Miner v. Miner, WD
Decision Date | 24 April 1984 |
Docket Number | No. WD,WD |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Parties | Anthony MINER, Appellant, v. Gloria MINER, Respondent. 35045. |
Anthony Miner, pro se.
Gloria Miner, pro se.
Before SHANGLER, P.J., and KENNEDY and LOWENSTEIN, JJ.
Anthony Miner, a prisoner in the Missouri State Penitentiary at Jefferson City in Cole County, filed a dissolution of marriage petition in the Circuit Court of Cole County. The petition said that there was a child born of petitioner's marriage to respondent Gloria J. Miner, born December 6, 1976, by the name of Tamika Jittaum Miner who "will be residing with the mother of the petitioner, Rosie Miner, 6222 Bailey, St. Louis County, Hillsdale, Missouri." The petition requests a dissolution of marriage and "that custody of the child be given to Rosie Miner."
The wife filed no answer or other pleading. Petitioner showed up on the day appointed for trial, along with his mother, Rosie Miner.
The trial court granted a decree of dissolution but made no order with respect to the child's custody or support. According to petitioner's testimony, the child was in its mother's, the defaulting wife's custody, but was actually staying with petitioner's mother. It is fairly apparent from the record that both the respondent wife and the petitioner's mother resided in St. Louis.
Appellant's point on appeal is that the court erred in not placing the child in his mother's custody. He claims the court should have awarded the custody to his mother, as his surrogate. See In the Interest of K.K.M., 647 S.W.2d 886 (Mo.App.1983); C---- v. B----, 358 S.W.2d 454 (Mo.App.1962).
The court, however, declined to make any provision for the child's custody.
It is mandatory for the trial court in a dissolution case, where it has jurisdiction to do so, see Bridges v. Bridges, 559 S.W.2d 753 (Mo.App.1977); Morgan v. Morgan, 542 S.W.2d 617 (Mo.App.1976), to provide for the custody of a minor dependent child of the parties. B.W. v. F.E.W., 562 S.W.2d 137, 139 (Mo.App.1978); Cradic v. Cradic, 544 S.W.2d 605, 606-07 (Mo.App.1976); Hawkins v. Hawkins, 462 S.W.2d 818, 821-22 (Mo.App.1970). In failing to provide for the minor child of the marriage domiciled in the jurisdiction of the court, the trial court failed to exhaust its jurisdiction. Cf. In re Marriage of May, 664 S.W.2d 20, 21 (Mo.App.1984) ( ); In re Marriage of Wineland, 609 S.W.2d 464, 466 (Mo.App.1980) ( ); L.F.H. v. R.L.H., 543 S.W.2d 520, 521-22 (Mo.App.1976) ( ); Pendleton v. Pendleton, 532 S.W.2d 905, 906 (Mo.App.19...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rich v. Rich, 62932
...case, where it has jurisdiction to do so, to provide for the custody of a minor dependent child of the parties. Miner v. Miner, 669 S.W.2d 628, 629 (Mo.App.1984). Furthermore, pursuant to § 452.340.3, a parent must continue to make child support payments until the child dies or: (1) marries......
-
Scruggs v. Scruggs
...a "direction to make an award of custody of all minor children in dissolution cases." (Emphasis added.) Similarly, in Miner v. Miner, 669 S.W.2d 628, 629 (Mo.App.1984), citing B.W. v. F.E.W., the court recognized that "it is mandatory for the trial court in a dissolution case ... to provide......
-
Blomenkamp v. Blomenkamp
...acknowledged that the term “child,” for purposes of custody orders, refers to a “minor dependent child.” Id. (citing Miner v. Miner, 669 S.W.2d 628, 629 (Mo.App.1984) ).A key provision of Missouri's dissolution law indicates that a child's eighteenth birthday does have significance apart fr......