Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 211
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 211.251 (2026)

Modification of court orders

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

  211.251.  Modification of court orders. — 1.  A decree of the juvenile court made under the provisions of section 211.181 may be modified at any time on the court's own motion.

  2.  The juvenile officer, the parent, guardian, legal custodian, spouse, relative or next friend of a child committed to the custody of an institution or agency may, at any time, petition the court for a modification of the order of custody.  The court may deny the petition without hearing or may, in its discretion, conduct a hearing upon the issues raised and may make any orders relative to the issues as it deems proper.

  3.  The authority of the juvenile court to modify a decree is subject to the provisions of chapter 219.

­­--------

(L. 1957 p. 642 § 211.250, A.L. 1989 H.B. 502, et al.)

1955) Where parent seeks modification of court's order after finding that children were neglected and award of custody of children to himself, his morals are to be considered and burden is on him to show benefit to children.  Dansker v. Dansker (A.), 279 S.W.2d 505.

(1955) Motion of minor children by their natural parents to modify judgments finding them abandoned children and awarding their custody to third persons, should be granted where natural parents were fit persons to have custody and able to care for them.  State v. Pogue (A.), 282 S.W.2d 582.

(1956) Adjudication by juvenile court that child was a neglected child under the juvenile court law does not permanently deprive parent of the right to custody and in adoption case court must find willful abandonment or neglect to provide proper care for one year before parent's consent to adoption is unnecessary.  In re Slaughter (A.), 290 S.W.2d 408.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1973–2022 · leading case: Matter of Trapp, 593 S.W.2d 193 (Mo. 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Matter of Trapp, 593 S.W.2d 193 (Mo. 1980). · cites it 4× “Nothing in this opinion should be *198 taken to limit appellant's right to an evidentiary hearing on the issue of her present fitness to regain custody, pursuant to § 211.251, RSMo 1978 and Rule 121.01. This appeal presents three questions: (1) did the trial court have…”
In the Interest of C. L. M., 625 S.W.2d 613 (Mo. 1981). · cites it 2× “It should be noted that the mother’s parental right has not been terminated and that she has rights of visitation which are being exercised. Termination under § 211.-447, RSMo 1978 is distinct from custody transfer under § 211.”
Elmore v. S____ L____ M, 666 S.W.2d 800 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 5× “First, she asserted that § 211.251(2) and Rule 121.01(b) unconstitutionally permit a court to deny a parent due process of law in that they authorize a court in its discretion to deny without hearing a parent’s petition to modify an order committing a child to the custody of an…”
In the Interest of R. L. L. v. Strait, 633 S.W.2d 409 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “Bland’s testimony which we have just quoted were the “conditions” upon which the juvenile officer relied, the testimony on the June 4 hearing does not supply the lack of evidence in the second hearing.”
In re A_ N_ ex rel. D_ J. J_., 500 S.W.2d 284 (Mo. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 3× “Further, the court at such a hearing could and should have pursued the legitimacy of the alleged violation by A- N- of the Juvenile Code (burglary) of October 22, 1972 as asserted by the police officer.”
H.M. v. Hensiek, 847 S.W.2d 911 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “On February 11, 1992, the juvenile officer filed a motion to modify the court’s previous custody orders, pursuant to § 211.251 RSMo (Supp.1992) and Rule 119.-09.”
In the Interest of C.P.B., 641 S.W.2d 456 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982). “The juvenile court is empowered by § 211.251 to modify custody orders made under § 211.”
In the Interest of R.M.P., 811 S.W.2d 61 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “The same day a juvenile officer filed a motion under the authority of § 211.251 RSMo Cum.Supp. 1990 to modify the previous order of physical custody.”
State v. Britton, 647 S.W.2d 155 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “§ 211.251. Jurisdiction remained in the Juvenile Court as a result of subsequent motions to modify as has been ruled in the case of In Interest of S.”
In re A. A., 533 S.W.2d 681 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 2× “§ 211.251, RSMo 1969. Judgment affirmed. All concur.”
In the Interest of T.G.O., 360 S.W.3d 355 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “181 4 order for disposition or a modification of such order under Section 211.251. Although Father attempts to characterize the circuit court’s ruling as one made under Section 211.”
State ex rel. McCarthy v. Kimberlin, 508 S.W.2d 196 (Mo. Ct. App. 1974). “181, and may retain jurisdiction of the child for custody purposes (as was here done, i. e. “until further order of the court”) under § 211.”
Show all 19 citing cases →
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 211.251(2): 1 case
Elmore v. S____ L____ M, 666 S.W.2d 800 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984). “First, she asserted that § 211.251(2) and Rule 121.01(b) unconstitutionally permit a court to deny a parent due process of law in that they authorize a court in its discretion to deny without hearing a parent’s petition to modify an order committing a child to the custody of an…”
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.