Stockton v. Stockton
| Decision Date | 27 October 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 8972,8972 |
| Parties | Lyle M. STOCKTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Reva P. STOCKTON, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
F. William Joyner, Miller, Fairman, Sanford, Carr & Lowther, Springfield, for plaintiff-appellant.
Robert V. Groce, Springfield, for defendant-respondent.
The father of two boys, now 7 and 9 years of age, had appealed from the August 22, 1969, order of the Circuit Court of Greene County which modified its May 20, 1966, divorce decree relative to custody of the children. When the original decree was entered awarding the father a divorce, both parents were residing in Springfield and the court placed the care and custody of the boys with the father but afforded the mother reasonable visitation rights and custody of the children on alternate weekends. By mutual assent of the parents through an out-of-court agreement, the decree was altered by permitting the mother to additionally have the boys every other evening, on 'some holidays,' and during the mother's vacation from her employment each year. Placidity paled, however, in November 1968 when the father changed jobs and moved to Columbia, Missouri, taking with him the two boys, his present wife, their child and his stepchild. Under the threat of a contempt of court citation against the father for violating the visitation and custody rights of the mother granted by the 1966 decree, the parties concocted yet another nonjudicial modification of the original judgment by agreeing that the father 'would pay the transportation costs of the children (from Columbia to Springfield and return) on every other weekend during the school months, that (the mother) would have them in the summer * * * beginning right after * * * school was out through August 15, (that the father) was to have the right to see them every third weekend' in the summer and was to pay the mother $75 per month child support 'during the summer months.'
This last arrangement continued without serious incident until the early part of July 1969, at which time the boys were in their mother's custody at Springfield for the summer. It seems the father contemplated a camping trip with the boys when the mother had similar plans for the same period. In any event, after the mother and the boys returned from their outing and the children were in charge of a baby sitter while the mother was at work, the father took charge of the children and returned them to Columbia. Upon the heels of this occurrence came the mother's motion to modify the original decree by giving her full care and custody of the boys and $200 a month child support. Three days later the father filed a motion wherein he stated that since he was residing in Columbia the 1966 decree should be amended to delete the alternate weekend visits of the boys with their mother because these visits were impractical and constituted an undue burden on the father and the children. As was later shown, the boys were usually transported during school months between Columbia and Springfield by commercial airline at a cost to the father of approximately $52 a month.
Following an exhaustive trial of the issues posed by both motions, the court nisi modified and augmented its initial decree in the following particulars: the mother was given custody of the boys for one week during Christmas vacation and each summer from noon on the fifth day of school vacation until noon on the fifth day before the commencement of school; she was also allowed $20 a week child support during her summer custody; the father was 'awarded reasonable visitations and visitations with (the) children on alternate weekends in (the) summer' and was required 'to pay (the) cost of transportation (for the children) to and from Springfield for (the children's) alternate weekend visitations' with the mother.
The 'Points Relied On' in the father's appeal brief are that the 'trial court erred in failing to order a reduction of (the mother's) visitation privileges' and 'in decreeing that (the father) provide all transportation costs to transfer the minor children to and from Columbia, Missouri, to Springfield, Missouri.' Such abstractions do not advise why it is contended the court was wrong, and were this not a case involving the welfare of children, we would sua sponte dismiss the father's appeal for total failure to comply with Civil Rules 83.05(a)(3) and (e), V.A.M.R. Graham v. Graham, Mo.App., 428 S.W.2d 941, 944(1). Although Civil Rule 73.01(d), V.A.M.R., enjoins us to review court-tried cases upon both the law and the evidence, we need perform this function 'only in respect to the specific matters urged by appellant as constituting error.' Schlanger v. Simon, Mo., 339 S.W.2d 825, 828(1). At the time of oral argument we were informed the father's specific objections to the modification order were that it failed to wholly delete the mother's right to have the children in her home during school months on alternate weekends and granted her custody of the boys for too long a period during the summer. Ergo, our attention will be principally applied to these particulars.
Contrary to the mode aped in many opinions concerned with child custody matters, a prolix recasting of the evidence adduced in this case is thankfully unnecessary as no one challenges the propriety of investing the father with major custody of the boys, nor questions the fitness of the mother to minor custody and reasonable visitation privileges. The parties agree that the children should be given ample opportunity to associate with both parents (Dupree v. Dupree, Mo.App., 357 S.W.2d 241, 243(3)), and acknowledge that visitation and custody rights are properly apportioned with the interests of the boys in mind (J. v. E., Mo.App., 417 S.W.2d 199, 203--204(5)) and not for the purpose of rewarding one parent or punishing the other for what may have transpired in the past. McCallister v. McCallister, Mo.App., 455 S.W.2d 31, 35(7); Wood v. Wood, Mo.App., 400 S.W.2d 431, 436(5). If so minded, we could parade an endless line of additional judicial pronouncements erected as guideposts in these causes (see them collected in 11 Missouri Digest, Divorce, kk298--299), but the task seems dispensable for when the platitudes are shorn of superfluities the lone unbending and unadorned order is that it be determined what will best serve and promote the children's welfare. J_ _ G_ _ W_ _ v. J_ _ L_ _ S_ _, Mo.App., 414 S.W.2d 352, 360(5). While we search for ways to execute this command, we should nonetheless be alert to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mayer v. Mayer
...There is no doubt that the distance between the homes of the parents was an important factor in that case. Accord, Stockton v. Stockton, 459 S.W.2d 532 (Mo.App.1970); Stanfield v. Stanfield, 350 P.2d (Okl.Sup.Ct.1960); Barrier v. Brewster, 349 S.W.2d 823 (Ky.Ct.App.1961); Dworkis v. Dworkis......
-
Lipsey v. Lipsey
...the welfare of the children but rather tends to provoke strain and tension and to engender instability and insecurity. Stockton v. Stockton, Mo.App., 459 S.W.2d 532, 535; J_ _ G_ _ W_ _ v. J_ _ L_ _ S_ _, Mo.App., 414 S.W.2d 352, 359(3); M_ _ L_ _ v. M_ _ R_ _, Mo.App., 407 S.W.2d 600, 604(......
-
Marriage of Mayfield, In re, 16139
...very young children, between divorced parents. See Taylor v. Taylor, 548 S.W.2d 866, 868-69 (Mo.App.1977); Stockton v. Stockton, 459 S.W.2d 532, 535 (Mo.App.1970); M-- L-- v. M-- R--, 407 S.W.2d at 604; Kimble v. Kimble, 399 S.W.2d 630, 634 With deference to the parties, it is readily appar......
-
Taylor v. Taylor, s. 37327 and 37338
...cities does not advance their welfare but rather tends to provoke feelings of instability and insecurity." Stockton v. Stockton, 459 S.W.2d 532, 535(1) (Mo.App.1970); Wood v. Wood, 400 S.W.2d 431 (Mo.App.1966); Kimble v. Kimble, 399 S.W.2d 630 (Mo.App.1966); JGW v. JLS, 414 S.W.2d 352, 359(......