452.410. Custody, decree, modification of, when. — 1. Except as provided in subsection 2 of this section, the court shall not modify a prior custody decree unless it has jurisdiction under the provisions of section 452.745 and it finds, upon the basis of facts that have arisen since the prior decree or that were unknown to the court at the time of the prior decree, that a change has occurred in the circumstances of the child or his custodian and that the modification is necessary to serve the best interests of the child. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section or sections 452.375 and 452.400 to the contrary, any custody order entered by any court in this state or any other state may, subject to jurisdictional requirements, be modified to allow for joint custody or visitation only in accordance with section 452.375, 452.400, 452.402, or 452.403.
2. If either parent files a motion to modify an award of joint legal custody or joint physical custody, each party shall be entitled to a change of judge as provided by supreme court rule.
Notes of Decisions
Jamie Morgan v. Justin Morgan, 497 S.W.3d 359 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 39× “banc 2007); see Sections 452.410, 452.400.2. The separate statutes give rise to differing standards regarding the modification of - physical custody arrangements.”
Miller v. Miller, 210 S.W.3d 439 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 68× “filed pursuant to Section 452.410 or sections 452.440 to 452.”
In Re Marriage of Hendrix, 183 S.W.3d 582 (Mo. 2006).
· cites it 18× “She argues *585 that the judgment modifying custody was void under section 452.410 1 and Rule 74.06 because based on stipulated facts rather than on facts developed at an evidentiary hearing.”
Baxley v. Jarred, 91 S.W.3d 192 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 15× “Violation of 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.”
Russell v. Russell, 210 S.W.3d 191 (Mo. 2007).
· cites it 10× “*196 Section 452.410 applies to modification of joint physical custody Two statutes govern the modification of prior parenting arrangements.”
Heslop v. Sanderson, 123 S.W.3d 214 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 14× “In Points I and II, she challenges the trial court’s finding that her relocation with Kyle to Bakersfield, Missouri, without the consent of the respondent or a court order, was a change of circumstances warranting a change of custody from her to the respondent, in accordance…”
Flathers v. Flathers, 948 S.W.2d 463 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 12× “Thus, appellants argue that the parental presumption did not exist in the dissolution action and the determination of custody therein should have been treated as a motion to modify the “third-party custody” awarded by the trial court in the guardianship proceedings. We disagree.…”
Moore v. Moore, 849 S.W.2d 652 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 16× “Moore alleges that the trial court erred in modifying the July 5, 1984, decree based upon the findings specifically mentioned by the trial court because such findings are against the weight of the evidence and do not comply with section 452.410, RSMo Supp.1991. Section 452.”
Wright Ex Rel. McBath v. Wright, 129 S.W.3d 882 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 10× “, custody must be modified because the court erroneously declared and applied the law, in that this is a modification proceeding and, therefore, the proper standard to be used is found in § 452.410, RSMo.” Section 452.410.1 requires that in order to modify custody, a court must…”
Hermann v. Heskett, 403 S.W.3d 136 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 11× “410 RSMo (2000) provides that a court may modify a prior child custody decree if it finds, “upon the basis of facts that have arisen since the prior decree or that were unknown to the court at the time of the prior decree, that a change has occurred in the circumstances of the…”
Bather v. Bather, 170 S.W.3d 487 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 9× “Father *489 claims that there was insufficient evidence of a change in circumstances that would authorize modification of custody under section 452.410, RSMo 2000. 1 He further claims that there was insufficient evidence to permit restricting his visitation under section 452.”
Wood v. Wood, 94 S.W.3d 397 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 8× “6 because it does not come into play in a custody modification proceeding under § 452.410, like the present proceeding, unless the trial court first determines that there has been a substantial change of circumstances justifying a modification, and the trial court here expressly…”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.410(1) — 1 case
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.