The paramount consideration is that the decision be made in the best interest of the child. R v. R, 685 S.W.2d 598, 602 (Mo.App. 1985), Section 452.375, RSMo 1986. On appeal, the findings of the trial court are controlling unless the appellate court is convinced that the welfare of the child requires that another disposition be made. Fastnacht v. Fastnacht, 616 S.W.2d 98, 100 (Mo.App. 1981). The appellate standard of review for court-tried cases under Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976), is applicable to determinations of custody.
The paramount consideration is the best interest of the children. ยง 452.375.2, RSMo Supp. 1988; Petty, 760 S.W.2d at 556; R____ v. R____, 685 S.W.2d 598, 601-02[2] (Mo.App. 1985). The standard of review enunciated in Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32[1] (Mo. banc 1976), applies to custody determinations.
Id. "A good environment and a stable home is generally considered as the most important single consideration in custody cases." Newsom , 976 S.W.2d at 39 (quoting R. v. R. , 685 S.W.2d 598, 602 (Mo.App.S.D. 1985)). IV. ANALYSISA. The trial court attributed sufficient weight to Mother's prior use of illegal drugs.
"A good environment and a stable home is generally considered as the most important single consideration in custody cases." R v. R , 685 S.W.2d 598, 602 (Mo.App. 1985). In R v.R, the Southern District of this court further stated:
Past and present conduct may be a reliable guide to the priorities of a parent.R____ v. R____, 685 S.W.2d 598, 602 (Mo.App. 1985). The bad influence of Reeder's lifestyle on the boy's attitudes was manifestly clear in the telling remarks the boy made to others.
The trial court is charged, however, with the responsibility of making custody decisions which are consistent with the best interests of the children. In doing so, the trial court may consider the conduct of a parent which may inspire by example. R. v. R., 685 S.W.2d 598, 602 (Mo.App. 1985). There, the court said:
The standard of review in Rule 73.01(c), as construed by Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32[1] (Mo. banc 1976), applies to custody determinations. Griffin v. Griffin, 789 S.W.2d 236, 236-37 (Mo.App.S.D. 1990); Petty v. Petty, 760 S.W.2d 555, 556[2] (Mo.App.W.D. 1988); R____ v.R____, 685 S.W.2d 598, 601[1] (Mo.App. S.D. 1985). The order of the trial court will be sustained unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, unless it is against the weight of the evidence, unless it erroneously declares the law, or unless it erroneously applies the law.
While this may be a factor for the court to consider, the trial court also considers "all relevant factors." ยง 452.355.1, RSMo. Supp. 1991. Marital misconduct does not alone establish the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney's fees. R v. R, 685 S.W.2d 598, 603 [11] (Mo.App. 1985). We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion.
The standard of review in Rule 73.01(c), as construed by Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32[1] (Mo. banc 1976), applies to custody determinations. Griffin v. Griffin, 789 S.W.2d 236, 236-37 (Mo.App. 1990); Petty v. Petty, 760 S.W.2d 555, 556[2] (Mo.App. 1988); R____ v. R____, 685 S.W.2d 598, 601[1] (Mo.App. 1985). The decree of the trial court will be sustained unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, unless it is against the weight of the evidence, unless it erroneously declares the law, or unless it erroneously applies the law.
"R v. R, 685 S.W.2d 598, 601 (Mo.App. 1985). In that critical appellate review, this court must be guided by established legal principles that include the following.