He also argues that even if § 452.423.1 is applicable, the matter was still within the trial court's discretion because § 452.490.4, RSMo 1986, was not expressly repealed by § 452.423.1, RSMo Cumm. Supp. 1989. John overlooks the case of C.J.(S.)R. v. G.D.S., 701 S.W.2d 165 (Mo.App. 1985) cited by Deborah. Under similar factual circumstances the court therein, at page 169, stated: [W]e hold that it is an abuse of discretion not to appoint a guardian ad litem, as permitted by § 452.490.4, where, as here, the choice of the custodian of minor children is in issue, and the court has knowledge, from the pleadings or from any other source, that the children in question have been, or are being, abused while in the custody of one claiming the right to be their custodian.

" C.J.(S.)R. v. G.D.S., 701 S.W.2d 165, 169-70[4] (Mo.App. 1985). In this case, no one has adequately represented the interests of the children involved.

The court shall appoint a guardian ad litem in any proceeding in which child abuse or neglect is alleged. Our legislature enacted § 452.423 in 1988 in response to the Southern District's entreaty in C.J.(S.)R. v. G.D.S., 701 S.W.2d 165 (Mo.App. 1985). See King v. King, 793 S.W.2d 200, 203[6] (Mo.App. 1990).

§ 452.490.4, RSMo (Cum.Supp. 1984). We find no abuse of that discretion. Father relies on C.J.(S.)R. v. G.D.S., 701 S.W.2d 165 (Mo.App. 1985), the facts of which supported a finding of mistreatment, abuse, and a lack of parenting skills, such that demanded the appointment of a guardian ad litem. The court in C.J.(S.)R., however, left intact the discretion contained in § 452.490.4, RSMo (Cum.Supp. 1984).

A child, however, comes under the jurisdiction of the court upon the filing of an action for dissolution pursuant to section 452.305.3, and the court, exercising the authority of the state, protects the interests of the child. C.J.(S.)R.v. G.D.S., 701 S.W.2d 165, 169 (Mo.App. 1985). In Missouri, a court determines custody in a dissolution action in accordance with the best interests of the child.

Prior to the enactment of § 452.423.1, there was no statutory provision for the mandatory appointment of a GAL in a child custody case where abuse was alleged. C.J.(S.)R. v. G.D.S., 701 S.W.2d 165, 169 (Mo.App.S.D. 1985). In C.J.(S.)R., the court held that a trial court abuses its discretion where "the choice of the custodian of minor children is in issue, and the court has knowledge, from the pleadings or from any other source, that the children in question have been, or are being, abused while in the custody of one claiming the right to be their custodian."

Leonard v. Leonard, 783 S.W.2d 514, 516 (Mo.App. 1990). See also Hough v. Hough, 794 S.W.2d 252 (Mo.App. 1990); In re Marriage of Lydic, 762 S.W.2d 99, 101 (Mo.App. 1988); C.J.(S.)R. v. G.D.S., 701 S.W.2d 165, 169 (Mo.App. 1985). Respondent cites T.C.H. v. K.M.H., 784 S.W.2d 281 (Mo.App. 1989), stating it holds the "trial court is not required sua sponte to appoint a guardian ad litem for children in custody proceedings unless there is evidence of abuse or neglect."

In this case, where custody is hotly contested, where, prior to trial, the court is made aware of allegations of child abuse and sexual molestation, and where those allegations become abundantly clear during the first day of testimony, it is an abuse of discretion not to appoint counsel for the minor children. C.J.(S.)R. v. G.D.S., 701 S.W.2d 165, 169 (Mo.App. 1985); M.M. v. R.R.M., 358 N.W.2d 86 (Minn.App. 1984). When custody is contested and there are allegations of neglect and abuse, children have a unique need to be represented by counsel who will advocate their best interests.

Initially, it is pointed out for purposes of clarification, that Steven's first two arguments are not well taken. First, the fact that Engel did not allege abuse following the effective date of § 452.423, is not relevant. This is because the case of C.J.(S).R. v. G.D.S., 701 S.W.2d 165 (Mo.App. 1985), which led to the adoption of § 452.423, mandated appointment of a guardian ad litem in cases where abuse or neglect had been alleged. Therefore, authority did exist at all times relevant to this case for appointment of a guardian ad litem, had abuse properly been alleged.

State ex rel. Catholic Charities of St. Louis v. Hoester, 494 S.W.2d 70, 73 (Mo. banc 1973). The court's duty to serve the child's best interest, C.J.(S.)R. v. G.D.S., 701 S.W.2d 165, 169 (Mo.App. 1985), would make the court the appropriate "guardian" of the child's interest in having an effective guardian ad litem and thus the court's role supersedes that of the parent as natural guardian. Husband also attacks the child support award of $220 per child per month.