## Facts

- A wife filed for dissolution of marriage from her husband; the parties had three minor children.
- The parties negotiated and executed a written separation agreement addressing property, debts, and a joint-custody plan with week-on/week-off physical custody.
- They also executed a separate written provision barring either parent from cohabiting with, or allowing overnight stays by, any non-relative while the children were in that parent’s physical custody.
- The separate provision also required each parent to inform any romantic partner of the restriction and included a prevailing-party attorney’s-fees clause for enforcement actions.
- At the dissolution hearing, both parties testified their agreements were not unconscionable and were in the children’s best interests.
- The trial court incorporated the separation agreement into the dissolution decree but refused to incorporate the overnight-guest restriction, stating it would not approve such a restriction in this or any other judgment.
- The husband appealed the refusal to include the agreed restriction in the custody portion of the decree.

## Issues

1. Whether a trial court may categorically refuse to incorporate an agreed noncohabitation/overnight-guest restriction in a parenting plan, without evaluating the provision under the statutory best-interests-of-the-child standard.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the portion of the judgment refusing to incorporate the agreed restriction and remanded.
- The court held that custody and visitation agreements do not bind the trial court, but the court must consider agreed provisions as part of a case-specific best-interests analysis.
- The trial court erred by applying a blanket policy against such restrictions instead of exercising discretion based on the children’s circumstances and the statutory factors.

## Legal Principles

- In custody determinations, the trial court must make an independent best-interests finding based on all relevant factors identified by statute, including the factors listed in § 452.375, RSMo.
- Parental agreements regarding custody and visitation are not controlling, but they are relevant and may be incorporated if consistent with the child’s welfare.
- A trial court may not employ a per se rule rejecting a category of parenting-plan provisions (such as noncohabitation or overnight-guest restrictions); it must evaluate the requested term on the record in the individual case.

## Conclusion

The appellate court required the trial court to reconsider the parties’ agreed overnight-guest restriction under the statutory best-interests standard, holding that a categorical refusal to consider such provisions is legal error because it substitutes a blanket policy for individualized custody discretion.


Vollet v. Vollet, 202 S.W.3d 72 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006)