Colston v. Bennett

Missouri Court of Appeals

Colston v. Bennett

348 S.W.3d 116, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1167, 2011 WL 4025704

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 13, 2011

DocketWD 73116

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 348 S.W.3d 116 (Colston v. Bennett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Colston v. Bennett, 348 S.W.3d 116, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1167, 2011 WL 4025704 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Harlon Bennett (“Father”) appeals the Jackson County Circuit Court’s judgment granting Rashawnda Colston (“Mother”) sole legal custody of the couple’s minor child, and ordering Father to pay monthly child support. Father argues that the trial court failed to consider his proposed par *117 enting plan, that substantial evidence does not support the trial court’s award of sole legal custody to Mother, and that the trial court erred in imputing income to him for purposes of its child-support calculation. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties. Rule 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Harlon Bennett (“Father”) appeals the Jackson County Circuit Court’s judgment granting Rashawnda Colston (“Mother”) sole legal custody of the couple’s minor child, and ordering Father to pay monthly child support. Father argues that the trial court failed to consider his proposed par *117 enting plan, that substantial evidence does not support the trial court’s award of sole legal custody to Mother, and that the trial court erred in imputing income to him for purposes of its child-support calculation. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

348 S.W.3d 116, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1167, 2011 WL 4025704, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/colston-v-bennett-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack