Courts Bulletin: Family law

Editor:
John W. Dennis, Jr. , Esquire
Remand is necessary for the trial court to enter the statutorily appropriate nomenclature in describing the type of custody being awarded to the parents in this matter. Shane M. Granger, Respondent v. Tina M. Granger, Appellant, No. 27852 (Mo. App. S.D., April 2, 2007) Barney, J.
The judgment of dissolution of marriage was reversed for two reasons. The remand for the entry of specific findings of fact as to domestic violence is not summarized here. The trial court awarded custody to the “parties jointly” and named father “residential custodian” and mother “non-primary custodian.” Mother appealed.
Held: Reversed.
“…[F]ailure to use proper nomenclature in describing the type of custody being awarded to a parent is confusing to litigants and impedes proper appellate review.” In re: Marriage of Copeland, 148 S.W.3d 327n.1 (Mo. App. 2004). As Wife maintains, there are no statutory designations for 'separate custody' or 'non-primary custodian' as set out by the trial court in the Judgment. Additionally, setting out a custody award to the 'parties jointly' is at best ambiguous and confusing and is also not a disposition recognized by either section 452.375.1 or 452.375.5.”

Source for Post: The Missouri Bar