Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 211.037 (2026)

Nonoffending parent, child returned to custody of, when

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

211.037. Nonoffending parent, child returned to custody of, when. — 1. For purposes of proceedings and investigations conducted pursuant to this chapter, children shall be promptly returned to the care and custody of a nonoffending parent entitled to physical custody of the child if:

(1) The parents have continuously maintained joint domicile for a period of at least six months prior to the alleged incident or the parents are maintaining separate households; and

(2) A preponderance of the evidence indicates that only one of the parents is the subject of an investigation of abuse or neglect; and

(3) The nonoffending parent does not have a history of criminal behavior, drug or alcohol abuse, child abuse or child neglect, domestic violence, or stalking within the past five years; and

(4) The parents are maintaining joint domicile and the offending parent is removed from the home voluntarily or involuntarily, or the parents live separately and the child is removed from the home of the offending parent; and

(5) A nonoffending parent requests custody of the child and agrees to cooperate with any orders of the court limiting contact or establishing visitation with the offending parent and the nonoffending parent complies with such orders.

When the parents maintain joint domicile or comply with court-ordered visitation, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the nonoffending parent has not committed any violation of section 568.030, 568.032, 568.045, 568.050, or 568.060, or has not engaged in any conduct that would constitute child abuse or neglect under chapter 210. In order to rebut the presumption there must be a finding of actual harm or endangerment to the child if the child is placed in the custody of the nonoffending parent.

2. Nothing in this section shall prevent the division or the court from exercising its discretion to return a child or children to the custody of any individual.

--------

(L. 2004 H.B. 1453 § 1, A.L. 2005 H.B. 568)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 2011–2019 · leading case: In the Interest of: S.F.M.D., Juv. Off. v. F.D., (Father), & R.R. (Mother), 477 S.W.3d 626 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In the Interest of: S.F.M.D., Juv. Off. v. F.D., (Father), & R.R. (Mother), 477 S.W.3d 626 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 27× “■ Because father’s actions would preclude him as a non-offending parent under Section 211.037 RSMo., this court finds that he has also neglected the child a's determined by Section 210,110(12) RSMo.”

Juv. Officer v. R.R., 330 S.W.3d 858 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 21× “, the juvenile court exceeded the bounds of its limited jurisdiction, violated procedural and substantive due process, and failed to apply section 211.037, RSMo Cum.Supp. 2009. 2 Father also argues that even if section 211.”

In Re Ar, 330 S.W.3d 858 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 21× “, the juvenile court exceeded the bounds of its limited jurisdiction, violated procedural and substantive due process, and failed to apply section 211.037, RSMo Cum.Supp. 2009. [2] Father also argues that even if section 211.”

In the Interest of: D.A.B. & B.M.S., 570 S.W.3d 606 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 3× “453 RSMo (2000); (2) the Children’s Division failed to place the Children in her custody as the non- offending parent, as required by Section 211.037 RSMo (Cum. Supp. 2007); (3) the Children’s Division failed to make reasonable efforts to eliminate the need for removal of the…”

In the Interest of T.G.O., 360 S.W.3d 355 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 10× “At the hearing, Father requested that the court place custody of Child with him or in the alternative grant supervised visitation under the non-offending parent statute in Section 211.037. On that date, the circuit court entered its order and judgment in which the court ordered,…”

In the Interest of: A.n.l., B.r., Intervenor-appellant v. Maries Cnty. Juv. Off., Petitioner-respondent, & Missouri Dept. of Soc. Servs., Child.'s Div., 484 S.W.3d 328 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016). “His request was based upon a custody preference created by § 211.037 for non-offending parents. When the trial court entered an order denying father’s custody request, he appealed.”

In Re Tgo, 360 S.W.3d 355 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 10× “At the hearing, Father requested that the court place custody of Child with him or in the alternative grant supervised visitation under the non-offending parent statute in Section 211.037. On that date, the circuit court entered its order and judgment in which the court ordered,…”

E.P. v. J.G., 545 S.W.3d 898 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 4× “447; 1 and (3) the trial court erred in not returning Child to Father pursuant to section 211.037. The Judgment is affirmed.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.