Stockton v. Stockton

6 Citing cases

  1. Stanton v. Abbey

    874 S.W.2d 493 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 24 times
    Noting as a factor in favor of affirming the decision to require Mother to pay for two visits per year "that other courts have approved a decision requiring a parent to share in the expense of a situation that he or she helped to create."

    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.

  2. In re Marriage of Mayfield

    780 S.W.2d 139 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 10 times

    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.

  3. Leimer v. Leimer

    670 S.W.2d 571 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 11 times

    ' To the same effect see Stockton v. Stockton, 459 S.W.2d 532, 535 (Mo.App. 1970). No such demonstration was made here.

  4. Taylor v. Taylor

    548 S.W.2d 866 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977)   Cited 10 times
    Stating that ". . . the remedy for failure of either parent to comply with a court order would be to `move the court to grant an appropriate order', such as an order to show cause why the offender should not be held in contempt"

    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."

  5. Lipsey v. Lipsey

    464 S.W.2d 529 (Mo. Ct. App. 1971)   Cited 13 times
    In Lipsey, a father appealed from a decree which modified custody of his two children so that major custody shifted from the children's paternal grandparents to their mother.

    " 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.

  6. Mayer v. Mayer

    150 N.J. Super. 556 (Ch. Div. 1977)   Cited 9 times

    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.