Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

T.C.H. v. K.M.H

784 S.W.2d 281 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
T.C.H. v. K.M.H

10 Citing cases

  1. DeLong v. DeLong

    No. WD 52726 (Mo. Ct. App. Jan. 20, 1998)

    Since 1980, Missouri appellate courts have decided seven cases involving homosexual conduct and child custody and visitation. See T.C.H. v. K.M.H. , 784 S.W.2d 281 (Mo.App. E.D. 1989); J.P. v. P.W. , 772 S.W.2d 786 (Mo.App.S.D. 1989); G.A. v. D.A. , 745 S.W.2d 726 (Mo.App.W.D. 1987); S.E.G. v.R.A.G. , 735 S.W.2d 164 (Mo.App.E.D. 1987); J.L.P.(H.) V. D.J.P. , 643 S.W.2d 865 (Mo.App. W.D. 1982); L. v. D. , 630 S.W.2d 240 (Mo.App.S.D. 1982); N.K.M. v. L.E.M. , 606 S.W.2d 179 (Mo.App.W.D. 1980).

  2. McGriff v. McGriff

    140 Idaho 642 (Idaho 2004)   Cited 34 times
    In McGriff, we affirmed a custody modification based, in part, upon the magistrate court's finding that "[f]ather's refusal to be in the same room or communicate directly with children's [m]other and his refusal to discuss anything with her personally is clearly detrimental to the girls and makes joint custody completely unworkable."

    Only when there is a nexus between harm to the child and a parent's homosexuality, can that parent's sexual orientation be a factor in determining custody of a child. See, e.g., T.C.H. v. K.M.H., 784 S.W.2d 281 (Mo.App. 1989), In In re Marriage of Birdsall, 197 Cal.App.3d 1024, 243 Cal.Rptr. 287 (1988), Pryor v. Pryor, 714 N.E.2d 743 (Ind.App. 1999), Scott v. Scott, 665 So.2d 760 (La.App. 1995). In light of this Court's prior focus in custody matters on the best interests of the child, we find these cases to be persuasive authority.

  3. Mayes v. Mayes

    941 S.W.2d 37 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 7 times

    One of the cases Appellant cites is dispositive of this contention. In T.C.H. v. K.M.H., 784 S.W.2d 281 (Mo.App. 1989), the mother alleged the trial court erred in failing to sua sponte appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the children's interests. The appellate court held:

  4. Breckner v. Coble

    921 S.W.2d 624 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 10 times

    L. v. D., 630 S.W.2d 240, 242 (Mo.App. 1982), quoting Kanady v. Kanady, 527 S.W.2d 704, 707 (Mo.App. 1975). See also, T.C.H. v. K.M.H., 784 S.W.2d 281, 285 (Mo.App. 1989). This court notes that Christopher was interviewed by the trial judge as permitted by 452.385, RSMo 1994, but was not asked about his wishes as to which parent he preferred to live with.

  5. McElroy v. McElroy

    910 S.W.2d 798 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 22 times
    In McElroy v. McElroy, 910 S.W.2d 798, 803 (Mo.App. 1995), another joint physical custody situation, the court held that the fourth factor weighed against removal, and upheld trial court's denial of permission to remove the child to Iowa.

    He would question them in detail about their visits with mother, and tried to tarnish their desire to live with her by telling them that they would be in daycare and never see her. The children's wishes must also be considered, although these alone are not dispositive of the issue. See RSMo § 452.375.2 (2) (1994); T.C.H. v. K.M.H., 784 S.W.2d 281, 285 (Mo.App.E.D. 1989). Furthermore, the deposition of Dr. Forhetz and the testimony of Dr. Hively were compelling. While in father's custody and removed from Missouri for the two years prior to the hearing, the children's emotional health has suffered.

  6. P.L.W. v. T.R.W

    890 S.W.2d 688 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 17 times
    In P.L.W. v. T.R.W., 890 S.W.2d 688, 691 (Mo. App. S.D. 1994), we affirmed the trial court's order denying the mother's motion to modify the father's visitation rights because father had engaged in unusual sexual activities during the marriage.

    The trial court has broad discretion in determining matters involving child custody and that decision will be affirmed unless the appellate court is firmly convinced that the welfare of the child requires some different disposition. T.C.H. v. K.M.H., 784 S.W.2d 281, 283 (Mo.App.E.D. 1989). See also In re Marriage of Johnson, 865 S.W.2d at 414; In re Marriage of Amos, 843 S.W.2d at 950.

  7. Luther v. Vogel

    863 S.W.2d 902 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 15 times
    In Luther, although the parents displayed a high level of hostility towards one another, there was substantial evidence that the parties loved their child, the mother admitted the father was a good parent, and the mother expressed her willingness to cooperate in decision-making for the child if the animosity between the parties could be put to rest.

    Section 452.355, RSMo (Cum. Supp. 1992), provides that the trial court, after considering all relevant factors including financial resources of the parties, has broad discretion in awarding attorney's fees. "When the amount awarded for attorney's fees is questioned on appeal on grounds of inadequacy, the expertise of the trial judge, by reason of his unique position and familiarity with the issues, is entitled to considerable weight, and the fact that the trial court awards less than the amount billed by counsel is not ipso facto indicative of an abuse of discretion." Budzinski v. Budzinski, 632 S.W.2d 527, 531 (Mo.App. 1982); see also T.C.H. v. K.M.H., 784 S.W.2d 281 (Mo.App. 1989) (award of $2,500.00 towards attorney's fees totalling $22,475.

  8. Gilman v. Gilman

    851 S.W.2d 15 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 14 times
    Finding evidence of poor housekeeping did not constitute allegation of neglect under section 452.423.1

    The record does not mandate appointment of a guardian ad litem. See also Plunkett, 793 S.W.2d at 554; T.C.H. v. K.M.H., 784 S.W.2d 281, 286 (Mo.App. 1989). Point I is denied.

  9. McCormick v. McCormick

    807 S.W.2d 556 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 6 times

    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." (emphasis by respondent) We fail to find that language in T.C.H. The court noted that when child abuse and neglect is alleged the court shall appoint a guardian ad litem (emphasis in opinion).

  10. Plunkett v. Aubuchon

    793 S.W.2d 554 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 12 times

    Generally, the appointment of a guardian ad litem is a matter within the discretion of the trial court. See T.C.H. v. K.M.H., 784 S.W.2d 281, 286 (Mo.App.E.D. 1989); § 452.490.4, RSMo 1986; § 452.423.1, RSMo Supp. 1989. However, the "court shall appoint a guardian ad litem in any proceeding in which child abuse or neglect is alleged."