Merriweather v. Chacon

• Decision Date: 28 December 2021
• Docket Number: No. ED 109385,ED 109385
• Citation: Merriweather v. Chacon, 639 S.W.3d 494 (Mo. App. 2021)
• Parties: Candice MERRIWEATHER, n/k/a Candice Schuval, Respondent, v. Nathon CHACON, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

639 S.W.3d 494

Candice MERRIWEATHER, n/k/a Candice Schuval, Respondent,

v.Nathon CHACON, Appellant.

No. ED 109385

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR.

Filed: December 28, 2021 Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied January 31, 2022

FOR APPELLANT: James J. Leightner, 230 S. Bemiston, Suite 600, Clayton, Missouri.

FOR RESPONDENT: Susan M. Hais, Elliott I. Goldberger, 222 S. Central Ave., Suite 600, Clayton, Missouri 63105.

Michael E. Gardner, P.J., James M. Dowd, J., and Lisa P. Page, J.

James M. Dowd, Judge

Introduction

Appellant Nathon P. Chacon (Father) appeals the trial court's judgment (1) denying his motion for contempt against Respondent Candice Merriweather, N/K/A Candice Schuval (Mother) for her unauthorized disclosure to third persons of his confidential psychological evaluation; (2) granting Mother's request to relocate with the parties’ minor child; (3) denying Father's request to modify the parties’ child custody order; and (4) denying his request for attorney's fees. We affirm.

Background

The parties were married on October 28, 2011 in San Diego, California and had one child together, a son (Son), who is now 9 years old. The parties’ marriage was dissolved via a consent judgment on August 27, 2014. Regarding custody of Son, the dissolution judgment established joint physical custody but granted Mother sole legal custody and designated her the residential parent. The original judgment was modified three times; February 26, 2016, February 23, 2017, and December 17, 2018. The most recent modification maintained Mother as the residential parent with sole legal custody and joint physical custody with Father receiving reasonable visitation including alternate weekends, weekday visits, a holiday schedule, and vacation weeks during the summer.

This litigation commenced on September 17, 2019, when Father filed a motion for civil contempt alleging that Mother violated the court's order by disclosing Father's confidential psychological evaluation to one or more third parties. On April 10, 2020, while Father's motion for contempt was pending, Mother notified Father pursuant to section 452.377.2¹ of her intent to relocate to a new residence approximately five miles from her then-current residence.² Mother's notice included the assertion that the relocation would not affect the parties’ visitation schedule. After Father learned that the proposed relocation would require Son to transfer to a different elementary school in the same school district, Father timely objected on that basis to the proposed relocation pursuant to section 452.377.8³ and also on the grounds that the relocation was not in Son's best interests.

Before the trial court heard and decided the relocation issue, Mother effectuated the relocation with Son to the new residence and enrolled Son in the new school. As a result, on July 15, 2020, Father amended his opposition motion to include the allegation that Mother's violation of the relocation statute in this regard warranted modification of custody. Father requested the trial court change the custody order to joint legal and joint physical custody of Son and that Father be designated the residential parent.

On July 28, 2020, a hearing was held on Father's motion for civil contempt and his opposition to Mother's relocation. Evidence was adduced by both parties relating to the issues raised by Father's contempt motion and the relocation question including whether the relocation was in Son's best interest and whether it was proposed in good faith. On September 2, 2020, the trial court entered its judgment in favor of Mother on both matters. The court's judgment reiterated that joint custody would continue and Mother would remain Son's residential parent and sole legal custodian. Father now appeals.

Father brings four points of error. First, he argues the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion in opposition to the relocation because despite Father's request, the trial court failed to issue written findings addressing the statutory factors relevant to the issue of Son's best interest as required by section 452.375.2. Second, Father argues the trial court abused its discretion in granting Mother's relocation because the proposed relocation was not made in good faith and Mother, as the party seeking relocation, did not meet her burden to show it was in Son's best interest. Third, with regard to the disclosure of Father's confidential psychological report, Father argues the trial court erred in denying his contempt motion because the record showed Mother disclosed the report to at least two third parties. And finally, Father argues the trial court abused its discretion by denying his request for attorney's fees which he claims were warranted in light of Mother's violation of the relocation statute by relocating Son without Father's consent and before the trial court considered and ruled on her request.

Standard of Review

"In a court-tried case, we will uphold the trial court's judgment as long as it is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and does not erroneously declare or apply the law." Courtney v. Courtney , 550 S.W.3d 522, 525–26 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017) (citing Murphy v. Carron , 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976) ). "We defer to the trial court's determinations of credibility and view all facts and any inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the judgment." Id. These standards apply to this Court's review of a trial court's judgment denying or granting a motion to relocate a minor child. Henry v. Henry , 353 S.W.3d 368, 371 (Mo. App. S.D. 2011) (citing Mantonya v. Mantonya , 311 S.W.3d 392, 395 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010) ).

Discussion

I. & II.

Father's first two points address the trial court's decision to allow Mother to relocate with Son. His first point asserts the trial court erred by failing to issue detailed findings of fact on the eight best interest factors set forth in section 452.375. His second point claims as erroneous the trial court's findings that the relocation was in Son's best interest and was made in good faith. We address them together and deny both points because we find that the trial court's factual findings readily support that the relocation is in Son's best interest and was brought in good faith and the court's detailed findings comply with the requirements of Missouri law in terms of their specificity and their treatment of the relevant factors set forth in section 452.375.2.

The relocation of a minor child is governed by section 452.377. Under the statute, the trial court must determine whether the proposed relocation is in the best interests of the child, whether the relocation proposal is made in good faith, and, if the relocation is permitted, whether the relocation complies with the requirements of section 452.377.11.⁴ Schlotman v. Costa , 193 S.W.3d 430, 433 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006) (citing Stowe v. Spence , 41 S.W.3d 468, 469 (Mo. banc 2001) ); see also section 452.377.10. When it comes to determining the best interests of the child in a relocation case, "sections 452.377 and 452.375 ... are part of a single statutory scheme and must be read together." Pasternak v. Pasternak , 467 S.W.3d 264, 269 (Mo. banc 2015) (citing Abernathy v. Meier , 45 S.W.3d 917, 924 (Mo. App. E.D. 2001) ).

The failure of a trial court to make findings on the controverted material fact issues specified by the party mandates reversal only when the trial court's failure to issue requested findings materially interferes with appellate review. Valentine v. Valentine , 400 S.W.3d 14, 20 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013). We begin with the presumption that the trial court made its determinations motivated by and in accordance with the children's best interests after a thorough review of all of the evidence. Alberswerth v. Alberswerth , 184 S.W.3d 81, 89 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006) (citing Dunkle v. Dunkle , 158 S.W.3d 823, 832-833 (Mo. App. E.D. 2005) ). We will only reverse a decision if we are firmly convinced the welfare and best interest of the child require otherwise. Id.

We acknowledge at the outset of our analysis of Father's first two points our agreement with the initial premise of Father's argument – that in a relocation-of-a-minor case, when the trial court performs its best interests analysis required by section 452.377.10, the trial court is properly guided by the factors set forth in section 452.375.2 which govern the best interests analysis in custody determinations.⁵ See O'Brien v. O'Brien , 611 S.W.3d 522, 525 (Mo. App. W.D. 2020) ("Although section 452.375.2 does not expressly govern the best interest inquiry in relocation determinations, it is proper for a trial court to consider the factors articulated in section 452.375.2 because those factors are equally relevant to the best interest inquiry in section 452.377.")

We disagree, however, with Father's argument that the trial court's factual findings here documenting its best interest analysis failed to comply with the spirit and letter of sections 452.377.10 and 452.375.2. Simply put, whether a trial court is analyzing a minor's best interests in the context of child custody or in the context of relocation, Missouri law requires only that the trial court address all relevant factors and enter written findings as to those. Section 452.375.2; A.A.B. v. A.D.L. , 572 S.W.3d 562, 568 (Mo. App. E.D. 2019) ("The trial court is not required to make a detailed finding on each factor listed in section 452.375.2, but only to make sufficient findings on the factors relevant to the case.").

Our review of the transcript and of the factual findings contained in the trial court's judgment demonstrates that the trial court addressed all of the section 452.375.2 factors that were raised in the evidence and all that were relevant to whether the Son's best interest was served by the relocation. And, importantly, the court addressed all the matters raised by Father. In this...