452.423. Guardian ad litem appointed, when, duties — disqualification, when — fees. — 1. In all proceedings for child custody or for dissolution of marriage or legal separation where custody, visitation, or support of a child is a contested issue, the court may appoint a guardian ad litem. Disqualification of a guardian ad litem shall be ordered in any legal proceeding only pursuant to this chapter, upon the filing of a written application by any party within ten days of appointment, or within ten days of August 28, 1998, if the appointment occurs prior to August 28, 1998. Each party shall be entitled to one disqualification of a guardian ad litem appointed under this subsection in each proceeding, except a party may be entitled to additional disqualifications of a guardian ad litem for good cause shown.
2. The court shall appoint a guardian ad litem in any proceeding in which child abuse or neglect is alleged.
3. The guardian ad litem shall:
(1) Be the legal representative of the child at the hearing, and may examine, cross-examine, subpoena witnesses and offer testimony;
(2) Prior to the hearing, conduct all necessary interviews with persons having contact with or knowledge of the child in order to ascertain the child's wishes, feelings, attachments and attitudes. If appropriate, the child should be interviewed;
(3) Request the juvenile officer to cause a petition to be filed in the juvenile division of the circuit court if the guardian ad litem believes the child alleged to be abused or neglected is in danger.
4. The appointing judge shall require the guardian ad litem to faithfully discharge such guardian ad litem's duties, and upon failure to do so shall discharge such guardian ad litem and appoint another. The judge in making appointments pursuant to this section shall give preference to persons who served as guardian ad litem for the child in the earlier proceeding, unless there is a reason on the record for not giving such preference.
5. The guardian ad litem shall be awarded a reasonable fee for such services to be set by the court. The court, in its discretion, may:
(1) Issue a direct payment order to the parties. If a party fails to comply with the court's direct payment order, the court may find such party to be in contempt of court; or
(2) Award such fees as a judgment to be paid by any party to the proceedings or from public funds. Such an award of guardian fees shall constitute a final judgment in favor of the guardian ad litem. Such final judgment shall be enforceable against the parties in accordance with chapter 513.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
68
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1988–2022 · leading case:
Alberswerth v. Alberswerth, 184 S.W.3d 81 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).
Alberswerth v. Alberswerth, 184 S.W.3d 81 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 12× “423 are to § 452.423, RSMo Cum.Supp.2004. Section 452.”
Meyer v. Meyer, 842 S.W.2d 184 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 24× “Background In Meyer, Judge Patrick Clifford appointed a GAL pursuant to § 452.423; [2] he ordered each party to pay $150.”
Querry v. Querry, 382 S.W.3d 922 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 12× “First, Mother contends that the circuit court erred in failing to appoint a guardian ad litem pursuant to section 452.423, *925 RSMo Cum.Supp.2011, claiming that Mother clearly alleged abuse and/or neglect in her motion to modify and, therefore, appointment of a guardian ad…”
Mund v. Mund, 7 S.W.3d 401 (Mo. 1999).
· cites it 10× “In her final point relied on, mother asserts that the trial court erred in awarding primary custody to father for the reason that the guardian ad litem failed to protect the best interest of the child and failed to comply with section 452.423. Mother suggests that the guardian…”
Suffian v. Usher, 19 S.W.3d 130 (Mo. 2000).
· cites it 6× “Usher also claims the trial court erred by denying his section 452.423 motion to disqualify and remove the guardian ad litem and declaring the statute unconstitutional.”
Guier v. Guier, 918 S.W.2d 940 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 4× “4 Section 452.423 sets forth the duties and requirements of a guardian ad litem appointed pursuant to a dissolution or custody proceeding.”
In Re Marriage of Wood, 262 S.W.3d 267 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 4× ““For purposes of section 452.423, child ‘abuse’ is defined as ‘any physical injury, sexual abuse, or emotional abuse inflicted on a child .”
King v. King, 793 S.W.2d 200 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 6× “Steven counters that there was no error because Engel did not allege abuse after the effective date of § 452.423, RSMo Cumm. Supp.1989, because a guardian ad litem was not requested, and because En-gel’s Motion for Review and modification of Custody did not allege abuse.”
Rombach v. Rombach, 867 S.W.2d 500 (Mo. 1993).
· cites it 3× “Although child abuse and neglect are not defined in § 452.423, we can look to the definitions given in § 210.”
Downing v. Howe, 60 S.W.3d 646 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 4× “Secondly, he sets out that in the modification litigation “pleadings before the Court raisefd] issues concerning the possible abuse or neglect of the minor child and no guardian ad litem has been appointed by the Court as mandated by [§ 452.”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.423(1) — 3 cases
Mund v. Mund, 7 S.W.3d 401 (Mo. 1999).
“In her final point relied on, mother asserts that the trial court erred in awarding primary custody to father for the reason that the guardian ad litem failed to protect the best interest of the child and failed to comply with section 452.423. Mother suggests that the guardian…”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.423(2) — 2 cases
Mund v. Mund, 7 S.W.3d 401 (Mo. 1999).
“In her final point relied on, mother asserts that the trial court erred in awarding primary custody to father for the reason that the guardian ad litem failed to protect the best interest of the child and failed to comply with section 452.423. Mother suggests that the guardian…”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.423(4) — 2 cases
Meyer v. Meyer, 842 S.W.2d 184 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992).
“Background In Meyer, Judge Patrick Clifford appointed a GAL pursuant to § 452.423; [2] he ordered each party to pay $150.”
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.