Missouri Divorce and Family Law Blog : Kansas City Divorce Lawyer & Attorney : Wortman Law Firm

The Circuit court ordered re-financing of the house after divorce.  At the hearing on a subsequent contempt action, the circuit court found that failure to comply was not contemptuous because party did not have the financial ability to comply with the order. Record supports such finding.  The court stated that  "A party alleging contempt establishes a prima facie case for civil contempt when the party proves: (1) the contemnor's obligation to perform an action as required by the decree; and (2) the contemnor's failure to meet the obligation “The alleged contemnor then has the burden of proving that person's failure to act was not due to her own intentional and contumacious conduct."

The second point on appeal was the child custody modification. The court stated:

"'Under § 452.410.1, a court may not modify a prior custody decree unless it finds, on the basis of facts which have arisen subsequent to [that] decree, that (1) a change has occurred in the circumstances of the child or his custodian and (2) a modification of custody is in the best interests of the child."A motion to change from joint custody to sole custody requires a showing that the change in circumstances is substantial.""[T]he parent requesting the change of custody has the burden of proving the change in circumstances warranting custody modification."Thus, in ruling on a motion to modify from joint legal to sole legal custody, the trial court must first determine whether the evidence establishes that a substantial change has occurred in circumstances of the child or the child's custodian; and, if so, it must then consider whether the best interests of the child would be served by modifying custody.

A Substantial change in circumstances includes parents’ failure to communicate for eight months.

The entire opinion can be read here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Similar to other states, Missouri is a modified no-fault divorce state. However, there is some misconception out there about what this actually means for divorcing parties in Missouri. Modified no-fault divorce means that a party does not have to prove that their spouse committed some kind of misconduct, such as adultery, abandonment, financial, etc., in order for the court to grant the divorce. All that has to be proven, with regards to grounds, is that there is “no reasonable likelihood that the marriage can be preserved, and that the marriage is irretrievably broken”, which is basically the familiar “irreconcilable differences”.  If that is proven, or as is often the case, agreed to in the filings, the court will grant the divorce (assuming jurisdictional and procedural requirements are also met). 

However, no fault does not mean that conduct is not relevant.  Although conduct does not need to be proven to actually get the divorce, conduct, or misconduct, can have a bearing on all aspects of the case.   Conduct can affect how the court divides the property, awards spousal maintenance, awards attorney’s fees, awards custody, parenting time, and to some extent child support. Although there is usually a preference for joint custody and equal property division, “no fault” does not mean that that will be the case, and “no-fault” does not mean that everything will end up equal.  The court has to look at other standards for each particular issue in the case, and will make orders accordingly as to those issues.

It is also not required that a spouse “grant” the other spouse the divorce, however it is possible that a party could try to prove that the marriage was not actually broken and could be preserved. My thought is that if spouses are actually to the point of litigating in court, the court is probably going to find that the marriage is broken. So, modified no fault may in reality mean actual no fault, but there is still that standard of proof in all cases.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks