Kipp v. Kipp

Missouri Court of Appeals

Kipp v. Kipp

570 S.W.2d 830, 1978 Mo. App. LEXIS 2279

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 28, 1978

DocketNo. KCD 29625

StatusPublished

This text of 570 S.W.2d 830 (Kipp v. Kipp) 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

Kipp v. Kipp, 570 S.W.2d 830, 1978 Mo. App. LEXIS 2279 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

DIXON, Judge.

A dispute involving change of custody of a minor child. Upon a full hearing, the court changed the custody from the mother to the father. The mother raises as a single issue on her appeal that insufficient evidence was presented to show a change in circumstances that affected the welfare of the child.

[831]*831Review is governed by Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo.banc 1976); In re Marriage of Fouts, 553 S.W.2d 488 (Mo.App.1977); D_ I_ M_ v. P_ D_ M_, 548 S.W.2d 237 (Mo.App.1977).

In brief array, the.evidence which supports the trial court order shows that the father has remarried, has a proper home, and can provide a stable home life. The mother’s life-style has changed since the marriage. Within the year since the dissolution decree, the child was left in the care of a grandmother in excess of one hundred different nights during the year and, on a variety of occasions, the child was picked up by the mother at very late hours after she returned from the nocturnal excursions which evidenced her change of life-style.

Finding substantial evidence to support the trial court’s order and deferring under the rule of Murphy v. Carron, supra, to that finding, unless this court has a firm belief that the decision was wrong, the trial court’s order should be affirmed. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. Rule 84.16(b). Judgment affirmed.

All concur.

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

DIXON, Judge.

A dispute involving change of custody of a minor child. Upon a full hearing, the court changed the custody from the mother to the father. The mother raises as a single issue on her appeal that insufficient evidence was presented to show a change in circumstances that affected the welfare of the child.

[831]*831Review is governed by Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo.banc 1976); In re Marriage of Fouts, 553 S.W.2d 488 (Mo.App.1977); D_ I_ M_ v. P_ D_ M_, 548 S.W.2d 237 (Mo.App.1977).

In brief array, the.evidence which supports the trial court order shows that the father has remarried, has a proper home, and can provide a stable home life. The mother’s life-style has changed since the marriage. Within the year since the dissolution decree, the child was left in the care of a grandmother in excess of one hundred different nights during the year and, on a variety of occasions, the child was picked up by the mother at very late hours after she returned from the nocturnal excursions which evidenced her change of life-style.

Finding substantial evidence to support the trial court’s order and deferring under the rule of Murphy v. Carron, supra, to that finding, unless this court has a firm belief that the decision was wrong, the trial court’s order should be affirmed. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. Rule 84.16(b). Judgment affirmed.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

570 S.W.2d 830, 1978 Mo. App. LEXIS 2279, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kipp-v-kipp-moctapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack