MAXWELL BIGGS, By His Next Friend DERRICK BIGGS, and DERRICK BIGGS, Individually v. ANGELIA BRINNEMAN

Citation: Not availableDocket: SD36178

Court: Missouri Court of Appeals; April 16, 2020; Missouri; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

MAXWELL BIGGS, through his next friend Derrick Biggs, and Derrick Biggs, individually, are respondents in an appeal case against ANGELIA BRINNEMAN, the appellant, filed on April 16, 2020, under case number SD36178 in the Circuit Court of Pulaski County. The trial court, presided over by Honorable Michael V. Headrick, awarded joint legal and joint physical custody of the minor child to both parties, designating Derrick Biggs' residence as the child's official address for educational and mailing purposes. Brinneman's appeal was dismissed due to her brief's failure to comply with Rule 84.04.

The child was born in March 2015, and the parties were never married. Derrick Biggs filed a petition for paternity, custody, visitation, and support on August 28, 2017, asserting that joint custody was in the child's best interest and proposing no child support obligations for either party. Brinneman responded with a counter petition seeking sole physical custody, joint legal custody, child support, and attorney fees. Both parties submitted parenting plans.

Brinneman relocated to Kansas with the child in September 2018 without court permission, violating custody orders. After a hearing on February 6, 2019, the trial court issued its judgment on February 26, 2019, determining that Brinneman was less likely to facilitate contact between the child and Biggs, particularly due to her unauthorized relocation. The court ordered joint custody with the child primarily residing with Biggs and outlined specific parenting time for both parties. DNA testing confirmed Biggs as the biological father.

Brinneman claimed the court erred in finding she acted in bad faith and argued that the evidence favored her position regarding the child's best interests. However, her brief did not meet the requirements of Rule 84.04, particularly in providing a fair statement of facts and evidence that favored the trial court's ruling. The appellate review emphasized that an appellant must justify why, despite favorable evidence for the respondent, the law requires a different outcome. Brinneman's brief included an inadequate argument concerning the trial court's findings.

The document critiques the appellant's compliance with appellate rules, particularly focusing on her brief's structure and content. It emphasizes that the differences noted are not substantive, and the brief must adhere to the standards set forth in Rule 84.04(d)(1). This rule requires the appellant to clearly identify the trial court's ruling being challenged, provide concise legal reasons for claiming reversible error, and explain how these reasons support the claim. The appellant's statement of facts is deemed unfair and not concise, as it includes evidence disregarded by the trial court while omitting evidence that was relied upon. Furthermore, the statement fails to include all pertinent facts relevant to the arguments presented. The critique highlights specific instances where the appellant's arguments rely on unsupported assertions and misinterpretations of the record, violating the standards of appellate analysis. Overall, the document concludes that the appellant's brief does not meet the necessary legal requirements, particularly the mandatory "erred in/because/in that" formulation, and thus lacks the validity needed for the appeal to be considered.

Brinneman's appeal is fundamentally flawed due to a failure to concisely articulate the legal basis for claiming reversible error, as required by Rule 84.04(d). This inadequacy renders the appeal invalid, as it preserves nothing for review. The standard of review is governed by Murphy v. Carron, yet Brinneman diverges from this principle by addressing RSMo 452.337.10 (2019). Brinneman argues that the court improperly awarded primary physical custody to Respondent, asserting that Appellant's relocation was in good faith and in the child's best interest. Evidence suggests that Respondent has ongoing parenting issues, making him unsuitable as the primary custodian. Despite Respondent's intentions, he demonstrates a lack of basic parenting knowledge. The record supports Appellant's parenting capabilities and her initiatives to facilitate the child's relationship with Respondent. Brinneman's argument section fails to adhere to the necessary structure and citation requirements outlined in Rule 84.04(e), lacking specific page references to the record. Overall, the appeal is undermined by procedural defects and insufficient documentation of claims.

Brinneman's appeal is dismissed due to significant deficiencies in her brief, notably a lack of appropriate citations to the record and reliance on unsupported argument or speculation. The court emphasizes that it prefers to resolve matters on their merits but will not overlook violations of Rule 84.04, as doing so would imply acceptance of substandard briefing. Brinneman failed to follow the required analytical sequences for challenges regarding substantial evidence or against-the-weight-of-the-evidence, as outlined in Houston v. Crider. Additionally, it remains unclear whether she intended to raise such evidentiary challenges in her appeal. The deficiencies in her brief prevent proper review and ultimately lead to the dismissal of her appeal.