Bowers v. Bowers
543 S.W.3d 608 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a dissolution proceeding, a spouse who is not the biological or adoptive parent of a child raised during the marriage can be designated a 'third party' for the purpose of seeking custody under section 452.375.5, provided they can rebut the parental presumption by showing that the biological parents are unfit, unsuitable, or unable to be custodians and that awarding custody to the third party is in the child's best interest.
Facts:
- In 2007, Jessica became pregnant by Stephen, and they ended their relationship.
- Jessica then began a relationship with Jason, and they agreed Jason would raise the child as his own.
- Jessica and Jason informed Stephen of their plan, and Stephen agreed not to be involved in the child's life.
- The child (J.B.) was born in April 2008, and four days later, Jessica and Jason executed a paternity affidavit, resulting in Jason being named as the father on the birth certificate.
- Jessica and Jason married in April 2010 and raised the child together as a family.
- The couple separated in August 2012.
- In December 2013, after Jason had filed for dissolution, Jessica introduced the child to Stephen for the first time, identifying him as the biological father.
Procedural Posture:
- Jason Bowers filed a petition for dissolution of marriage against Jessica Bowers in circuit court, seeking custody of J.B.
- Jessica Bowers filed a cross-petition, denying J.B. was a child of the marriage and arguing Jason had no custody rights.
- The child's biological father, Stephen Nugent, filed a motion to intervene in the dissolution action to establish paternity and seek custody.
- The circuit court sustained Stephen's motion to intervene.
- Jason filed an alternative motion for third-party custody pursuant to section 452.375.5.
- After a bench trial, the circuit court designated Jason a third party, found Jessica and Stephen to be unfit custodians, and awarded sole legal and physical custody of J.B. to Jason.
- Jessica Bowers appealed to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, which affirmed the circuit court's judgment.
- A dissenting judge on the Court of Appeals certified the case for transfer to the Supreme Court of Missouri.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Missouri law permit a spouse in a dissolution proceeding, who is not a biological or adoptive parent of a child raised within the family unit, to be designated as a 'third party' and awarded custody under section 452.375.5?
Opinions:
Majority - George W. Draper III
Yes. In a dissolution action, a spouse who is not a biological parent can be designated a third party for the purpose of determining custody. The court's primary duty is to determine custody in the child's best interest, and when all interested parties are before the court, it can make such a designation for judicial efficiency. The court distinguished this case from 'In re Marriage of Said,' noting that here the child was not born of the marriage and Jason properly pleaded that both biological parents were unfit and unsuitable custodians. Furthermore, Jason was not just any third party; he was invited by the biological mother to act as a parent and did so for an extended period, creating a significant bond with the child. The court held that the parental presumption in favor of Jessica was rebutted because substantial evidence showed she was unfit, particularly her actions to diminish and eliminate Jason's role in the child's life, which would be 'psychologically destructive' to the child.
Concurring - Zel M. Fischer
I concur in the result only. The court should not have reached the merits of the case because Jessica's appeal was procedurally flawed. Her 'point relied on' in her brief was multifarious, meaning it improperly combined multiple distinct legal arguments into a single point, which violates Rule 84.04(d). Specifically, she combined a claim of 'not supported by substantial evidence' with a claim of 'against the weight of the evidence,' which are two distinct legal challenges that must be raised separately. By addressing these procedurally defective arguments, the court crossed the line from a neutral arbiter to an advocate for the appellant, which is not the function of an appellate court.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of Missouri's third-party custody statute within the complex context of a divorce involving a non-biological parent. It affirms that the statute can be flexibly applied to allow a party to the dissolution (the spouse) to also function as a 'third party' for custody purposes, prioritizing the child's best interests over rigid procedural labels. The case reinforces that the fundamental right of biological parents to custody is not absolute and can be overcome by a showing of unfitness or when the child's welfare requires it. This precedent will likely be influential in cases involving blended families or where a de facto parent seeks custody after a separation, solidifying a pathway for non-biological parents who have formed a significant parental bond with a child.
