In Re R.K.N. - Minor Child Appeal Dismissed

Jump To

Top Caption Disposition Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

Oct. 14, 2025 Get Citation Alerts
- Learn More
Download PDF
- [Combined Opinion from

our Backup](https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2025/10/14/in_re_the_matter_of_r.k.n._a_minor_child_and_by_and_through_next_friends.pdf)

• Combined Opinion from the Court Add Note # In Re the Matter of: R.K.N., a minor child and by and through next friends, Abdur Nimeri Khalafalla and Abdur Nimeri Khalafalla, Individually vs. Peggy Riessen

Missouri Court of Appeals

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: WD87653
• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Disposition: Appeal Dismissed

• Opinion

• Authorities

• Cited By

• Summaries

• Similar Cases

• PDF

Disposition

Appeal Dismissed

Combined Opinion

Missouri Court of Appeals
Western District

IN RE THE MATTER OF: R.K.N., A )
MINOR CHILD AND BY AND )
THROUGH NEXT FRIENDS, ) WD87653
ABDUR NIMERI KHALAFALLA AND )
ABDUR NIMERI KHALAFALLA, ) OPINION FILED:
INDIVIDUALLY, )
) October 14, 2025
Appellant, )
v. )
)
PEGGY RIESSEN, )
)
Respondent. )
)

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri
The Honorable Kevin Duane Harrell, Judge

Before Division Four: Anthony Rex Gabbert, Chief Judge Presiding,
Thomas N. Chapman, Judge, and Renee Hardin-Tammons, Special Judge

A.N.K. (“Father”) appeals a judgment of modification entered by the Circuit Court

of Jackson County. Father’s appeal is dismissed for failure to substantially comply with

the briefing requirements of Rule 84.04.

Background

Child was born in Colorado and is three years old. In 2022, the District Court of

Denver County, Colorado entered an order containing a parenting plan submitted by the
agreement of P.R. (“Mother”) and Father and also entered a child support order.

Thereafter, Mother and Father each relocated to Missouri.

In 2023, Father filed a petition in the Circuit Court of Jackson County that sought

to modify the prior Colorado orders regarding the parenting plan and child support order.

Father’s petition alleged that modification was necessary and in the best interests of Child

due to the change in the circumstances of the parties. Father’s petition further alleged

that modification was necessary because the prior Colorado orders did not comply with

Missouri law in that the prior orders did not award legal or physical custody to either

parent and did not contain additional provisions necessary under Missouri law. Mother

filed a countermotion to modify the parenting plan. Father subsequently sought and

received leave to file an amended motion to modify.

Mother and Father submitted their respective parenting plans to the trial court.

Father requested that he be given sole legal custody of Child. Mother requested that she

be given sole legal custody of Child.

In June of 2024, the trial court held a hearing on the parties’ respective petitions,

during which Father and Mother testified, and numerous exhibits were presented to the

trial court. The trial court subsequently entered judgment, and thereafter entered an

amended judgment on October 8, 2024. The amended judgment granted sole legal

custody to Mother, granted Mother and Father joint physical custody, and decreased

Father’s monthly child support obligation.

Father now seeks to appeal the amended judgment.

2
Appeal Dismissed

“Rule 84.04 plainly sets forth the required contents of briefs filed in all appellate

courts.” Lexow v. Boeing Co., 643 S.W.3d 501, 505 (Mo. banc 2022). “Rule 84.04’s

requirements are mandatory.” Id. (citation omitted). Although appellate courts have

discretion to excuse technical deficiencies in a brief and prefer to reach the merits of a

case, appellate courts will not consider a brief so deficient that it fails to inform the court

and opposing parties of the issues presented on appeal. Id.

Rule 84.04(c) provides the requirements for a statement of facts in an appellate

brief. As pertinent, Rule 84.04(c) provides that “[t]he statement of facts shall be a fair

and concise statement of the facts relevant to the questions presented for determination

without argument.”

Rule 84.04(d) governs the points relied on section of an appellate brief and

provides:

(1) Where the appellate court reviews the decision of a trial court, each
point shall:

(A) Identify the trial court ruling or action that the appellant challenges;

(B) State concisely the legal reasons for the appellant’s claim of reversible
error; and

(C) Explain in summary fashion why, in the context of the case, those legal
reasons support the claim of reversible error.

The point shall be in substantially the following form: “The trial court erred
in [identify the challenged ruling or action], because [state the legal
reasons for the claim of reversible error], in that [explain why the legal
reasons, in the context of the case, support the claim of reversible error].”

3
“The function of points relied on is to give notice to the opposing party of the precise

matters which must be contended with and to inform the court of the issues presented for

review.” Lexow, 643 S.W.3d at 505 (citation and brackets omitted).

Rule 84.04(e) governs the argument section of an appellate brief. “The purpose of

the argument section is to demonstrate how the principles of law and the facts of this case

interact to support a claim for reversible error.” Parkside Fin. Bank & Tr. v. Allen, 688

S.W.3d 83, 89 (Mo. App. E.D. 2024) (citation omitted). To properly brief an allegation of

error on appeal, “an appellant must explain why, in the context of the case, the law

supports the claim of reversible error by showing how principles of law and the facts of

the case interact.” Burgan v. Newman, 618 S.W.3d 712, 715 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021)

(internal quotations and citation omitted). “Mere conclusions and the failure to develop

an argument with support from legal authority preserve nothing for review.” Id. (citation

omitted). Rule 84.04(e) requires that factual assertions in an argument be supported by

specific page references to the record on appeal. “Failure to adhere to Rule 84.04(e)

warrants dismissal.” Parkside Fin. Bank & Tr., 688 S.W.3d at 89 (citation omitted).

In this matter, Father’s briefing fails to comply with Rule 84.04(c) governing

statements of facts in an appellate brief, Rule 84.04(d) governing points relied on, and

Rule 84.04(e) governing argument sections of appellate briefs. Despite receiving notice

that his initial brief failed to comply with these rules, Father subsequently submitted an

amended brief which again failed to comply with Rule 84.04.

4
Father’s initial brief contained obvious deficiencies. Father’s statement of facts in

his initial appellate brief included over 35 pages of randomly formatted notes with

materials copied verbatim from the transcripts without making any legitimate attempt to

apprise the court of the facts relevant to his points on appeal. Father’s initial brief then

indicated that it was raising four points on appeal; however, the argument section that

followed failed to make clear what points Father was raising or addressing, failed to

develop his arguments, and instead consisted of portions copied verbatim from his

motion to vacate or amend the trial court’s initial judgment without elaboration and

without attempting to include citations to the record.

On March 21, 2025, this court entered an order striking Father’s initial brief. The

order provided notice to Father of a number of reasons why his brief failed to comply

with Rule 84.04(c) regarding the statement of facts, Rule 84.04(d) regarding his points

relied on, and Rule 84.04(e) regarding the argument section. The order granted Father

fifteen days to file an amended brief correcting the deficiencies. Father was also given

notice that briefs that failed to comply with Rule 84.04 are subject to dismissal.

On April 8, 2025, Father filed an amended appellate brief. Father’s amended brief

again failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 84.04, in many of the same ways

Father had been expressly warned of regarding his initial brief. In particular, after

specifically being warned that the lack of citations to the record in his argument section

would render his appeal subject to dismissal for violation of Rule 84.04(e), Father’s

amended brief made no attempt to remedy this violation. Dismissal is particularly

5
appropriate where a party is put on notice of a violation of Rule 84.04 and the party

makes no effort to correct such violation in an amended brief. See Acton v. Rahm, 611

S.W.3d 897, 903 (Mo. App. W.D. 2020) (citing Nicol v. Nicol, 491 S.W.3d 266, 270 (Mo.

App. W.D. 2016)).

The statement of facts in Father’s briefing fails to provide a complete and accurate

depiction of the facts relevant to his appeal in that it omits reference or citation to

numerous facts on which the trial court expressly relied in its judgment. Despite the fact

that Father indicated an intention to assert that the trial court’s findings were against the

weight of the evidence, Father failed to provide a complete or accurate depiction of the

evidence before the trial court in his statement of facts – a deficiency which Father made

no effort to remedy in his subsequent argument section.

Father’s amended brief then indicated that Father was raising four points on

appeal. 1 The brief then set forth what appeared to be his first point relied on, which

asserted that the trial court had misapplied the law regarding the modification of custody

and that the trial court’s judgment was against the weight of the evidence and was

unsupported by substantial evidence. This point relied on grouped together multiple,

1
Father’s amended brief initially asserted four points relied on, yet only presented two points
relied on in the argument section of the amended brief. Furthermore, the two points relied on in
the argument section of the amended brief were stated differently from any of the four points
initially asserted. The index in Father’s amended brief compounds the confusion, as it does not
accurately reflect the actual content and correlating page numbers of the amended brief. For the
sake of simplicity, we address the deficiencies in the two points addressed in the argument
section of Father’s amended brief, and consider the remaining points initially asserted as having
been abandoned.

6
distinct claims of error in a single point and was therefore multifarious, preserving

nothing for review. Macke v. Patton, 591 S.W.3d 865, 869 (Mo. banc 2019). These

distinct challenges present “separate and distinct inquiries, each requiring its own discrete

legal analysis.” Id. at 869-70. Following this technical deficiency, Father’s appellate

brief then copied verbatim four pages of his motion to vacate or amend, which had been

previously presented to the trial court, and which had presented an array of distinct

arguments. Father’s appellate brief did so without attempting to develop such arguments

in light of the record on appeal and without including a single citation to the evidence in

the record despite indicating that he was raising evidentiary challenges, and despite a

prior warning from this court that the failure to include such citations would render his

appeal subject to dismissal.

In simultaneously raising distinct evidentiary challenges without identifying,

citing, and addressing all of the evidence in the record in support of the judgment, Father

fails to inform this court as to his particular arguments in light of the evidence in this case

and fails to provide analytically sufficient arguments in light of our appellate standard of

review. To prevail on a “no substantial evidence” challenge, an appellant “must

demonstrate that there is no evidence in the record tending to prove a fact that is

necessary to sustain the circuit court’s judgment as a matter of law.” Ivie v. Smith, 439

S.W.3d 189, 200 (Mo. banc 2014) (citing In re J.A.R., 426 S.W.3d 624, 626-27 (Mo. banc

2014)). “When reviewing whether the circuit court’s judgment is supported by

substantial evidence, appellate courts view the evidence in the light most favorable to the

7
circuit court’s judgment and defer to the circuit court’s credibility determinations.” Id.

(citation omitted). “Appellate courts accept as true the evidence and inferences favorable

to the trial court’s decree and disregard all contrary evidence.” Id. (internal quotations,

ellipsis, and citation omitted).

As a markedly distinct challenge, a “claim that the judgment is against the weight

of the evidence presupposes that there is sufficient evidence to support the judgment.”

Id. at 205-06 (brackets and citation omitted). Such a claim “challenges the probative

value of that evidence to induce belief in [a factual] proposition when viewed in the

context of the entirety of the evidence before the trier of fact.” Hopkins v. Hopkins, 449

S.W.3d 793, 802 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014) (quoting Sauvain v. Acceptance Indem. Ins. Co.,

437 S.W.3d 296, 304 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014)). “The against-the-weight-of-the-evidence

standard serves only as a check on a circuit court’s potential abuse of power in weighing

the evidence, and an appellant court will reverse only in rare cases, when it has a firm

belief that the decree or judgment is wrong.” Ivie, 439 S.W.3d at 206. “When reviewing

the record in an against-the-weight-of-the-evidence challenge, this Court defers to the

circuit court’s findings of fact when the factual issues are contested and when the facts

found by the circuit court depend on credibility determinations.” Id. An appellate court

“will not re-find facts based on credibility determinations through its own perspective.”

Id. “Evidence not based on a credibility determination, contrary to the circuit court’s

judgment, can be considered in an appellate court’s review of an against-the-weight-of-

the-evidence challenge.” Id.

8
As has been summarized by Missouri courts, an appellant who brings an against-

the-weight-of-the-evidence challenge must do the following:

(1) identify a challenged factual proposition necessary to sustain the
judgment; (2) identify all of the favorable evidence supporting that
[pro]position; (3) identify contrary evidence, subject to the trial court’s
credibility determinations, explicit or implicit; and (4) prove in light of the
whole record that the supporting evidence, when considered along with the
reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, is so lacking in probative value that
the trier of fact could not reasonably believe the proposition.

See Hopkins, 449 S.W.3d at 802 (quoting Sauvain, 437 S.W.3d at 304); see also Houston

v. Crider, 317 S.W.3d 178, 187 (Mo. App. S.D. 2010)).

By attempting to raise two distinct evidentiary challenges without identifying all

of (or citing to any of) the evidence in the record favorable to the trial court’s judgment,

Father’s briefing fails to make clear what arguments are being raised and fails to provide

sufficient analysis to support his conclusory assertions that the trial court committed error

in assessing the evidence.

After having presented an array of material from his motion to amend without

further development in light of the record while indicating that this material related to his

first point on appeal, Father’s briefing then indicated that he was presenting his first point

relied on, in which he asserted that the trial court’s decision to award sole legal custody

to Mother was against the weight of the evidence. Father’s briefing then, again, simply

repeated material from his motion to amend the initial judgment without developing such

arguments in light of the record on appeal. Father again failed to include citations to the

evidence in the record on appeal in violation of Rule 84.04(e) despite raising an

9
evidentiary challenge and despite having been warned that his failure to do so would

render his appeal subject to dismissal. Father’s briefing on this point failed to present a

complete and accurate depiction of the evidence and failed to present arguments

sufficient to establish error under our deferential appellate standard of review.

Father’s briefing then indicated that it was raising a second point on appeal that

argued that the judgment of modification was against the weight of the evidence

regarding the parenting time awarded and also that the trial court misapplied the law.

Father’s point relied on again sought to raise multiple distinct challenges in a single

point. This point was therefore multifarious and preserved nothing for review. See

Macke, 591 S.W.3d at 869. In addition to this technical deficiency, Father again repeated

arguments copied from his motion to amend without attempting to develop such

arguments in light of the record on appeal. Father, again, did not provide a single citation

to the evidence in the record despite attempting to raise an evidentiary challenge, and

despite being put on notice that this deficiency would render his appeal subject to

dismissal.

Based on the abovementioned deficiencies, dismissal is appropriate.

Conclusion

The appeal is dismissed.

---

Thomas N. Chapman, Judge

All concur.

10