In re: The Marriage of: Kyndall Ryan Phillips and Hailey Elizabeth Stemel KYNDALL RYAN PHILLIPS, Petitioner-Appellant v. HAILEY ELIZABETH STEIMEL, Respondent/Movant-Respondent

• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Decided: October 14, 2025
• Docket: SD38801
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Missouri Court of Appeals Southern District

In Division

In re: The Marriage of: Kyndall Ryan Phillips and Hailey Elizabeth Stemel No. SD38801

KYNDALL RYAN PHILLIPS, Filed: October 14, 2025

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

HAILEY ELIZABETH STEIMEL,

Respondent/Movant-Respondent.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF STONE COUNTY (at Galena) Honorable Eric O. Chavez

APPEAL DISMISSED Kyndall Ryan Phillips (“Father”) appeals the circuit court’s Judgment and Decree

of Modification (the “Judgment”) that changed provisions of the parties’ Parenting Plan.

Because Father’s brief fails to comply with the mandatory rules that govern the content of

an appellant’s brief in a manner that substantially impedes impartial review, we dismiss

the appeal.

1 “A deficient appellate brief that does not comply with the briefing requirements of

Rule 84.04 preserves nothing for appellate review[,]” Ward v. United Eng’g Co., 249

S.W.3d 285, 287 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008), and such deficiencies constitute grounds to

dismiss the appeal, Litvinchyk v. Div. of Emp. Sec., 449 S.W.3d 810, 811 (Mo. App.

S.D. 2014).

Father’s two multifarious points are as follows.

Point [1]: The trial court erred in awarding sole decision-making authority over the child’s mental health care to Mother because this judgment was against the weight of the evidence and misapplied Missouri law regarding joint legal custody, in that:

1. The trial court failed to make the statutorily required finding that joint legal custody regarding mental health decisions was unworkable or detrimental to the child’s best interests;

2. Father demonstrated reasonable cooperation by complying with court orders and presenting legitimate concerns about the counselor’s provisional licensing status and diagnostic methods;

3. The Guardian ad Litem’s testimony characterized the decision as extremely close (“49-51”) and did not provide a compelling recommendation for sole authority to Mother;

4. The counselor’s testimony revealed that her diagnosis was based on limited observation and information primarily provided by Mother, without independent verification or consultation with other medical professionals.

Point [2]: The trial court erred in modifying the parenting time schedule in favor of Mother because the modification was not supported by substantial evidence and was not in the best interests of the child, in that:

1. The trial court failed to apply the proper statutory standard requiring a substantial change in circumstances making the original decree unreasonable;

2 2. The evidence presented did not establish that the existing parenting schedule was unworkable or harmful to the child;

3. The trial court failed to make specific findings regarding each of the factors enumerated in §452.375.2 RSMo as required when modifying custody;

4. The modification disproportionately reduced Father’s parenting time without evidence that such reduction served the child’s best interests.

Both points are multifarious in that they each contain four separate legal reasons

for Father’s claim of error. See Barbieri v. Barbieri, 633 S.W.3d 419, 432 (Mo. App.

E.D. 2021) (multifarious points are those that group together multiple, independent

claims rather than one single claim of error, and in general they preserve nothing for

appeal); see also Rule 84.04(d)(1)(B). 1 In addition, Father’s points do not set forth the

alleged legal errors in the context of the facts of the case. See Rule 84.04(d)(1)(B) and

(C).

The argument section of Father’s brief is also deficient and materially impedes

impartial review. The entire argument contains a total of three citations to the record.

Rule 84.04(e) mandates that all factual citations in the argument have specific page

references to the relevant portion of the record on appeal. In addition, Father claims the

circuit court failed to hold a hearing on his motion to change counselors, a claim that is

not included in Point 1.

1 Unless otherwise indicated, all rule references are to Missouri Court Rules (2025).

3 Father also argues in his first point that the Judgment fails to make specific and

required statutory findings on legal custody, but he does not identify which statutory

factors the circuit court failed to address, and he failed to file a motion to amend the

Judgment as required under Rule 78.07(c). These deficiencies in Father’s briefing would

improperly require us to seine the record and develop any potential legal arguments on

Father’s behalf that might have merit. This we cannot do. See In re Marriage of

Kirkham, 975 S.W.2d 500, 506 (Mo. App. S.D. 1998). To attempt to guess what Father’s

specific legal complaints are and how they might relate to the factual findings of the

circuit court “would place us in the impermissible position of acting as [Father’s]

advocate.” Litvinchyk, 449 S.W.3d at 811.

Finally, Father’s second point claims the change that designated Mother as the

sole parent to determine what counseling their child will receive was not supported by

substantial evidence, but Father makes no attempt to undertake the three-step process that

an appellant must use in presenting a “no-substantial-evidence” claim as set forth in

Houston v. Crider, 317 S.W.3d 178, 187 (Mo. App. S.D. 2010), and that failure is fatal to

Father’s claim, see id. at 188-89.

Because Father has failed to preserve anything for appellate review, the appeal is

dismissed.

DON E. BURRELL, J. – OPINION AUTHOR

JACK A. L. GOODMAN, J. – CONCURS

BECKY J. WEST, J. – CONCURS