Change of state residence constitutes change of circumstances for custody, COA holds

A change in residence by either parent from one state to a different state constitutes a sufficient change of circumstances to satisfy the first step of a motion to modify custody, the Western District Court of Appeals ruled on March 10.

In 2021, the circuit court entered a judgment dissolving the marriage of David Lee Couzens Jr. and Devyn Lea Post. The judgment granted Couzens sole physical custody, with joint legal custody to both parents of their minor child.

At the time, Couzens lived in Oklahoma. The child resided with him and Post had alternating weekend visitation.

In November 2023, Couzens moved from Oklahoma to Missouri. Post filed a motion to modify custody, along with a proposed parenting plan to share physical and legal custody.

The circuit court heard evidence on the motion. At the end of Post’s evidence, Couzens made an oral motion to dismiss Post’s motion. The court granted the motion, concluding that no sufficient change of circumstances supported the motion to modify custody.

Post appealed.

Writing for the unanimous panel, Judge Mark D. Pfeiffer — joined by Judge Gary D. Witt and Edward R. Ardini Jr. — reversed.

Section 452.410 provides a two-step process for evaluating a motion to modify child custody. First, a movant must show that a change has occurred in the circumstances of the children or the custodial parents based upon facts that have arisen since the prior decree; if that showing is made, the movant must then show that modification is necessary to serve the best interests of the child.

“Our legislature has explicitly declared that either parent’s move to another state, and nothing more, is sufficient to demonstrate a change in circumstances,” the court wrote, citing section 452.411, which states “If either parent of a child changes his residence to another state, such change of residence of the parent shall be deemed a change of circumstances under section 452.410, allowing the court to modify a prior visitation or custody decree.”

The court was careful to emphasize that “[o]ur ruling today is not to suggest that one parent’s relocation from one state to a different state is sufficient to mandate modification of custody,” but instead that such a move satisfies the section 452.410 requirement for a change of circumstances.

“Today’s ruling requires that we remand this matter to the circuit court so that it can complete step two of its section 452.410 analysis of [Post’s] motion to modify,” the court said. “We offer no opinion about what the ‘best interests of the child’ determination should be, only that such a determination has not yet been made by the circuit court and that it must be made on remand.”

Although one parent’s relocation from one state to another state constitutes a change in circumstances pursuant to section 452.410, the circuit court retains discretion in ruling on a modification of custody request, even if changed circumstances are shown, the court explained, where the circuit court concludes that “it was in the best interests of the children that they remain in [the custodial arrangement of the original custody decree].”

The court vacated the circuit court’s judgment and remanded for the circuit court to make its section 452.410 “best interests of the child” determination before finally ruling on Post’s motion to modify child custody and all related matters that may impact the parenting plan, child support and any other custodial issues involving the parties.

Daniel Baker of Baker Legal Services in Sedalia represented Post.

“I’m happy the court ruled the way it did,” he said.

Warsaw attorney Gable B. Dull of Dull Law, who represented Couzens, did not respond to a request for comment.

The case is Couzens v. Post, No. WD88021.