Vollet v. Vollet
202 S.W.3d 72, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1474, 2006 WL 2805134 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court abuses its discretion in a child custody matter when it refuses to incorporate a provision agreed upon by the parents based on a predetermined, personal policy, rather than exercising its discretion to determine whether the provision is in the best interests of the children.
Facts:
- Cindy Vollet ('Wife') and Kevin Vollet ('Husband') sought to dissolve their marriage.
- The couple had three minor children, ages two and five.
- The parties created a written Separation Agreement and a parenting plan for joint custody.
- They also jointly signed a separate agreement, designated Joint Exhibit B, which prohibited either parent from having an unrelated person stay overnight while the children were in their custody.
- Both parties testified that their agreements were in the best interests of their children.
- The parties jointly requested that the trial court incorporate both the Separation Agreement and Joint Exhibit B into the final judgment and decree of dissolution.
Procedural Posture:
- Cindy Vollet ('Wife') filed a petition for dissolution of marriage against Kevin Vollet ('Husband') in the trial court.
- At the dissolution hearing, the parties presented their signed Separation Agreement and a non-cohabitation agreement (Joint Exhibit B), requesting the court incorporate both into the final decree.
- The trial court entered a judgment granting the dissolution and incorporating the Separation Agreement but explicitly refused to incorporate the non-cohabitation agreement.
- Kevin Vollet appealed the trial court's judgment to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
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 a trial court abuse its discretion by refusing to incorporate a non-cohabitation provision, agreed upon by both parents, into a child custody decree based on a predetermined policy rather than on an individualized determination of the best interests of the children?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Harold L. Lowenstein
Yes, a trial court abuses its discretion by refusing to incorporate the provision based on a predetermined policy. Although agreements between parents regarding child custody are only advisory and not binding on the court, the court has a special obligation to determine custody arrangements based on the best interests of the child. The trial court here did not consider any evidence regarding whether the non-cohabitation agreement was in the children's best interests. Instead, the judge stated a blanket policy: 'I’m not incorporating that into this judgment or any other judgment that I issue.' By applying a predetermined policy instead of exercising judicial discretion based on the facts of the specific case, the court failed its primary duty. Citing 'Buschardt v. Jones,' the court reasoned that just as a judge cannot have a policy to always include such a provision, a judge cannot have a policy to never include one, as both constitute a failure to exercise discretion.
Analysis:
This case establishes that a trial judge's discretion in family law matters, particularly child custody, is not absolute and cannot be exercised through the application of rigid, personal policies. It reinforces the paramount importance of the 'best interests of the child' standard, which requires an individualized, case-by-case analysis of the facts and evidence. The decision serves as a crucial check on judicial power, ensuring that custody determinations are based on the specific circumstances of the family involved, rather than a judge's preconceived notions. This precedent limits a judge's ability to categorically reject parental agreements and mandates a reasoned consideration of whether such agreements serve the children's welfare.
