Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 452
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.380 (2026)

Temporary custody, motion for

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

  452.380.  Temporary custody, motion for — dismissal of action, effect of. — 1.  A party to a custody proceeding may move for a temporary custody order.  The motion must be supported by an affidavit.  The court may award temporary custody after a hearing or, if there is no objection, solely on the basis of the affidavits.

  2.  If a proceeding for dissolution of marriage or legal separation is dismissed, any temporary custody order is vacated unless a parent or the child's custodian moves that the proceeding continue as a custody proceeding and the court finds, after a hearing, that the circumstances of the parents and the best interest of the child require that a custody decree be issued.

­­--------

(L. 1973 H.B. 315 § 17)

Effective 1-01-74

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1978–2021 · leading case: Fortner v. Fortner, 166 S.W.3d 615 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Fortner v. Fortner, 166 S.W.3d 615 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “” Section 452.380, governing temporary custody motions and orders, reads: 1.”
Dunnagan v. Dunnagan, 239 S.W.3d 181 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “Under section 452.380 a trial court must follow a two-step procedure in dividing property: “(1) the court must first set aside to each spouse his or her non-marital property; [4] and (2) then divide the marital property and debts in such proportions as the court deems just.”
In Re Marriage of Wineland, 609 S.W.2d 464 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 3× “Section 452.380 RSMo 1978, cited by the husband as requiring affidavit or hearing before entry of a temporary order of custody, in its context applies to such orders entered prior to a trial on the merits.”
Wright v. Wright, 1 S.W.3d 52 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999). “In Point I, she claims that the trial court erred in dividing the parties’ marital property because, in doing so, it erroneously applied § 452.380 in that it failed to value the respondent’s stock purchase and savings plan (the savings plan) and pension investment plan (the…”
Marriage of Parker v. Parker, 918 S.W.2d 299 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “Restriction of temporary custody, § 452.380 RSMo 1994, does not depend on first finding endangerment of physical health or impairment of emotional development.”
Hibdon v. Hibdon, 589 S.W.2d 646 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 2× “” It follows that the trial court upon dismissal of the petition lost jurisdiction to thereafter continue in force its continuing order for temporary allowances.”
State v. Dudley, 903 S.W.2d 581 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “It involved a division of marital property pursuant to section 452.380(1). Similarly to section 552.”
Burchett v. Burchett, 572 S.W.2d 494 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978). “” § 452.380. These prerequisites were not met; therefore, the separate judgment of temporary custody award was coram non judice.”
Brown v. Brown, 14 S.W.3d 704 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000). “” Writing for this court, Judge Maus held that the trial court could have properly considered this evidence under the “contri- *709 button factor” of § 452.380. Judge Maus concluded that “[t]here was substantial evidence from which the trial court could have found .”
Moore v. Moore, 111 S.W.3d 530 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003). “She argues that this was an erroneous declaration and misapplication of law; that husband’s beneficial interest in the trust was subject to division under § 452.380 3 because his interest in the trust was tantamount to full ownership of the trust property.”
Grubb v. Lehn, 841 S.W.2d 768 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “See, § 452.380, RSMo 1986. In addition, it appears from the record that wife’s contribution, both monetarily and physically, was much greater than that of husband.”
Rife v. Rife, 207 S.W.3d 199 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 3× “Although the issue in Spauldin involved marital assets, the jurisdictional analysis applies equally to marital debts because Section 452.380, RSMo 2000, expressly requires the trial court to divide all marital property and debts.”
Show all 18 citing cases →
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.380(1): 2 cases
State v. Dudley, 903 S.W.2d 581 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995). “It involved a division of marital property pursuant to section 452.380(1). Similarly to section 552.”
Kimberly L. Ball v. Michael R. Ball (Mo. Ct. App. 2021).
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.