In 2016, Missouri Legislature added new language to child custody decisions by judges. "The general assembly finds and declares that it is the public policy of this state that frequent, continuing and meaningful contact with both parents after the parents have separated or dissolved their marriage is in the best interest of the child, except for cases where the court specifically finds that such contact is not in the best interest of the child, and that it is the public policy of this state to encourage parents to participate in decisions affecting the health, education and welfare of their children, and to resolve disputes involving their children amicably through alternative dispute resolution.  In order to effectuate these policies, the court shall determine the custody arrangement which will best assure both parents participate in such decisions and have frequent, continuing and meaningful contact with their children so long as it is in the best interests of the child."

In many courts this is not being followed by the courts.  Preferential treatment is given to any parent that can afford an attorney versus a pro se parent.  Missouri fails to provide the appropriate resources required for pro se clients.  Cases are decided or modified based on who can afford an attorney.  Clerks refuse to answer even basic questions like which form to use.

This causes income to be the primary factor in custody cases as at a disservice to the community as well as the children involved.  This does not promote joint custody especially with a vindictive parent.  

I am currently assisting with a situation that has floated in Clay Co for 6 years now.  One parent consistently denies visitation for any and all reasons.  Same parent made several abuse allegations with the State of Missouri which were unfounded.  The lack of visitation and the abuse allegation was used for grounds to in act supervised visitation by the same parent who could afford an attorney.  Judge refused to even consider the reports from the State of Missouri.  Supervised visitation was supposed to occur for 1 month with a hearing scheduled.  Visitation was immediately prevented again.  Parent with the attorney cancelled the hearing.  No hearing occurred.  First a conflict was used as a reason. Then COVID.  Once pro se client realized there would never be a hearing, they started researching and filed a Family Access Motion which is designed for Pro Se clients.  Clay County still refused to set for a hearing.  Pro Se Parent continued to try to schedule visitation and filed motions. 

Finally figured out the Notice of Hearing and was able to get in front of the court. Judge stated they filed the wrong motion and refused to see any evidence related to visitation denials with multiple verifiable perjury statements, failed to provide notice of moving across state lines and more. 

Two hours after court, next visitation has already been denied.  This parent who can't afford an attorney has seen their children 12 hours in 3 years. The parent would get more visitation if the children were in foster care. Yet no one cares.

This goes against every intention of the legislature.  The only way to prevent this is to require resources to Pro Se Clients.  Children are being refused relationships with parents when a simple notice of a which form to file for a hearing was provided. 

We need to break this system and put the Children as top priority.