J.L.E. v. D.J.E., 13193
Citation | 675 S.W.2d 456 |
Decision Date | 13 August 1984 |
Docket Number | No. 13193,13193 |
Parties | J.L.E., Petitioner, v. D.J.E., Joint Petitioner-Appellant, v. P.E.E. and E.O.E., Intervenors-Movants-Respondents. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
Arthur L. Hudkins, Wood, Hudkins & Hoke, Springfield, for joint petitioner-appellant.
Kerry L. Montgomery, Montgomery, Twibell & Upp, Springfield, for intervenors-movants-respondents.
D.J.E. (mother) appeals the trial court's judgment granting custody of R.P.E. (son) and M.J.E. (daughter), minor children of J.L.E. (father) and D.J.E., to P.E.E. and E.O.E., the paternal grandparents of the children.
The children's mother and father were married on July 26, 1975. Their son was born January 1, 1976 and their daughter, September 7, 1977. The parties separated October 1, 1979, and their marriage was dissolved May 23, 1980. In the decree of dissolution, the mother was awarded custody of the two children, with the father and paternal grandparents being awarded reasonable visitation rights.
On October 1, 1981, the father filed a motion to modify the custody order alleging the mother was not a fit custodian and requesting that custody of the two children be transferred to his parents. The legal file contains a copy of a motion to dismiss filed by the mother contending that the father's motion was not verified as required by § 452.455. 1 The motion, which shows on its face that it was verified, by being acknowledged before a notary public, was overruled by the trial court.
In her answer, the mother denied that she was an unfit parent. The grandparents then filed a motion to intervene, claiming that their son had become disinterested in pursuing his motion to modify, and was unfit to be custodian of the children, alleged the mother was also unfit, and asked for custody of the children. The mother filed an answer to intervenors' motion in the nature of a general denial.
e) that she lacks mature judgment in rearing the children, and
f) she has been content to draw ADC and food stamps to feed herself, her unemployed husband and the children, without any showing of any intention to find a job.
Contrary to the assertion of the mother on appeal, all of these findings and conclusions are amply supported in the record by substantial evidence.
In addition to her insufficiency of evidence claim, contentions raised by the mother on appeal are that the trial court erred in 1) denying her motion to dismiss the father's motion to modify because the motion was not properly verified, as the record shows he did not appear before a notary to acknowledge his signature, and 2) in granting the grandparents the right to intervene.
In regard to the first allegation, the grandparents proceeded to trial on their own motion to modify, after their motion to intervene was granted. They did not rely on their son's motion to sustain their cause, with the exception of incorporating its allegations of unfitness of the mother. At no time at the trial court level, or before this court, has the mother alleged any procedural defects in the grandparents' motion to modify. This being so, there is nothing for us to review on the acknowledgement issue.
The mother also contends that since the grandparents did not have physical custody of the children from the time of filing of the original pleadings until the time of trial, they had no right to intervene. She bases this argument on § 452.485. This statute reads:
The mother seems to believe that this statute gives a trial court discretion to join additional parties in a custody action only if such persons have actual physical custody of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
S.K.B. v. J.C.B.
...contemplated by § 452.423.1, it was still within the discretion of the trial court to appoint a guardian ad litem. J.L.E. v. D.J.E., 675 S.W.2d 456, 459 (Mo.App.1984). Even if the court fails to find that the allegations amount to abuse or neglect, the circumstances of the case may still wa......
-
Landoll by Landoll v. Dovell
...in this case. In light of the fact that the "trial court's right to appoint a guardian ad litem is discretionary," J.L.E. v. D.J.E., 675 S.W.2d 456, 459 (Mo.App.1984), we cannot say that the failure to appoint a guardian ad litem for Nicholas was erroneous. Point In his second point, Willia......
-
Zytniak v. Zytniak
...However, because the case deals with custody, we will consider the best interests of the parties' child. J.L.E. v. D.J.E., 675 S.W.2d 456, 458 (Mo.App.1984); and Estate of Groeper v. Groeper, 665 S.W.2d 367, 368 (Mo.App.1984). Mother's additional points in her reply brief allege erroneous a......
-
Mildred v. Darryl
...is shown by Mildred on this issue. The guardian ad litem issue is not viable here. There is no showing of an abuse. J.L.E. v. D.J.E., 675 S.W.2d 456 (Mo.App.1984). Section 452.490.4. There was no showing or even any mention of child abuse in this case, nor any lack of parenting skills by th......