## Facts

- Richard Politte (father) and Joyce Politte (mother) divorced under a 1975 dissolution decree.
- The decree awarded Joyce primary custody of the parties’ three minor children and awarded Richard visitation rights and “temporary custody” rights.
- Richard later filed a separate civil petition against Joyce seeking money damages for alleged interference with his court-ordered visitation and temporary custody.
- Richard alleged that about five years after the divorce Joyce stated she no longer wanted custody, but within roughly three months she “surreptitiously” resumed custody.
- Richard alleged that after resuming custody Joyce refused to allow him to exercise his visitation and temporary custody rights.
- He also alleged Joyce endangered the children’s welfare by subjecting them to an unfit moral atmosphere and attempted to turn the children against him.
- Richard alleged he suffered severe emotional distress and extreme depression and also claimed damages for loss of the children’s society; he sought punitive damages for allegedly willful and malicious conduct.
- Richard relied on Restatement (Second) of Torts § 700 (intentional interference with parental custody) as the basis for his damages claim.
- The trial court dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and Richard appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Missouri law permits a noncustodial parent to bring an independent tort action for money damages against the custodial parent for interference with court-ordered visitation and temporary custody, based on Restatement (Second) of Torts § 700.
2. If such a tort remedy were available, whether Richard’s pleaded facts stated an actionable claim.

## Decision

- The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal.
- The court declined to treat Restatement (Second) of Torts § 700 as creating a Missouri damages claim in this setting—one divorced parent suing the other for alleged interference with visitation and temporary custody granted in a dissolution decree.
- The court viewed the petition as an attempt to convert post-decree custody and visitation disputes into collateral tort litigation for damages.
- The court noted that custody and visitation conflicts are addressed through the domestic-relations case itself, where the court can enforce and adjust orders with remedies suited to child welfare (including enforcement and modification mechanisms).
- Because Missouri did not recognize the pleaded tort theory for these parent-versus-parent allegations, the petition failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

## Legal Principles

- A Restatement provision is not automatically part of Missouri law; Missouri courts must accept it before it becomes an available basis for relief.
- Missouri courts are reluctant to expand tort damages remedies into disputes between divorced parents over visitation and temporary custody governed by a dissolution decree.
- When visitation or temporary custody is denied, the proper remedies generally lie in the dissolution proceeding (enforcement, contempt, and modification), rather than in a separate damages suit.
- In custody-related disputes, the legal system’s focus is on the child’s welfare; a damages action between parents does not necessarily serve that aim.

## Conclusion

In *Politte v. Politte*, the Missouri Court of Appeals held that a father could not maintain an independent tort action for money damages against his ex-wife for allegedly interfering with his visitation and temporary custody rights under a dissolution decree, rejecting his reliance on Restatement (Second) of Torts § 700 and affirming dismissal for failure to state a claim.


Politte v. Politte, 727 S.W.2d 198 (1987)