Disclaimer: All facts gleaned from the filings stated hereafter are only as truthful as the petitioner. The tone of this article expresses a style of writing historically employed by America’s greatest writers and, as such, is for opinion purposes only. No intentional harm is due. Do not read if the topic of divorce (even your own) causes you emotional distress. Continue at your own risk.
There is a rhythm to filings like this—measured, deliberate, stripped of ornament. In St. Louis County, Missouri, the names Thomas E. Stickel and Kristin Kay Wenger appear in alignment, their history distilled into a petition that entered the court record on April 2, 2026. It speaks plainly, but not lightly.
Both parties are rooted in the same county, each having lived in Missouri for more than a year before the filing. Their marriage reaches back to December 30, 2000, recorded in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. The separation is more recent—October 16, 2024—a line drawn after years that are not otherwise described here. What remains is a formal account, pared down to what the court requires and nothing more.
The petition notes the existence of children and sets out the framework required by law, including residence histories and the absence of other custody proceedings. It states that no arrangements have yet been made regarding custody, support, or maintenance. Both parties, it adds, have the means to support themselves, and neither seeks maintenance, costs, or fees from the other. The request instead turns toward shared responsibility, asking the court to establish joint legal and physical custody, along with a defined schedule.
Property and debts—both shared and separate—are acknowledged without elaboration. Neither party is on active military duty. The central claim is direct: the marriage is irretrievably broken, with no reasonable likelihood of preservation. From that assertion follows the request for dissolution, for division of assets, and for each party to carry their own legal costs.
What unfolds next will not be written in this document but in the procedures that follow it. Filings such as this one mark a pivot from private history to public process, where time is measured in hearings and orders rather than years together, and where resolution is shaped less by narrative than by the steady application of rules.
Please contact VowBreakers for access to documents related to the case.
