Key Ruling on Protection Orders: Missouri Court Clarifies Due Process & Default Judgment Limits

In M.R.R. v. K.W.C. (July 1, 2025), the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, affirmed critical procedural safeguards in protection order cases. This decision clarifies misconceptions about default judgments, reinforces due process requirements, and addresses custody determinations within protection orders. Here’s what family law practitioners and clients need to know.

Case Background 

·       Parties: 

Mother (M.R.R.) sought protection orders under Missouri’s Adult Abuse Act (§§ 455.010–455.095) and Child Protection Orders Act (§§ 455.500–455.538) for herself and two minor children against Father (K.W.C.). Separate custody proceedings were pending.

·       Procedural History: 

o   Mother filed petitions for orders of protection on February 2, 2024, after Father initiated custody actions. 

o   The trial court denied ex parte relief but scheduled a hearing. 

o   Father received notice but was barred from remote access due to an outstanding warrant. He did not appear in person. 

·       After a hearing where only Mother testified, the court granted full protection orders (effective until 2026), awarded Mother custody, and limited Father to supervised contact. 

Appeal: Father challenged the orders on procedural and substantive grounds, including improper "default judgment," insufficient notice, and custody determinations. 

Court of Appeal's Analysis

1.    Protection Orders Are Judgments on the Merits, Not Defaults

a.    The court clarified a critical procedural misconception:

b.    Rule 74.05(a) Precedent: Default judgments apply only when a party fails to file a required responsive pleading. Under Cramer v. Carver, 125 S.W.3d 373 (Mo. App. 2004), no responsive pleading is mandated in protection order cases. Allegations are automatically "taken as denied."

c.     Statutory Requirement: Orders of protection require proof of abuse "by a preponderance of evidence" under § 455.040.1(1), resulting in merits-based judgments—not defaults.

d.    Impact: Moving to set aside under Rule 74.05(d) is procedurally improper. Litigants must instead challenge evidentiary sufficiency.

2.    Due Process Requirements for Notice

a.    The court rejected Father’s due process claims, emphasizing:

§  Constitutional Standard: Due process requires notice "reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties" (Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950)) and a "meaningful opportunity to be heard" (Breckenridge Material Co. v. Enloe, 194 S.W.3d 915 (Mo. App. 2006)).

b.    Factual Application: Father received mailed notice of the March 29 hearing (per Rule 74.03), filed a continuance motion on March 28, and attempted remote access. His choice not to appear in person did not violate due process.

3.    Judicial Discretion in Hearing Continuances

a.    The court upheld the trial court’s management of timelines:

b.    Statutory Framework: While §§ 455.040.1(1) and 455.516.1 require hearings within 15 days, delays are permissible for "good cause."

c.     Precedent: Jenkins v. Croft, 63 S.W.3d 710 (Mo. App. 2002), confirms no penalty attaches for missing the deadline if continuances serve "fundamental fairness."

d.    Ruling: Continuances requested by both parties justified the 55-day delay. Father could not contest delays he caused.

4.    Custody Determinations in Protection Order

a.    The court sidestepped custody challenges on mootness grounds:

- The child protection order expired April 4, 2025. Custody was being litigated in a separate action, making appellate review unnecessary.

b.    Practice Insight: Temporary custody awards in protection orders remain viable under § 455.050.3(1), but permanent arrangements require separate proceedings.

5.    Waiver for Deficient Appellate Briefing

a.    The court enforced strict compliance with Rule 84.04:

Father’s challenges to petition sufficiency and evidence were waived for failing to:

Specify which petition (adult/child) or evidence he contested.

Cite supporting authority for custody arguments.

b.   Key Precedent: Lexow v. Boeing Co., 643 S.W.3d 501 (Mo. banc 2022) requires separate points for distinct rulings.

Practical Implications for Family Law Practice

1. Avoid "Default" Misconceptions: Prepare to prove protection orders with evidence—even if respondents don’t appear.

2. Document Notice Meticulously: Use certified mail and file certificates of service to defend due process challenges.

3. Temporary vs. Permanent Custody: Use protection orders for emergency custody only; defer permanent decisions to custody proceedings.

4. Appellate Discipline: Preserve arguments with precise citations and avoid multifarious points (Rule 84.04(d)).

ConclusionM.R.R. v. K.W.C. reinforces that protection orders are merits-based judgments requiring strict due process adherence. It dispels procedural myths while affirming courts’ flexibility to balance safety with fairness.

DISCLAIMER: This blog post provides general information, not legal advice. Case

outcomes depend on specific facts. Consult an attorney for guidance. The choice of a

lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.