for failure to state a claim. White, 293 S.W.3d at 8. A petition states a cause of action if it sets forth any set of facts that would entitle the plaintiff to relief, if proven. Id. We review the petition in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Whipple v. Allen, 324 S.W.3d 447, 449 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010).
Initially, we address Guardians' allegation on appeal that the probate court had exclusive jurisdiction over custody of R.C.H. because the custody action had originated there, and thus that the circuit court had no jurisdiction to decide visitation and custody under the concurrent-jurisdiction doctrine. Guardians are incorrect. Concurrent jurisdiction is a phrase "describing the legal reality that more than one court has the legal authority to decide a matter." Kelly v. Kelly, 245 S.W.3d 308, 313 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008).6 Jurisdiction by one court does not necessarily deprive another court of jurisdiction. Id. Id. at 312-13. A court has subject matter jurisdiction if it has authority to judge the type of issue presented. The circuit court here had the authority to judge Grandparents' petition for third-party visitation and custody under Section 452.375.5. See In re T.Q.L., 386 S.W.3d at 139.
To the extent Guardians argue that the circuit court here lacked jurisdiction because any judgment granting visitation and custody to Grandparents would necessarily conflict with the probate court's judgment granting guardianship to Guardians, we disagree. It is true that courts with concurrent jurisdiction may not enter conflicting judgments, but conflicting judgments implicate errors of law, not jurisdiction—"which is the power [of a court] to hear a particular type of case." See Kelly, 245 S.W.3d at 315. Moreover, a grant of visitation would not necessarily conflict with the probate court's grant of guardianship. It is not that the probate court considered and rejected awarding visitation and custody to Grandparents; rather, once the guardianship order was in place, the probate court did not have the authority to grant visitation and custody to Grandparents, who, because they were not interested parties, lacked standing in the probate matter. See In re R.C.H., 419 S.W.3d 158, 160-61 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013).
Turning to Grandparents' Point I, they assert that they properly stated a claim for custody and visitation under Section 452.375. Section 452.375.5 provides that:
Grandparents' petition here cited Chapter 452 and alleged: "it is in the best interest of the Minor Child and the welfare of the Minor Child requires that [Grandparents] continue to be a part of the Minor Child's life and that [Grandparents] and [Guardians] should be granted joint physical and joint legal custody of the Minor Child." For support, Grandparents alleged a history of liberal custody and visitation and of emotional and financial support, resulting in a close relationship with R.C.H. that amounted to a parent/child relationship. We make no statement about the accuracy of Grandparents' allegations but merely analyze whether they stated a claim upon which relief could be granted.
A petition must contain a "short and plain statement of the facts showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Mo. R. Civ. P. 55.05 (2016). In Missouri, a plaintiff is required to plead facts sufficient "to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended." Whipple, 324 S.W.3d at 449. A plaintiff, however, "is not obligated to cite or refer to a statute or to use the terms of the statute literally." Barry v. Barrale, 598 S.W.2d 574, 577 (Mo. App. E.D. 1980). While Grandparents here referred to "Section 452" rather than to Section...
To continue reading
Request your trial