She alleges that such immediate transfer of custody does not give the children enough time to adjust to the end of the school year. She relies on Stockton v. Stockton, 459 S.W.2d 532 (Mo.App.S.D. 1970). In Stockton, the trial court awarded temporary custody of the children each summer.
Our courts have repeatedly expressed the same view concerning the frequent and constant shuttling of children, especially very young children, between divorced parents. See Taylor v. Taylor, 548 S.W.2d 866, 868-69 (Mo.App. 1977); Stockton v. Stockton, 459 S.W.2d 532, 535 (Mo.App. 1970); M____ L____ v. M____ R____, 407 S.W.2d at 604; Kimble v. Kimble, 399 S.W.2d 630, 634[7] (Mo.App. 1966). With deference to the parties, it is readily apparent that neither party is, at present, prepared to provide a secure, stable home for the child.
' To the same effect see Stockton v. Stockton, 459 S.W.2d 532, 535 (Mo.App. 1970). No such demonstration was made here.
This provision of the decree erroneously applies the law, which declares that "the frequent and constant shuttling of children between divorced parents residing in separate nonadjoining cities does not advance their welfare but rather tends to provoke feelings of instability and insecurity." Stockton v. Stockton, 459 S.W.2d 532, 535[1] (Mo.App. 1970); Wood v. Wood, 400 S.W.2d 431 (Mo.App. 1966); Kimble v. Kimble, 399 S.W.2d 630 (Mo.App. 1966); JGW v. JLS, 414 S.W.2d 352, 359[3] (Mo.App. 1967); ML v. MR, 407 S.W.2d 600, 604[11] (Mo.App. 1966). As the Court pointed out in Stockton v. Stockton, frequent trips from the home of one parent to the other, even for small boys riding jet airplanes, soon "lose the spice of adventure and degenerate into disquieting chores that unduly disrupt what otherwise would be orderly home and school schedules."
" It has been often recognized judicially that the frequent shifting of custody from one divorced parent to the other, entailing as it does recurrent physical and emotional uprootings and adjustments for the children, affording to estranged adults frequent opportunities for the reactivation of old resentments and suspicions and for the creation of new ones, and exposing the children to the bickering and backbiting of those adults, is not calculated to further and advance the welfare of the children but rather tends to provoke strain and tension and to engender instability and insecurity. Stockton v. Stockton, Mo.App., 459 S.W.2d 532, 535; J____ G____ W____ v. J____ L____ S____, Mo.App., 414 S.W.2d 352, 359(3); M____ L____ v. M____ R____, Mo.App., 407 S.W.2d 600, 604(11); Wood v. Wood, Mo.App., 400 S.W.2d 431, 437(8). A fortiori, the same must be true with respect to such shifting of custody from grandparents to a divorced parent, no matter how devoted and dedicated the grandparents may be to their custodial task, often a thankless one initially thrust upon them by young, immature or irresponsible parents.
There is no doubt that the distance between the homes of the parents was an important factor in that case. Accord, Stockton v. Stockton, 459 S.W.2d 532 (Mo.App. 1970); Stanfield v. Stanfield, 350 P.2d 261 (Okla.Sup.Ct. 1960); Barrier v. Brewster, 349 S.W.2d 823 (Ky.Ct.App. 1961); Dworkis v. Dworkis, 111 So.2d 70 (Fla.App. 1959). In the present case, the minor children are 13 and 11 years of age and attend school in this State. Plaintiff has requested permission to move to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to be near her parents.