Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 452

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.377

Relocation of child by parent for more than ninety days, required procedure

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

  452.377.  Relocation of child by parent for more than ninety days, required procedure — violation, effect — notice of relocation of parent, required procedure. — 1.  For purposes of this section and section 452.375, "relocate" or "relocation" means a change in the principal residence of a child for a period of ninety days or more, but does not include a temporary absence from the principal residence.

  2.  Notice of a proposed relocation of the residence of the child, or any party entitled to custody or visitation of the child, shall be given in writing by certified mail, return receipt requested, to any party with custody or visitation rights.  Absent exigent circumstances as determined by a court with jurisdiction, written notice shall be provided at least sixty days in advance of the proposed relocation.  The notice of the proposed relocation shall include the following information:

  (1)  The intended new residence, including the specific address and mailing address, if known, and if not known, the city;

  (2)  The home telephone number of the new residence, if known;

  (3)  The date of the intended move or proposed relocation;

  (4)  A brief statement of the specific reasons for the proposed relocation of a child, if applicable;

  (5)  A proposal for a revised schedule of custody or visitation with the child, if applicable; and

  (6)  The other party's right, if that party is a parent, to file a motion, pursuant to this section, seeking an order to prevent the relocation and an accompanying affidavit setting forth the specific good-faith factual basis for opposing the relocation within thirty days of receipt of the notice.

  3.  If a party seeking to relocate a child is a participant in the address confidentiality program under section 589.663, such party shall not be required to provide the information in subdivision (1) of subsection 2 of this section, but may be required to submit such information under seal to the court for in camera review.  Prior to disclosure of this information, a court shall comply with the provisions of section 589.664.

  4.  A party required to give notice of a proposed relocation pursuant to subsection 2 of this section has a continuing duty to provide a change in or addition to the information required by this section as soon as such information becomes known.

  5.  In exceptional circumstances where the court makes a finding that the health or safety of any adult or child would be unreasonably placed at risk by the disclosure of the required identifying information concerning a proposed relocation of the child, the court may order that:

  (1)  The specific residence address and telephone number of the child, parent or person, and other identifying information shall not be disclosed in the pleadings, notice, other documents filed in the proceeding or the final order except for an in camera disclosure;

  (2)  The notice requirements provided by this section shall be waived to the extent necessary to protect the health or safety of a child or any adult; or

  (3)  Any other remedial action the court considers necessary to facilitate the legitimate needs of the parties and the best interest of the child.

  6.  The court shall consider a failure to provide notice of a proposed relocation of a child as:

  (1)  A factor in determining whether custody and visitation should be modified;

  (2)  A basis for ordering the return of the child if the relocation occurs without notice; and

  (3)  Sufficient cause to order the party seeking to relocate the child to pay reasonable expenses and attorneys fees incurred by the party objecting to the relocation.

  7.  If the parties agree to a revised schedule of custody and visitation for the child, which includes a parenting plan, they may submit the terms of such agreement to the court with a written affidavit signed by all parties with custody or visitation assenting to the terms of the agreement, and the court may order the revised parenting plan and applicable visitation schedule without a hearing.

  8.  The residence of the child may be relocated sixty days after providing notice, as required by this section, unless a parent files a motion seeking an order to prevent the relocation within thirty days after receipt of such notice.  Such motion shall be accompanied by an affidavit setting forth the specific good-faith factual basis supporting a prohibition of the relocation.  The person seeking relocation shall file a response to the motion within fourteen days, unless extended by the court for good cause, and include a counter-affidavit setting forth the facts in support of the relocation as well as a proposed revised parenting plan for the child.

  9.  If relocation of the child is proposed, a third party entitled by court order to legal custody of or visitation with a child and who is not a parent may file a cause of action to obtain a revised schedule of legal custody or visitation, but shall not prevent a relocation.

  10.  The party seeking to relocate shall have the burden of proving that the proposed relocation is made in good faith and is in the best interest of the child.

  11.  If relocation is permitted:

  (1)  The court shall order contact with the nonrelocating party including custody or visitation and telephone access sufficient to assure that the child has frequent, continuing and meaningful contact with the nonrelocating party unless the child's best interest warrants otherwise; and

  (2)  The court shall specify how the transportation costs will be allocated between the parties and adjust the child support, as appropriate, considering the costs of transportation.

  12.  After August 28, 1998, every court order establishing or modifying custody or visitation shall include the following language:

­

“Absent exigent circumstances as determined by a court with jurisdiction, you, as a party to this action, are ordered to notify, in writing by certified mail, return receipt requested, and at least sixty days prior to the proposed relocation, each party to this action of any proposed relocation of the principal residence of the child, including the following information:
(1) The intended new residence, including the specific address and mailing address, if known, and if not known, the city;
(2) The home telephone number of the new residence, if known;
(3) The date of the intended move or proposed relocation;
(4) A brief statement of the specific reasons for the proposed relocation of the child;
(5) A proposal for a revised schedule of custody or visitation with the child; and
(6) The other party's right, if that party is a parent, to file a motion, pursuant to Section 452.377, RSMo, seeking an order to prevent the relocation and an accompanying affidavit setting forth the specific good-faith factual basis for opposing the relocation within thirty days of receipt of the notice.
Your obligation to provide this information to each party continues as long as you or any other party by virtue of this order is entitled to custody of a child covered by this order. Your failure to obey the order of this court regarding the proposed relocation may result in further litigation to enforce such order, including contempt of court. In addition, your failure to notify a party of a relocation of the child may be considered in a proceeding to modify custody or visitation with the child. Reasonable costs and attorney fees may be assessed against you if you fail to give the required notice.”.

­

  13.  A participant in the address confidentiality program under section 589.663 shall not be required to provide a requesting party with the specific physical or mailing address of the child's proposed relocation destination, but in the event of an objection by a requesting party, a participant may be required to submit such information under seal to the court for in camera review.  Prior to disclosure of this information, a court shall comply with the provisions of section 589.664.

  14.  Violation of the provisions of this section or a court order under this section may be deemed a change of circumstance under section 452.410, allowing the court to modify the prior custody decree.  In addition, the court may utilize any and all powers relating to contempt conferred on it by law or rule of the Missouri supreme court.

  15.  Any party who objects in good faith to the relocation of a child's principal residence shall not be ordered to pay the costs and attorney's fees of the party seeking to relocate.

­­--------

(L. 1984 H.B. 1513 § 452.375 subsec. 6, A.L. 1998 S.B. 910, A.L. 2018 H.B. 1461, A.L. 2019 H.B. 397 merged with S.B 83)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 148 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1985–2025 · leading case: Baxley v. Jarred
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Baxley v. Jarred (2002) moctapp · cites it 43× “Prior to the 1998 amendment, § 452.377, RSMo 1997, read: A person entitled to the custody of a child shall not change the residence of the child to another state or remove the child from this state for a period of time exceeding ninety days except upon order of the court or with…”
Wright Ex Rel. McBath v. Wright (2004) moctapp · cites it 53× “[She] did not comply with the requirements of Section 452.377 RSMo., regarding notice; giving Respondent a note with her address and telephone number does not comply with the notice requirements.”
Marriage of Abraham v. Abraham (2011) moctapp · cites it 56× “Mother contends she had an absolute right to move with the minor child because Father's motion was not filed *618 within thirty days of the receipt of the notice of relocation and that her notice of relocation complied with section 452.377 [1] and, therefore, the trial court was…”
Day Ex Rel. Finnern v. Day (2008) moctapp · cites it 36× “375; it considers the mother's intention to relocate the child's residence under the relevant factors of that statute, and it is not required to apply the relocation statute, section 452.377. In Brown v. Shannahan, 141 S.”
Melton v. Collins (2004) moctapp · cites it 34× “She maintains that because she complied with the provisions of non-court-ordered relocation, pursuant to section 452.377, her relocation could not have constituted a substantial change in circumstances justifying a modification of the paternity judgment.”
Dunkle v. Dunkle (2005) moctapp · cites it 16× “(iii) Section 452.377 Section 452.377 sets forth substantive standards that guide the trial court’s resolution of relocation disputes.”
Weaver v. Kelling (2001) moctapp · cites it 20× “Father also claims that the trial court erred in permitting Mother to relocate with the children to Texas because (1) the court’s judgment was against the weight of the evidence and not supported by substantial evidence and (2) Mother failed to notify him of her proposed…”
Swisher v. Swisher (2003) moctapp · cites it 17× “Reesa Swisher, appeals the § 452.377 1 order of the Circuit Court of Jackson County preventing her from relocating with her minor *479 children to Oklahoma.”
Herigon v. Herigon (2003) moctapp · cites it 17× “She claims that the trial court erred in preventing her from relocating with the minor children to Pennsylvania, in accordance with § 452.377, 1 for failure to show that the relocation was in the children’s best interests, because: (1) “there is substantial evidence that the…”
Heslop v. Sanderson (2003) moctapp · cites it 15× “410 because pursuant to § 452.377, governing such relocations, the appellant had an absolute legal right to relocate without the express consent of the respondent or a court order.”
Jantz v. Brewer (2000) moctapp · cites it 18× “Soon after the parties' marriage was dissolved, Mother initiated a procedure pursuant to § 452.377, RSMo Cum.Supp.1998, to relocate Sara.”
Kell v. Kell (2001) moctapp · cites it 16× “banc 2001), overruled the test set out in Michel in favor of a test following Section 452.377, RSMo 2000. Where the relocation of a child is at issue, Section 452.”
Show all 148 citing cases →
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.377(10) — 1 case
Romanetto v. Weirich (2001) moctapp
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.377(2) — 1 case
Brown v. Shannahan (2004) moctapp
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.