IN THE INTEREST OF INDIVIDUALLY AND BY HIS NEXT FRIEND LAURA JO FRETWELL AND LAURA JO FRETWELL INDIVIDUALLY v. JOHN FREDERICK GUE (2026)

John Frederick Gue (Gue) appeals pro se from the judgment entered by the Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri, (trial court) awarding Laura Jo Fretwell (Mother) sole legal and sole physical custody of Child, ordering Gue to pay $446.00 per month in child support, ordering Gue to pay $30,000.00 towards Mother's attorney's and expert witness fees, and ordering Gue to pay the outstanding balance of the Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) fees totaling $4,265.88. This Court struck Gue's initial brief for its failure to comply with the appellate briefing requirements of Rule 84.04.¹ Because Gue's amended brief still substantially violates Rule 84.04 and because he has not filed the complete trial transcript as required by Rule 81.12, his appeal is dismissed.²

Factual and Procedural Background

In March 2022, Mother filed a petition for declaration of paternity, order of custody, visitation and support. On December 16, 2022, a trial was held, both parties appeared in person and with counsel, and a GAL also appeared on Child's behalf. In early January 2023, Mother filed a motion to reopen the evidence which was sustained after a hearing.

Further evidence was heard by the trial court on June 5, 2024, November 6, 2024, and December 31, 2024, during which both parties appeared in person and with counsel as well as the GAL on behalf of Child. The trial court issued its judgment and declaration of paternity, order of custody and support in January 2025. The judgment granted Mother sole legal and sole physical custody, ordered Gue to pay Mother $446.00 per month for child support, $30,000.00 towards attorney's fees and expert witness fees incurred by Mother, and the remaining balance of GAL fees of $4,265.88.

Gue appeals pro se.

Discussion

This Court issued an order striking Gue's initial brief for the following reasons:

1. The Statement of Facts substantially lacks specific page references to the legal file or the transcript as required by Rule 84.04(c).

2. The point relied on is not restated at the beginning of the section of the argument discussing that point. The argument does not include a concise statement describing whether the error was preserved for appellate review and if so how it was preserved. The argument section substantially lacks specific page references to the legal file or the transcript. All as required by Rule 84.04(e).

We granted Gue fifteen days to file an amended brief correcting the above violations. Gue timely filed an amended brief, but it still fails to substantially comply with Rule 84.04's requirements for the reasons discussed infra.

Transcript

Before addressing Gue's Rule 84.04 violations, we first note that Gue has not filed the complete trial transcript. Rule 81.12 governs the record on appeal which consists of the legal file and the transcript. Williams v. Williams, 669 S.W.3d 161, 164 (Mo. App. E.D. 2023) (quoting Rule 81.12(a)). Rule 81.12 imposes a duty on the appellant to prepare a legal file that contains all the necessary evidence for this Court to make determinations on the issues raised. Alagha v. Cottle Auto. Repair, Inc., 715 S.W.3d 580, 586 (Mo. App. W.D. 2025) (citation omitted). 81.12(a) provides that the record on appeal, consisting of the legal file and the transcript, “shall contain all of the record, proceedings and evidence necessary to the determination of all questions to be presented, by either appellant or respondent, to the appellate court for decision.” E.Y. v. C.T., 644 S.W.3d 325, 326 (Mo. App. E.D. 2022). An appellant's failure to compile the complete record on appeal gives us nothing to review and is grounds for dismissal. Williams, 669 S.W.3d at 164 (citation omitted).

Gue did not file the trial transcripts for June 5, 2024, November 6, 2024, and December 31, 2024. Gue argues in his suggestions in opposition to Mother's motion to dismiss and in his reply brief that the aforementioned transcripts were filed.³ We are unable to locate the transcripts in our record on appeal. In regard to the hearing on June 5, 2024, Gue contends that it “did not result in a completed, transcribable trial proceeding due to interruption and continuance, as reflected on the trial court's docket,” and that it was “not a completed trial day.” However, we disagree with Gue, as the docket sheet entry for that date states that “Petitioner conducts direct exam of [the expert],” and, that after the testimony, Gue renewed his request for continuance which was sustained. “Without a transcript, this Court lacks the record necessary to assess the accuracy of [Gue's] claims and a means to determine whether the circuit court committed reversible error.” See id at 165. Gue's failure to file the complete trial transcript is grounds for dismissal. See id. at 164.

Rule 84.04 Violations

Rule 84.04 provides the mandatory requirements for all briefs filed in Missouri's appellate courts. Alagha, 715 S.W.3d at 584. “Deficient briefing runs the risk of forcing this Court to assume the role of advocate by requiring us to sift through the legal record, reconstruct the statement of facts, and craft a legal argument on the appellant's behalf.” Murphree v. Lakeshore Ests., LLC, 636 S.W.3d 622, 624 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021). Pro se appellants are held to the same standard as attorneys and must adhere to Rule 84.04's briefing requirements in the interest of judicial impartiality, judicial economy and fairness to all parties. Alagha, 715 S.W.3d at 584 (citation omitted); Phox v. Boes, 702 S.W.3d 498, 503 (Mo. App. W.D. 2024) (citation omitted). An appellant's failure to substantially comply with Rule 84.04 does not preserve anything for our review and constitutes grounds for the appeal's dismissal. Phox, 702 S.W.3d at 503 (citation omitted).

Points Relied On

Each point relied on must: “(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.” Rule 84.04(d)(1). Immediately after each point relied on, the appellant must “include a list of cases, not to exceed four, and the constitutional, statutory, and regulatory provisions or other authority upon which that party principally relies.” Rule 84.04(d)(5). Gue does not include a list of cases and the constitutional, statutory, or regulatory provisions upon which he principally relies for each of his twelve points relied on.

Furthermore, an appellant may not consolidate “multiple, independent claims” into one point. Lexow v. Boeing Co., 643 S.W.3d 501, 506 (Mo. banc 2022) (citation omitted). This is because “separate and distinct inquiries ․ require discrete legal analyses.” Crisp v. Mo. Sch. for Deaf, Dep't of Elementary & Secondary Educ., 681 S.W.3d 650, 659 (Mo. App. W.D. 2023 (citation omitted). Multifarious points violate Rule 84.04(d) and preserve nothing for our review. Id.

Gue claims error in twelve points on appeal. Several of Gue's points relied on are multifarious because they challenge multiple, distinct allegations of error. See Lexow, 643 S.W.3d at 507. For instance, Gue's first point relied on raises three claims of error: (1) an abuse of discretion in limiting Gue's initial visitation with Child to therapeutic counseling sessions and barring unsupervised contact; (2) a misapplication of the law in imposing such severe restrictions; and (3) the lack of substantial evidence to support the trial court's finding that unsupervised visitation would endanger Child's physical or emotional health. Although we have discretion to review non-compliant points ex gratia when the argument is readily understandable, we are cautious to do so because we send the implicit message that “substandard briefing is acceptable.” Crowley v. Clarcor/Gen. Elec. and Treasurer, 655 S.W.3d 778, 786 (Mo. App. W.D. 2022) (citation omitted). When determining whether to exercise such discretion, we also must determine whether the argument is readily understandable. Id. Here, the argument sections following Gue's multifarious points on appeal fail to clarify the errors he is asserting, such that Mother is not sufficiently notified of the matters that must be contended with and this Court is not informed of the issues presented for review. See id. at 788 (citation omitted). For example, in his argument under point one, Gue continues to contend that three different errors occurred: that the “trial court abused its discretion and misapplied [section] 452.400.1 ․ by restricting [Gue's] initial contact with [Child] to supervised therapeutic sessions and otherwise prohibiting unsupervised visitation absent further court order,” and that there also was no evidence to “support any finding that unsupervised time with [Gue] would harm [Child].” Gue's clarification on the type of challenge he is alleging is essential as each inquiry requires a different legal analysis. See Crisp, 681 S.W.3d at 659.

Statement of Facts

Rule 84.04(c) states that the “statement of facts shall be a fair and concise statement of the facts relevant to the questions presented for determination without argument.” Each statement of fact must “have specific page references to the relevant portion of the record on appeal, i.e., legal file, transcript, or exhibits.” Rule 84.04(c). Page references are mandatory because we cannot spend time searching the record to determine if the factual assertions are supported by the record. Phox, 702 S.W.3d at 504 (citation omitted).

Since his initial brief, Gue added some citations to the statement of facts in his amended brief, but most statements of fact still do not have a specific page reference to the relevant portion of the record on appeal. Sporadic references are insufficient under Rule 84.04(c) because every statement of fact requires a specific page reference. LT Grp. USA, LLC v. Clark, 667 S.W.3d 631, 634 (Mo. App. E.D. 2023). Several paragraphs contain no citations at all, while others contain only a single citation at the end of the paragraph. Providing paragraphs of text followed by a citation to the legal file on which the preceding material may be found does not comply with Rule 84.04(c). Bi-Nat'l Gateway Terminal, LLC v. City of St. Louis, 697 S.W.3d 593, 598 (Mo. App. E.D. 2024) (citation omitted). Gue's violation of Rule 84.04(c) alone constitutes grounds for dismissal. Young v. Mo. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 647 S.W.3d 73, 76 (Mo. App. E.D. 2022) (citation omitted). Additionally, we have determined that many of his factual assertions are not supported by the accompanying purported record citations.

Argument

Under Rule 84.04(e), the point relied on shall be restated at the beginning of the argument section which discusses that point. “All factual assertions in the argument shall have specific page references to the relevant portion of the record on appeal, i.e., legal file, transcript, or exhibits.” Rule 84.04(e). Additionally, the argument section “must explain why, in the context of the case, the law supports the claim of reversible error,” and it should also advise this Court “how principles of law and the facts of the case interact.” Maxwell v. Div. of Emp. Sec., 671 S.W.3d 742, 749 (Mo. App. W.D. 2023) (citation omitted).

Gue's argument sections violate Rule 84.04(e) for several reasons. First, Gue fails to restate his point relied on at the beginning of each argument section discussing that point, as we noted in our order striking his initial brief. Although Gue added preservation statements below each point relied on in his “Points Relied On” section, he does not include the preservation statements in his argument section as required by Rule 84.04(e). Gue also includes little to no citations to the relevant portion of the record on appeal. Again, we previously advised Gue to correct this deficiency and he failed to do so. “We cannot comb the legal file for facts to better understand [Gue's] argument, nor can we do so and remain steadfast to our role as the neutral arbiter of the case.” Amrine v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 726 S.W.3d 800, 810 (Mo. App. W.D. 2025) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Additionally, while Gue does cite to some supporting case law within his argument section, we have been unable to locate one of the cases with the citation provided or by use of the party name.

Many of Gue's points relied on and corresponding argument sections claim no substantial evidence exists to support the trial court's findings or that the findings were against the weight of the evidence. It is impossible to address these arguments on the merits when we are missing the evidence from three of the four days of trial as discussed supra.

Gue's briefing deficiencies are so substantial and material that they provide grounds for dismissal, as does his failure to file the trial transcripts for three of the four days of trial.

Conclusion

We grant Mother's motion to dismiss for failure to file the full trial transcript and dismiss additionally due to Gue's failure to comply with the mandatory appellate briefing requirements under Rules 84.04

FOOTNOTES

1.   All rule references are to the Missouri Supreme Court Rules (2025).

2.   Mother's motion to dismiss the appeal because of Gue's failure to file the full trial transcript, as we address infra, was taken with the case.

3.   Gue did file a transcript from the first day of trial on December 16, 2022. The other three transcripts that Gue filed are a February 14, 2023, hearing on a motion for psychiatric evaluation, a July 11, 2024, hearing with regard to two motions on file with the court, and a July 16, 2024, hearing on a motion for continuance and motion for attorney fees. According to a return letter this Court sent Gue on August 22, 2025, he attempted to file two volumes of transcripts that were rejected by this Court because volume one did not contain the original court reporter's signature and volume two was not in full page format. Gue subsequently filed the transcripts for December 16, 2022, February 14, 2023, July 11, 2024, and July 16, 2024. We are unable to determine whether the transcripts Gue filed, and we rejected as noncompliant with the formatting requirements, were the same or different from those that were successfully filed.

Janet Sutton, Judge

Karen King Mitchell, P.J., and Lisa White Hardwick, J. concur.