211.051. Jurisdiction as to custody of child not exclusive. — Nothing contained in this chapter deprives other courts of the right to determine the legal custody of children upon writs of habeas corpus or to determine the legal custody or guardianship of children when the legal custody or guardianship is incidental to the determination of causes pending in other courts. Such questions, however, may be certified by another court to the juvenile court for hearing, determination or recommendation.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
21
cases, 1963–2016 · leading case:
M. P. M. v. Williams, 611 S.W.2d 274 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980).
M. P. M. v. Williams, 611 S.W.2d 274 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 6× “After receipt of the petition, respondent’s return 1 and petitioner’s answer, this court, pursuant to Section 211.051 RSMo 1978 certified the cause to the Circuit Court of St.”
State Ex Rel. Bird v. Weinstock, 864 S.W.2d 376 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 2× “1992 also mandates appointment of a guardian ad litem in cases involving abuse and neglect, including cases arising under §§ 452.”
B.M.P. v. G.H.P., 612 S.W.2d 843 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 5× “Because respondent’s return to the writ alleged that petitioner was unfit to have actual custody of the minor child, we certified the cause to the Franklin County Circuit Court for an evidentiary hearing under the authority of Section 211.051 RSMo 1978. An evidentiary hearing…”
D.L.H. v. H.T.H., 780 S.W.2d 104 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 3× “Section 211.051, RSMo (1986). . Wife’s counsel made an offer of proof later in the examination as to what Ms.”
State Ex Rel. Dubinsky v. Weinstein, 413 S.W.2d 178 (Mo. 1967).
· cites it 2× “Our view is not changed by the declaration contained in § 211.051 that "[n]othing contained in sections 211.”
S.B. v. J.L., 280 S.W.3d 147 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “2005)); see also section 211.051. In child custody matters, section 475.”
Zahorsky v. Barr, Glynn & Morris, PC, 693 S.W.2d 839 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “Appellant wife briefed only issues as to the sufficiency of the evidence, but the court considered sua sponte the question of whether any cause of action existed under § 211.051, RSMo. 1978 (repealed) to enable the juvenile court to determine custody.”
State Ex Rel. McCarthy v. Kimberlin, 508 S.W.2d 196 (Mo. Ct. App. 1974).
· cites it 2× “Citing § 211.051, respondents claim that the juvenile court’s jurisdiction as it relates to custody of minor children is not exclusive but is qualified by statute.”
Barger v. Minks, 365 S.W.2d 89 (Mo. Ct. App. 1963).
· cites it 2× “…is ordered delivered into the custody of her mother. ANDERSON, P. J., and RUDDY and WOLFE, JJ., concur. 1 . Now section 211.051.”
Marriage of Hansen v. Hansen, 734 S.W.2d 287 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 3× “Section 211.051 RSMo 1982. If the garnishment attempted to attach funds for non-payment after the date of dissolution then, as a matter of law, it is ineffective beyond the date of dissolution.”
E. W. v. K. D. M., 479 S.W.2d 167 (Mo. Ct. App. 1972).
· cites it 5× “2d 466 ) or refer the case back to the juvenile division of the circuit court, whence it came, in accordance with Section 211.051, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S. (Maupin v.”
Stone v. Stone, 393 S.W.2d 201 (Mo. Ct. App. 1965).
· cites it 2× “In the first place, that judgment was based upon a proceeding under § 211.051, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S. The court so recites in its judgment.”
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.