ordering a change of custody when a specific event occurs, or requiring the parties to reappear in court after the expiration of a specified time, or by leaving custody open pending the resolution of employment decisions of one or both parties.” Id. “While commending the ‘genuine concern for the children’ that motivates ‘such creativity,’ the Missouri Supreme Court concluded such provisions improperly expand the trial court’s jurisdiction.” Id. In this case, the provisions of the trial court’s “Interlocatory [sic] Judgment” purporting to retain jurisdiction over the issues of “parenting of the child” and child support are precisely the type of creative attempt to expand the trial court’s jurisdiction that has previously been rejected by Missouri case law. See Lacher, 785 S.W.2d at 79 (<HOLDING>); Lavalle, 11 S.W.3d at 651-52 (holding invalid
holding that the rule g pleading standard was met when the cash amount seized was large 185000 the claimant had been unemployed for six months the cash was packaged in an unusual fashion the claimant attempted to avoid a search and gave a false statement to police and a drug dog alerted positively holding that an outofwedlock childs pending claim for retroactive child support was nondischargeable in bankruptcy because a debt for child support arises upon the birth of the child and that the fact that no court had yet ordered the debtor to support the child does not take the debt outside the scope of 11 usc  523a5 holding that where the meaning of the jurys verdict was not clear in light of the trial courts jury instructions the court of appeals erred in directing entry of judgment for respondent the case should have been remanded to the trial judge who was in the best position to pass upon the question of a new trial in light of the evidence his charge to the jury and the jurys verdict holding invalid and of no effect provisions in a judgment purporting to retain jurisdiction in the trial court for six months over the issues of the amount of child support and maintenance  for the reason the respondent was currently unemployed  holding that it was error for the trial court to determine the issue of child support without a child support guidelines worksheet