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

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.385 (2026)

Child's wishes as to custodian, how determined

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

  452.385.  Child's wishes as to custodian, how determined. — The court may interview the child in chambers to ascertain the child's wishes as to his custodian and relevant matters within his knowledge.  The court shall permit counsel to be present at the interview and to participate therein.  The court shall cause a record of the interview to be made and to be made part of the record in the case.

­­--------

(L. 1973 H.B. 315 § 18)

Effective 1-01-74

(1975) Held failure to allow counsel to be present and failure to make a record of judge's interview with children was reversible error. Duncan v. Duncan (A.), 528 S.W.2d 806.

(1976) Held that court order which directed in chambers interview record sealed and did not make it part of record on appeal was not arbitrary and appellant's failure to take steps to make record available bars his claim for relief. A.M.S. v. J.L.S. (A.), 544 S.W.2d 885.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 51 cases, 1975–2017 · leading case: Williams v. Cole, 590 S.W.2d 908 (Mo. 1979).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Williams v. Cole, 590 S.W.2d 908 (Mo. 1979). · cites it 10× “On application of Gloria Williams, hereinafter “mother”, after opinion by the Court of Appeals, Eastern District, this Court transferred the appeal to examine the question of whether the failure of the trial court to make a record of the in camera interview with minor children…”
Erickson v. Blackburn, 169 S.W.3d 69 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 6× “Interviewing a minor child to ascertain the child's preference of a custodian is governed by § 452.385, which states that "[t]he court may interview the child in chambers[.”
Osmun v. Osmun, 842 S.W.2d 932 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 6× “1989); § 452.385 RSMo 1986. Once the court elects to conduct the interview, it must permit counsel to be present and cause a record of the interview to be made.”
Eaton v. Bell, 127 S.W.3d 690 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 3× “Similarly, although the trial court had calculated maintenance under section 452.385, RSMo 2000, as $1,000 per month, the parties agreed that Dr.”
Hord v. Morgan, 769 S.W.2d 443 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 4× “The trial court judge can receive this evidence, in the nature of background information, in an effort to determine whether to exercise its discretion to conduct an in-chambers interview with the children pursuant to § 452.385, RSMo 1986. If the court then feels that the best…”
Babbitt v. Babbitt, 15 S.W.3d 787 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 6× “Father’s first point maintains that the trial court committed reversible error when it refused Father’s request that Kyle be interviewed “in chambers to ascertain [Kyle’s] wishes as to his custodian and relevant matters within his knowledge” as authorized by § 452.”
In Re Marriage of Murphey, 207 S.W.3d 679 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “Section 452.385 specifically states, in pertinent part, that “[t]he court may interview the child in chambers to ascertain the child’s wishes as to his custodian and relevant matters within his knowledge.”
Morgan v. Morgan, 701 S.W.2d 177 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 4× “§ 452.385, RSMo 1978. Shanna, then age 8, and Bobby, then age 7, expressed the desire to return to Larry and Eva Marie.”
Duncan v. Duncan, 528 S.W.2d 806 (Mo. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 8× “Section 452.385, Laws 1973, effective January 1, 1974, provides: “The court may interview the child in chambers to ascertain *809 the child’s wishes as to his custodian and relevant matters within his knowledge.”
In Re Marriage of Campbell, 868 S.W.2d 148 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 3× “Even though § 452.385 6 did not require reversal because the child interviewed was not the subject of the custody proceeding, this court reversed based upon the policy underlying that statute.”
Colquitt v. Muhammad, 86 S.W.3d 144 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “In this case, we agree with husband’s contention that section 452.385 speaks prospectively and cannot be used by the trial court to award retroactive maintenance.”
Comninellis v. Comninellis, 147 S.W.3d 102 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “As interpreted by Missouri courts, section 452.385 only operates prospectively, not retrospectively.”
Show all 51 citing cases →
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.