Orders not appealable.  A trial court document not marked "judgment" is not a final, appealable judgment.  Richard R. Welch, Respondent v. Lynda C. Watts, f/k/a Lynda C. Welch, Appellant, No. 92136 (Mo. App. E.D., September 22, 2009), Hoff, J.

In this action for dissolution of marriage, a petition, answer and counter-petition were filed.  Yet, on the day of trial the wife did not appear.  The trial court proceeded to judgment upon the husband's evidence.  Subsequently, the wife filed a timely motion to set aside the judgment.  After a hearing on the motion the trial court entered an order denying it.  The wife appealed.

Held:  Appeal dismissed.  The court of appeals found that it lacked jurisdiction because ".it must be clear to us from the writing that the trial court called the document or docket sheet entry a judgment.  Guy v. Thomas, 157 S.W.3d 328, 329 (Mo. App. E.D. 2005).  The appeal was dismissed without prejudice for lack of a final, appealable judgment.

Impediment to action for modification of custody: more than $10,000 in arrears on child support-constitutional.  Carolyn S. Weigand f/k/a Carolyn S. Edwards, Respondent v. Jeffrey M. Edwards, Appellant, No. 89159 (Mo. banc, August 4, 2009), Breckenridge, J.

The parties were divorced in 1998.  Father was ordered to pay child support and by the time he sought a modification of child custody, his arrearage was in excess of $10,000.  Pursuant to Section 452.455.4, RSMo, his claim was summarily dismissed for failure to post a bond.  He challenges the constitutionality of the statute as a denial of due process, equal protection and free and open access to the court.  It is important to note that in the intervening years, the Mother sought and obtained by default a judgment modifying the Father's custody time so that he had none.

Held: Affirmed and constitutional.  Section 452.455.4 has clearly set up a bar to custody litigation that does not apply to parents who do not have arrearages in child support in excess of $10,000.  Nevertheless, in balancing the relevant interests at issue, the statue protects a custodial parent who now has diminished financial resources because of having to shoulder a disproportionate share of the costs of supporting the parties' children.  The interests of the child are also part of the balancing test, including the importance of frequent and meaningful contact with both parents when appropriate.  Moreover, the statute encourages others to respect court orders and to obey them.

"Considering the private interests affected, the risks of erroneous deprivation of the affected interest, and the government's administrative and fiscal burden, this Court finds that Section 452.455.4 is constitutional.  The statute constitutes a reasonable balancing of the interests of (the Father), a parent owing past due child support in excess of $10,000; (the Mother), the custodial parent who is owed the support; and the state's parens patriae interest in protecting their child's best interest."

As to the right to access to the courts, that principle does not entitle access to the courts for any and all grievances or concerns.  It recognizes the right to access to the courts for claims recognized by substantive law. Section 452.455.4 does not create an unreasonable or arbitrary barrier to the courts.

Note: Section 452.455.4 was repealed effective August 28, 2009, pursuant to House Bill 481.