JOHANNA JETT, Petitioner/Respondent v. FRANK JETT , 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 604 ( 2015 )

JOHANNA JETT, )
)
Petitioner/Respondent, )
)
vs. ) No. SD33519
) Filed: June 5, 2015
FRANK JETT, )
)
Respondent/Appellant. )
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SCOTT COUNTY
Honorable William H. Winchester, III, Associate Circuit Judge
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS
This is an action for dissolution of marriage between Frank Jett and Johanna Jett. 1 Frank
appeals from the amended judgment of the trial court entered on July 22, 2014. At trial, the
parties contested custody of the two children born of the marriage. The trial court entered a
judgment of dissolution on July 22, 2014, but failed to make the findings required by section
452.375.6. 2 The same day, the trial court entered an amended judgment of dissolution, also
1
Because a portion of the involved parties share the same surname, for ease of reference we refer to the parties by
their first names. We mean no familiarity or disrespect.
2
All references to statutes are to RSMo Cum.Supp. 2011, unless otherwise indicated.
failing to make the findings required by section 452.375.6. 3 Frank thereafter filed a timely,
authorized after-trial motion raising this issue, among others, as error, which the trial court
overruled.
On appeal, Frank asserts in his first point relied on that the trial court erred in failing to
make the findings required by section 452.375.6. 4 We agree.
“[S]ection 452.375.6 requires a trial court to issue written findings based on the public
policy of section 452.375.4 and the factors enumerated in section 452.375.2(1)-(8) detailing the
specific reasons that the court made the chosen arrangement[].” Hightower v. Myers, 304
S.W.3d 727, 735 (Mo. banc 2010). While the court need not make a finding on every factor, the
relevant factors must be detailed. Real v. Real, 229 S.W.3d 619, 621 (Mo.App. S.D. 2007).
3
Section 452.375.6 requires the trial court to issue written findings based on the public policy of section 452.375.4,
and the factors enumerated in section 452.375.2(1)-(8). The section 452.375.2 factors are:
(1) The wishes of the child’s parents as to custody and the proposed parenting plan
submitted by both parties;
(2) The needs of the child for a frequent, continuing and meaningful relationship with
both parents and the ability and willingness of parents to actively perform their functions as
mother and father for the needs of the child;
(3) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with parents, siblings, and any other
person who may significantly affect the child’s best interests;
(4) Which parent is more likely to allow the child frequent, continuing and meaningful
contact with the other parent;
(5) The child’s adjustment to the child’s home, school, and community;
(6) The mental and physical health of all individuals involved, including any history of
abuse of any individuals involved. If the court finds that a pattern of domestic violence as defined
in section 455.010 has occurred, and, if the court also finds that awarding custody to the abusive
parent is in the best interest of the child, then the court shall enter written findings of fact and
conclusions of law. Custody and visitation rights shall be ordered in a manner that best protects
the child and any other child or children for whom the parent has custodial or visitation rights, and
the parent or other family or household member who is the victim of domestic violence from any
further harm;
(7) The intention of either parent to relocate the principal residence of the child; and
(8) The wishes of a child as to the child’s custodian. The fact that a parent sends his or
her child or children to a home school, as defined in section 167.031, shall not be the sole factor
that a court considers in determining custody of such child or children.
§ 452.375.2.
4
Frank also asserts error in four other points. However, as point one is dispositive, we do not reach those additional
points.
“Written findings, detailing and discussing all relevant factors, provide for meaningful appellate
review.” Id. (Emphasis in original).
Here, the trial court’s judgment does not detail and discuss the facts pertaining to the
relevant statutory factors. As a result, reversal and remand is the appropriate remedy. Id.
The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent
with this opinion.
WILLIAM W. FRANCIS, JR., C.J./P.J. - OPINION AUTHOR
JEFFREY W. BATES, J. - Concurs
DANIEL E. SCOTT, J. - Concurs