Y.R.H. v. M.J.S.

• Docket Number: WD 85773
• Decision Date: 25 July 2023
• Citation: 672 S.W.3d 269
• Parties: In re the Matter of: Y.R.H. BY AND THROUGH Her Next Friend J.N.H., Appellant, v. M.J.S., Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

672 S.W.3d 269

In re the Matter of: Y.R.H. BY AND THROUGH Her Next FriendJ.N.H., Appellant,

v.M.J.S., Respondent.

WD 85773

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

OPINION FILED: July 25, 2023

Leon Davis, Kansas City, MO for appellant.

Respondent Acting Pro Se.

Before Division Two: W. Douglas Thomson, Presiding Judge, Cynthia L. Martin, Judge, Thomas N. Chapman, Judge

Cynthia L. Martin, Judge

J.N.H. ("Father") appeals from the trial court's judgment declaring paternity, establishing child custody, and ordering child support for the parties’ minor child ("Child").Father asserts that the trial court committed error in adopting its own parenting time schedule to afford M.J.S. ("Mother") and Father with parenting time during alternating weeks.Father claims that the trial court's finding that alternating weeks of parenting time was in Child's best interests was not supported by substantial evidence and was against the weight of the evidence.Finding no error, we affirm.

Factual and Procedural History¹

Mother gave birth to Child in 2020 in Jackson County, Missouri.Father has acknowledged that he is the natural father of Child since her birth, and Father's name was included on Child's birth certificate.

On August 27, 2021, Father filed a petition seeking to establish paternity, legal custody, and parenting time pursuant to the Uniform Parentage Act² in the Circuit Court of Jackson County("Petition").The Petition stipulated that he is Child's natural father, alleged that it is in Child's best interests for Mother and Father to share joint physical and legal custody of Child, and asked the trial court to find Father's proposed parenting plan³ to be in Child's best interests.Mother filed an answer on October 26, 2021("Answer"), in which she indicated that she did not agree with Father's proposed parenting plan and attached her own as an exhibit.Mother's parenting plan also proposed joint legal and physical custody, but proposed that Father have parenting time with Child every other weekend from 7 p.m. on Friday to 7 p.m. on Sunday, with Mother to have parenting time with Child at all other times.

The parties participated in court ordered mediation prior to trial.The mediator created a memorandum of understanding ("Memorandum of Understanding") based on the parties’ discussions, which Mother filed with the trial court.The Memorandum of Understanding suggested that Father and Mother had agreed they would share joint legal and physical custody of Child; that Child would continue to attend a daycare in Columbia, Missouri; that Father would have parenting time every other weekend from 8 a.m. on Saturday to either the start time for daycare or school, or 6 p.m. on Monday; and that Father would pay $400 monthly in child support.Father contested that he agreed to the terms set forth in the Memorandum of Understanding.

During a bench trial on August 29, 2022, Father appeared, but Mother did not.⁴Father testified that, sometime after filing his Petition, he moved to St. Louis, Missouri and began working for Bi-State Metro, a public transit agency, as an electrician.Father further testified that Mother lived in Columbia, Missouri, where she worked for U.S. Bank.Father testified that he had been transporting Child back and forth from his home to Columbia because Mother did not have a working vehicle.Father requested that the trial court adopt his proposed parenting plan, a copy of which was entered into evidence as Exhibit 3.⁵Exhibit 3 proposed that Mother and Father share joint legal and physical custody of Child, and that Mother have parenting time every other weekend from Friday at 9 a.m. to Sunday at 3:00 p.m. Father testified that he had familial support in the St. Louis area that would allow Child to have stability and a relationship with cousins.Father further testified that he had secured child care at the Third Presbyterian Baptist Church.

Father's father("Grandfather") and Grandfather's long-term partner ("Grandfather's Partner") also testified at trial.Grandfather confirmed that Father had a strong and stable familial support system in St. Louis, and testified that he had been assisting Father in transporting Child from Mother's home in Columbia to Father's home in St. Louis.Grandfather's Partner testified that Father had a loving relationship with Child.

At the conclusion of the evidence, the trial court orally found that it was in Child's best interests to adopt Father's proposed parenting plan.The trial court directed Father's attorney to prepare a judgment.Father's attorney submitted a proposed judgment on September 26, 2022.⁶

Three days later, on September 29, 2022, the trial court entered a judgment and order of paternity, child custody, child support, and necessities ("Judgment").The Judgment found that Father is Child's natural father and concluded that it was in Child's best interests for Mother and Father to share joint legal and physical custody, consistent with the position that had been taken by Father in his Petition and at trial, and by Mother's filings.However, the Judgment did not adopt either Father's or Mother's proposed parenting time plan.Instead, the Judgment found that a parenting plan prepared by the trial court("trial court's parenting plan") and incorporated in full in the Judgment was in Child's best interests.The trial court's parenting plan provided that "[C]hild shall alternate weeks with each parent from Sunday at 3 p.m. to the following Sunday at 3 p.m.," and that Father would continue transporting Child between homes until Mother has a licensed vehicle, at which time Father and Mother would exchange Child at a designated location between their respective homes.

Father appeals.

Standard of Review

We review all court-tried cases, including a judgment in a paternity action, pursuant to the standard outlined in Murphy v. Carron , 536 S.W.2d 30(Mo. banc 1976).Taylor v. Francis , 620 S.W.3d 308, 311(Mo. App. W.D.2021).We will affirm the trial court's judgment unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law.Id.(citingMurphy , 536 S.W.2d at 32 ).A no-substantial-evidence challenge and an against-the-weight-of-the-evidence challenge are distinct theories of relief that are proved differently.T.G. v. D.W.H. , 648 S.W.3d 42, 48(Mo. App. E.D.2022).

A claim that there was no substantial evidence to support the judgment is an assertion that "there is no evidence in the record tending to prove a fact that is necessary to sustain the [trial] court's judgment as a matter of law."Ivie v. Smith , 439 S.W.3d 189, 200(Mo. banc 2014)."When reviewing whether the [trial] court's judgment is supported by substantial evidence, [we] view the evidence in the light most favorable to the [trial] court's judgment and defer to the [trial] court's credibility determinations."Id.We disregard all contrary evidence and inferences.Id.

An against-the-weight challenge, on the other hand, presupposes that there is sufficient evidence to support the trial court's judgment and concerns the persuasive value of the evidence.Id. at 205.A trial court's decision is against the weight of the evidence "only if the [trial] court could not have reasonably found , from the record at trial, the existence of a fact that is necessary to sustain the judgment."Id. at 206(emphasis added).If the evidence supports two reasonable but different conclusions, we will not reverse the judgment because we are obligated to defer to the trial court's assessment of conflicting evidence and credibility, given its superior position to evaluate the evidence presented at trial.Id.

Analysis

Father challenges the Judgment in two points on appeal, both of which focus on the trial court's finding that alternating parenting time with Child on a weekly basis is in Child's best interests.In his first point on appeal, Father asserts that the Judgment's finding that alternating parenting time with Child on a weekly basis is in Child's best interests was against the weight of the evidence ("Point One").Father's second point on appeal asserts that the Judgment's finding that alternating parenting time with Child on a weekly basis is in Child's best interests is unsupported by substantial evidence ("Point Two").Because an against-the-weight-of-the-evidence challenge presupposes that there is sufficient evidence to support the judgment, we begin by addressing Point Two.

Before doing so, however, it is helpful to note that Father does not argue that the trial court was forbidden from adopting a parenting plan of its own despite orally stating on the record that it intended to adopt Father's proposed parenting plan.SeeSaunders v. Bowersox , 179 S.W.3d 288, 294(Mo. App. S.D.2005)(holding that written judgment controls in a civil case, and trial court's oral statements made in ruling an issue are generally disregarded as they are not a part of the judgment).

Nor does Father contend that the trial court had no authority to adopt a parenting plan of its own in lieu of a parenting plan proposed by one of the parties.SeeHall v. Hall , 336 S.W.3d 188, 194-95(Mo. App. W.D.2011)(observing that the trial court rejected the proposed parenting plans of father, mother and guardian ad litem, and instead adopted its own parenting plan).Finally, Father does not contend that the trial court committed reversible error by failing to make sufficient findings regarding its rejection of the parties’ proposed parenting plans in lieu of the adoption of its own.Cf.Hall , 336 S.W.3d at 194-95(where judgment failed to identify factors which led trial court to adopt its own parenting plan after rejecting the parties’ proposed parenting plans in violation of section 452.375.6).Nor could Father successfully raise this argument on appeal as he failed to challenge the sufficiency of the trial court's required statutory findings in a Rule 78.07(c)...