Sendlein v. Sendlein
| Decision Date | 04 October 2022 |
| Docket Number | ED 110187 |
| Citation | 655 S.W.3d 422 |
| Parties | Alison G. SENDLEIN, Respondent, v. Brian B. SENDLEIN, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Susan F. Jacobsen, 5257 Shaw Avenue, Ste. 221, St. Louis, MO 63110, for appellant.
Terry J. Flanagan, John W. Peel, 133 South 11th Street, Ste. 350, St. Louis, MO 63102, for respondent.
This case involves two distinct, but related, issues that arise when joint legal and physical custodians cannot agree on where their child should attend school. The first issue involves the designation of a minor child's residence for mailing and educational purposes under § 452.375.5.1 The second involves the circuit court's ability to decide which school that a minor child should attend in the event the child's joint custodians cannot agree. The parties to this appeal do not agree on the standard that the circuit court should apply for either issue. Nor do they agree on whether the circuit court made the correct determination.
As explained below, both issues fall within the category described by the Supreme Court of Missouri as "sub-issues of custody." As a result, when joint custodians cannot agree on these issues, the circuit court is to make a determination based on the best interests of the child in accordance with § 452.375.2. If the parties’ disagreement begins after the initial judgment of dissolution, then the procedures and standard for modifying the judgment are those set forth in § 452.410, which permits modification of the original custody determination only upon proof that there has been a change in circumstances justifying the modification and that the modification is in the best interests of the child. Importantly, the legislature has directed that all issues related to custody, whether determined in the first instance or on a motion to modify, shall be determined in accordance with the best interests of the child. Section 452.375.2.
In this case, the circuit court determined that it was in the best interests of the child to designate her mother's address as the child's residence for mailing and educational purposes and also determined that the child should attend a local parochial school. Because these findings are supported by substantial evidence, the circuit court's judgment is affirmed.
On January 31, 2018, the circuit court dissolved the marriage of Alison Osburg-Sendlein ("Mother") and Brian Sendlein ("Father"). The parties had one child born of the marriage. With the agreement of the parties, the circuit court entered a Judgment and Decree of Dissolution of Marriage granting Mother and Father joint legal and physical custody of their child. According to the dissolution decree and an agreed-to parenting plan, Mother and Father were to confer and agree on all issues related to their child's upbringing, including issues related to the child's education. The parenting plan included a provision under which the parties agreed to mediate any disagreements, and if mediation was unsuccessful,2 they were then permitted to submit the issue to the court for determination.
The dissolution decree designated Father's residence as the address of the child for mailing and educational purposes. Following the judgment, Father was to remain in the marital home in Franklin County while he prepared the home for sale. Mother planned to live temporarily with her mother, also in Franklin County, until she was able to move into her own home. Because both Mother and Father intended to change their residences shortly after the dissolution became final, they originally asked the circuit court to enter the judgment without a designated residence. The circuit court, however, refused the request because § 452.375.2(1) requires a designation be made. The parties then agreed to designate the address of their marital home.
Shortly after the circuit court entered the dissolution decree, Father notified Mother by text message that he was vacating the marital home prior to its sale. During this time, he resided at two separate residences, one in Wildwood, Missouri and another in St. Jacob, Illinois. Father was not in regular communication with Mother about which residence he used on a day-to-day basis or where the child resided while in his custody.
In response, Mother filed a motion to modify the dissolution decree, alleging that Father "unilaterally moved the residence of the child" without complying with the relocation notification requirements of § 452.377. Mother further alleged that Father consistently failed to communicate with her as to where their child was residing and failed to follow the terms of their parenting plan regarding transportation and exchanges. Mother requested that the circuit court modify the dissolution decree to designate her address as the child's address for mailing and education purposes. Father filed a response to the motion indicating that he had moved from the marital home to make it easier to sell and noting that he agreed to return to the marital home until after its sale. Mother's motion remained pending until it was tried by the circuit court nearly three years later on July 12, 2021.
After Father returned to the marital home, the parties agreed that their child would attend St. John the Baptist ("St. John's") for pre-kindergarten. St. John's is a parochial school located in Franklin County and offers religious instruction and curriculum from pre-kindergarten to eighth grade. The child had been previously baptized in St. John's parish. Mother also had attended St. John's school when she was a child, and the child's maternal grandmother taught at the school for fifteen years. Father paid for half of the child's school expenses for the 2019-2020 school year and enrolled her for the 2020-2021 school year.
On June 12, 2020, Father sent mother a letter stating that he intended to sell his home and relocate to a temporary address in Wildwood. According to the letter, Father planned to purchase a home in Wildwood, Ellisville, Ballwin, or Eureka. Father's letter stated that the primary reason for his move was to relocate into the Rockwood School District to ensure that their child could attend one of the "highest rated" school districts in Missouri. Six weeks later, Father sent a second letter providing Mother with a permanent relocation address and reiterating his intention to place their child in the Rockwood School District.
Mother filed objections to Father's relocation in the circuit court. Mother's objection did not focus on Father's chosen address, but instead, claimed that Father's stated intention to unilaterally move the child to the Rockwood School District was a violation of the dissolution decree and parenting plan. Mother noted that her motion to modify remained pending and that Father's relocation was an attempt to decide the issue of the proper residential address for educational purposes before the court had an opportunity to rule on the issue.
While the objections to Father's relocation remained pending, Father unilaterally withdrew the child from St. John's pre-kindergarten. Prior to the first day of school, Father notified Mother that he did not want the child to attend the first week of school because he wanted her to spend time with his immunocompromised mother. Mother agreed on the condition that the child should attend her first day of school. Father refused, however, and withdrew the child forty-eight hours before her first day of school. When he withdrew the child, Father told the school's administration that he was the child's designated residential parent. Father also informed Mother that the child would not attend the school unless compelled by court order. The circuit court held a hearing on Mother's objections and ordered the child's re-enrollment at St. John's on October 16, 2020. The circuit court indicated that the residential address and choice of school issues would be heard with Mother's motion to modify.3
The circuit court held a trial on Mother's motion to modify on July 12, 2021. Mother testified in detail about the child's friendships with other students at St. John's. Mother also testified that the child was involved in several community events and service projects sponsored by the school. The principal of St. John's testified to details about the school's curriculum, small class sizes, and opportunities for the students to practice the Catholic faith. The principal further testified that the child's performance on her kindergarten screening tests was successful and above average. Additionally, the child's maternal grandmother testified that she lives near the school and assists both parties by picking up the child from school and providing care for her.
Father's evidence focused primarily on comparing the quality of the parties’ local public school districts. Father presented testimony regarding testing, funding, teacher certifications, and training at public schools in the Pacific and Rockwood School Districts. Father's expert witness, however, admitted that she had never spoken to anyone from St. John's and was unfamiliar with the school's curriculum.
Following the trial, the circuit court entered a Judgment and Decree of Modification. The circuit court found that Mother had proven a substantial and continuing change of circumstances, although it acknowledged that only a simple change was required for modification. The circuit court then weighed the factors in § 452.375.2 and found that modification of the child's residential address was necessary to serve the child's best interests. The circuit court emphasized that Mother purchased a home in Franklin County where the child had lived all of her life. The circuit court noted that Mother's residence was near the child's school and church. The circuit...
To continue reading
Request your trial