Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 18,800+ case briefs...

K.J.B. v. C.M.B.

Court of Appeals of Missouri for the Eastern District
779 S.W.2d 36 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989)


A mother (plaintiff) and a father (defendant) were divorced. The mother and father had joint custody of their two children. The mother petitioned for modification of the divorce decree, seeking termination of the father’s custody and visitation rights. The mother alleged that the father physically and psychologically abused the children. The mother and father agreed to suspend the hearing on the petition while they underwent counseling with a psychiatrist, Dr. Graham. Dr. Graham terminated the counseling after two sessions, finding that the father was not committed to working on the problems and that it would be dangerous for the children to have further contact with the father. The trial court held a hearing, at which both parents introduced expert testimony of psychologists, including Dr. Graham. The mother’s experts generally agreed that the mother should be awarded primary custody and that the children showed signs of abuse by the father. The mother’s experts did not, however, recommend that the father not have supervised visits with the children. The father’s expert witness acknowledged something abnormal about the children’s relationship with their father, but recommended that the relationship be maintained. The father requested further physical examination of the children in light of the mother’s experts’ allegations. The trial court denied the request, finding that the children had already been subject to sufficient evaluation and that further examination would be detrimental to their mental health. The trial court granted the mother’s petition for modification, awarding the mother sole custody and terminating the father’s visitation rights. The father appealed, arguing that the ruling was not supported by the evidence and that he was not given a full opportunity to develop his case.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Karohl, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 498,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 498,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 18,800 briefs, keyed to 985 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial