Court of Appeals of Missouri, Western District, First Division
from the Circuit Court of Vernon County, Missouri The
Honorable David R. Munton, Judge
James E. Welsh, Presiding Judge, Thomas H. Newton, Judge and
Gary D. Witt, Judge
D. WITT, JUDGE
Gammon ("Mother") appeals the judgment of the
Circuit Court of Vernon County granting to Randy Gammon
("Father") sole medical decision making authority
for the couple's two children. Further, Mother appeals
the court's division of overnight parenting time between
Mother and Father. We affirm.
and Father were married in 2007 and had two sons in 2008 and
2010, respectively. Mother filed for divorce from Father in
2011 but that petition was ultimately dismissed. In December
2012, Father filed for divorce from Mother. The court entered
its Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage June 16, 2016
("Judgment"). At the time of the Judgment, the
children were eight and six.
Judgment called for joint legal and physical custody between
Mother and Father ("Custody Plan"). The Custody
Plan provided that the children's principle residence
shall be with Father but that Mother would have parenting
time with both children every other weekend from Friday at
6:00 p.m. until Sunday at 6:00 p.m. Additionally, Mother
would have the children Wednesdays from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00
p.m. The couple would have a reasonably equal split of
holidays. The Custody Plan was almost identical to the
parenting plans submitted by Father and Mother.
court found that Mother and Father should make joint
decisions on the children's education, dental, child care
providers, extracurricular activities, and religious
upbringing. The court, however, found that "Mother has
unorthodox beliefs as to medical treatment" and awarded
Father sole decision making authority over the children's
medical treatment and selection of the children's health
appeals the Judgment of the court arguing that the court did
not have sufficient evidence upon which to determine that
Father should have sole medical decision making authority.
Further, she claims that the Court did not provide her with
enough parenting time to meet the statutory requirement for
"frequent, continuing, and meaningful contact"
under section 452.375.4.
This Court will affirm the circuit court's judgment
unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is
against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously
declares or applies the law. Murphy v. Carron, 536
S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). "Substantial evidence is
evidence that, if believed, has some probative force on each
fact that is necessary to sustain the circuit court's
judgment." Ivie v. Smith, 439 S.W.3d 189, 199
(Mo. banc 2014). "To prevail on [a] substantial-evidence
challenge, [the appellant] must demonstrate that there is no
evidence in the record tending to prove a fact that is
necessary to sustain the circuit court's judgment as a
matter of law." Id. at 200. When reviewing
whether the circuit court's judgment is supported by
substantial evidence, this Court views "the evidence in
the light most favorable to the circuit court's judgment
and defer[s] to the circuit court's credibility
determinations." Id. This Court "accept[s]
as true the evidence and inferences ... favorable to the
trial court's decree and disregard[s] all contrary
evidence." Id., quoting Zweig v. Metro. St.
Louis Sewer Dist., 412 S.W.3d 223, 231 (Mo. banc 2013).
Pasternak v. Pasternak, 467 S.W.3d 264, 268 (Mo.
raises two points on appeal. In her first point, Mother
contends that the court erred in granting Father sole
decision making ...