Missouri Divorce and Family Law Blog : Kansas City Divorce Lawyer & Attorney : Wortman Law Firm

Child support in Missouri can continue after the child turns 18, and until 21, if the child is attending a post high school education program, provided that several requirements are met.  (See RSMo section 452.340.5 below in the extended post).   One such requirement is that the child be continuously enrolled in the education program. A recent ruling from the Court of Appeals held that temporary breaks during the education, in this case a vocational program, do not violate the continuous enrollment requirement. The Court stated that the statute clearly contemplates a reasonable semester-long break, which is the summer break in a traditional college schedule, from post-secondary schooling. The statue does not require a post-secondary student to attend school for over a year without a break, or until 21 with no break whatsoever.

In the recent case, the student was attending a vocational program that had a course schedule in 60 week blocks (a year and a few months), and the non-custodial parent attempted to terminate the child support and emancipate the child when the child took a 10 week break, not enrolling in the next session immediately after the previous one. The trial court agreed and ordered the child emancipated, but the Court of Appeals reversed, stating that a child should not have additional burdens placed on him or her simply because they attend a vocational program rather than a traditional college.  See below for the complete text of the relevant statute.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In a recent termination of parental rights case, the Court stated that statutory grounds of abandonment, neglect, and unfitness require clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. The Incarcerated parent’s diligent efforts at maintaining contact with child refuted such allegations. The “Child may suffer from Father’s absence, but getting in trouble before he knew about Child is no proof that Father now wants no relationship with her.” Failure to send money from 28¢ per day wages was de minimis. Incarceration does not raise the presumption of unfitness. The child’s best interests require only preponderance of evidence, but the issue never arises until statutory grounds are established. 

The entire opinion can be read here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In Missouri, there are two primary ways that a non-married parent can seek to establish child support, judicial and administrative.   A judicial action is through the circuit court, and an administrative action is through the Family Support Division. The Division is an administrative agency which has the power to issue binding orders for child support, which may or may not later be filed as a judicial action in the appropriate circuit court. The agency has their own administrative process, where a case worker calculates child support on information provided by the custodial parent, and the non-custodial parent is then served, usually by mail, with the notice of an order. The non-custodial parent is given the opportunity to dispute the amount calculated by the case worker, and request a hearing within a certain number of days. If the non-custodial parent does not act, then the order becomes final, and the non-custodial parent is bound without further legal process. However, if a hearing is requested, then a telephone “trial” before a hearing officer is conducted, and the child support is determined based on the evidence presented. Also, a parent can petition the circuit court for judicial review of the administrative order within 30 days of the entry of an administrative order, even after an administrative hearing.

However, the non-custodial parent must know that the hearing docket is backlogged for many months, sometimes even a year, and even after the hearing is conducted it may be many more months before the order is issued. Once the order finally is issued, it is set to take effect all the way back to the date that the case was started, so the non-custodial parent may have a year or more of back child support simply because of the slow administrative process, even though there was no order in effect for those months.  This can negatively affect the obligor's credit, and the arrearage is usually assessed at an additional amount per month, basically raising the child support by as much as a few hundred dollars.  Also, once all of this is over, there is an order for child support, but the agency does not have the power to issue orders for custody or visitation, and if the non-custodial parent is the father, essentially there are no legal rights established, other than the “right” to pay child support

The best course of action to take when served with an administrative action for child support is to immediately consult with an attorney. At a minimum, the attorney can represent the non-custodial parent at the administrative hearing to ensure the proper evidence is before the agency and that the support amount is calculated properly. But more importantly a good child support attorney may be able to, in effect, “move” the case to a circuit court before a judge through a judicial action, establish legal custody or visitation rights, ensure paternity is determined conclusively, terminate the administrative action, and remove the family support division from the case.   In a judicial action, unless state debt or interest is in issue, the Family Support Division or other state agency will not participate in the case.  Timing is everything however in dealing with these cases, so consulting with an attorney immediately is critical to avoid a potential financial mess.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Missouri Supreme Court has issued an order repealing the prior Form 14 Presumed Child Support Calculation Sheet effective August 28, 2009., and adopting a new Form 14. The only change is that the dates of birth of the children are no longer to appear on the form, only the children's ages.   Support amounts are not affected.

This change is to bring the Form 14 into conformity with Missouri's new social security number redaction law, which provides that social security numbers and dates of birth are no longer to appear in pleadings (documents filed with the court).  Instead, court filings will be accompanied by a new court information cover sheet, which will contain this personal information, but will be sealed and separated from the public record, so that the information can only be viewed by court personnel.

New Form 14

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On July 7, 2009, Governor Jay Nixon signed into law senate bill number 141, which modifies Missouri’s paternity laws, effective August 28, 2009. The new law revises sections 210.826, and 210.828 and adds a new section 210.854, which will now allow men who have been declared the father of a child by a court to petition to set aside the judgment and obtain relief from child support obligations when DNA testing shows that they are not the biological father, if filed within certain time limits.  

The provisions of the new paternity law are summarized as follows:

In an action to determine paternity of a child, a notification form shall be attached to the delivery of the petition through service of process. The notification form shall prominently state in bold face type as follows: "Important Notice. If you do not respond to this action, a judgment of paternity may be entered against you and you may be ordered to pay child support, medical support or reimburse someone for support previously paid for the child. You have the right to contest that you are the father of the named child and you have the right to request genetic testing to prove whether or not you are the father."

The act also provides that a person may file a petition to challenge entry of a judgment of paternity and support upon filing an affidavit stating that evidence exists which was not considered before entry of judgment. Such petition shall also include either an allegation that genetic testing was conducted within the past 90 days using DNA methodology, was performed by an expert, and that the test results indicate the petitioner is not the child's father or a request to the court for an order of genetic paternity testing using DNA methodology. The petition to set aside the judgment may be filed at any time prior to December 31, 2011. After that, the petition shall be filed within two years of the entry of the original judgment of paternity and/or support, whichever occurs later.

The court, after a hearing where all interested parties have been given an opportunity to present evidence and be heard and upon a finding of probable cause to believe the testing may result in a determination of non-paternity, shall order the relevant parties to submit to genetic paternity testing. The petitioner shall pay for the costs of testing.

The court shall grant relief, unless the court makes written findings of fact and conclusions of law that it is not in the best interest of the parties to do so, and enter judgment setting aside the previous judgment of paternity and child support, including a previous acknowledgment of paternity, extinguish any existing child support arrearage, and order the Department of Health and Senior Services to modify the child's birth certificate accordingly upon a finding that the genetic test was properly conducted, accurate, and excludes the petitioner as the child's father.

In addition, any petitioner may apply for expungement of criminal nonsupport records to the court in which the petitioner pled guilty or was sentenced. Such expungement shall only apply to records for criminal nonsupport of a child or children for which the petitioner was found not to be the biological father.

The provisions of this act shall not apply to grant relief to the parent of any adopted child nor shall such provisions be construed to create a cause of action to recover child support or state debt previously paid under court order. The petitioner shall not have a right for reimbursement of any monies paid previously under said order.

Beginning in 2010, the family support division shall track and report to the general assembly the number of cases known to the division in which a court, within the calendar year, set aside a previous judgment of paternity and support under the provisions of this act.

The entire text of the bill can be read here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Newly passed legislation will finally enact the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act as of August 28, 2009. Missouri was one of only three states that had not yet enacted the UCCJEA. This act will replace the current Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA).

The act limits child custody jurisdiction to one state, avoids competing orders, and provides enforcement provisions for child custody orders. The act further establishes orders of priority and guidance on issues regarding establishing initial custody determinations, continuing jurisdiction, modification of custody determination, and emergency orders.

Similar to the UCCJA, The UCCJEA establishes an order of priority for determining which state has proper jurisdiction to make an initial determination of child custody. The order of priority includes a determination of (1) the child's home state, (2) the state in which the child and at least one parent have a significant connection and substantial evidence concerning the custody determination is available or (3) the state having an appropriate connection with the child.

The child's home state is defined as the state where the child has lived with a parent for six consecutive months prior to the commencement of the proceeding, or since birth, for children younger than six months.

Once a state court has made a custody determination, the state keeps exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over all matters concerning the child until circumstances have changed regarding home state status, or there is no longer a significant connection to the state or evidence concerning the child's custody is no longer available in that state. The circumstances are specified in the act.

Also, once a custody determination has been made, a court of another state does not have authority to modify the determination unless the state with jurisdiction determines that it does not have jurisdiction or any state court determines that the child, parents, or any acting parents do not reside in the state which currently has jurisdiction.

A state which does not otherwise have jurisdiction may enter a temporary emergency order if the child is in danger and needs immediate protection. After issuing the order, the state court should determine if there is an existing custody order from another state in effect. If there is an existing order, the emergency court must allow a reasonable time period for the parties to return to the state having jurisdiction and argue the issues to the court with jurisdiction.

If there is no previous child custody order in existence, the emergency court's order will remain in effect until a determination is made in a court having home state jurisdiction over the child. If no determination is made and the emergency court's state becomes the home state of the child, the emergency order becomes a final determination of custody.

Missouri has now also done away with the requirement that social security numbers be included in family law pleadings and judgments.   Under the new law, parties will still file social security numbers with an information sheet, but that will be maintained by the court confidentially, and only the last 4 numbers will be included in the judgments or pleadings in the public record.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Missouri's new 2009 child support guidelines and basic support schedule are now in effect, as of the beginning of the year. The changes and updates are summarized as follows

• Credit to paying parent for "other children in their custody "means "other children primarily residing with that parent".
• There is an increase in the amount of income the custodial parent  must make in order for the non-custodial parent to claim a credit for nights of overnight parenting time
• Definition of "split custody" means when one or more, but not all, of the children primarily reside with each of the parents
• One factor for consideration to deviate from the presumed amount of support based on income increases from $20,000 to $30,000
• Assumption that non-duplicated fixed expenditures percentage of the basic child support amount does not vary even with split custody
• Maximum credit for overnights on line 11 is 34%
• 2007 Child Care Tax Credit Table Incorporated
• Increase in Basic Support Amount schedule
• New Form 14

Links to New 2009 Missouri Child Support Laws

Basic Support Amount Schedule

2009 Child Support Guidelines

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 

What happens when a parent tries to avoid a child support obligation because they are not working or only have a small amount of income? Well, in the eyes of the Court, that parent will be treated as if they did have income sufficient to pay the child support. The most common situation is when it is apparent that a parent is not working specifically to avoid child support, but there are many factors that the Court can consider when making this decision. This can happen in a divorce, paternity, or child support case, and it is called “imputed” income. The court can consider any relevant factor, and recent cases say the following:

For the non-custodial parent

• Any imputed income must be within a parent’s capacity to earn, and if a parent earned a different income prior to trial the court should consider that income in calculating retroactive child support.  
• Even if a parent did not try to evade child support, the court can impute higher income than earned if the parent has the earning capacity.  
• Imputed income must be supported by evidence, not speculation, and the court record must reflect how the income was figured.  
• The income imputed to an underemployed or unemployed parent must be according to what they could earn if using their best efforts to find employment
• The court can impute income if a parent has voluntarily and deliberately become unemployed, and a court should not do so if there is no showing of an attempt to evade responsibility
• If a parent is terminated and does not use best efforts to find new employment, refuses offers, or fails to show unemployment is only temporary, income may be imputed

For the custodial parent

• Factors include age, maturity of the child, availability of child care givers, relationship between the expense of child care and the net income the parent would receive, the reasons the parent stays home with the child.
• A court may not treat imputation of income on the Form 14 different than its maintenance calculation

Next installment: Adjustments to income for child support, maintenance, health insurance, and medical costs

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

With so many people facing bankruptcy in the current climate, it may be good news to know (depending on which side you are on, of course) that the bankruptcy does not allow a person owing a domestic support obligation to use bankruptcy as a way to avoid payment of the debt. In fact, virtually any obligation that is domestic in nature cannot be discharged in bankruptcy. Here are a few facts:

• A domestic support obligation is not dischargeable in a Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 consumer bankruptcy proceeding. 
• “Domestic Support Obligation” is a debt that is owed to or recoverable by a spouse, ex-spouse, or child of the debtor or their guardian or representative, or a governmental unit (such as the Children’s division or the Court). This includes alimony, maintenance, child support, state assistance, even if the debt is not titled exactly in that manner. Also included is a debt arising out of a separation agreement, divorce decree, or property settlement agreement.
• Also non-dischargeable in a Chapter 7 is any debt to a spouse, former spouse, or child not described above that is incurred by the debtor in the course of a divorce or separation or in connection with a separation agreement, divorce decree, or other order of a court of record. Any debt that falling under this section may be dischargeable in a Chapter 13 debt adjustment, however.
• Domestic Support Obligations receive the number 1 priority for repayment in a Chapter 13 plan or when funds are available in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy estate.
• To summarize, if it is domestic in nature, it is going to have to be paid. This includes not only child support or maintenance, but also property and debt divisions, such as: marital estate equalization payments, payments in settlement, qualified domestic relations orders, contempt payments, divisions of debts, vehicle debts, mortgages, credit cards, lines of credit, personal loans, medical insurance, costs for non-covered medical care, retirement plan divisions, military retirement divisions, attorney fee awards, and the kitchen sink.
• No special language is necessary in the divorce settlement or decree to make these provisions apply, although it may be a good idea just to drive the point home.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

For the purposes of calculating child support in Missouri, the Form 14 calculation is used.  The starting point is the Gross Income of the parties.  So, what does that include and what exactly does it mean?  The following is a summary of the official comments and relatively recent court rulings on the definition.

“Gross income" includes, but is not limited to, salaries, wages, commissions, dividends, severance pay, pensions, interest, trust income, annuities, partnership distributions, social security benefits, retirement benefits, workers' compensation benefits, unemployment compensation benefits, disability insurance benefits, veterans' disability benefits, and military allowances for subsistence and quarters.

Overtime compensation, bonuses, earnings from secondary employment, recurring capital gains, prizes, retained earnings and significant employment-related benefits maybe included, in whole or in part, in "gross income" in appropriate circumstances.

 

Excluded from "gross income" is temporary assistance for needy families (TANF) payments, Medicaid benefits, supplemental security income (SSI) benefits, food stamps, general assistance benefits, other public assistance benefits having eligibility based on income, and child support received for children not the subject of this proceeding.

If a parent receives rents or royalties or is self-employed, in a sole proprietorship, or business with joint ownership, "gross income" is gross receipts minus the ordinary and necessary expenses incurred to produce such receipts.  

 

"Income" for purposes of computing the presumed child support amount consists of a financial benefit or money received by a parent that could have a positive impact on the parent's ability to support the parent's children.

 

Overtime Compensation

 

When determining whether to include overtime compensation, the Court must consider (1) Periods of temporary child custody, (2) The motivation of the parent working the overtime over the last three years. (3) The amount of the overtime. (4) The expectation that the overtime will continue, (5) additional dependents.

 

Overtime may be included in a parent’s yearly gross income in appropriate circumstances.  The Court must consider all relevant factors, including the realistic expectation that a parent who receives a bonus or overtime will continue to do so.  The court can ignore income history and look at a single year's income figure if it finds that figure to be the most accurate predictor of a parent’s income

 

Bonus and Significant Employment Related Benefits:

 

The same 5 factors listed above apply to bonus income. Additionally:

 

Bonuses are discretionary, and the court may accept or reject the reliability and pattern of bonus income. 

 

Expense reimbursements should not be included in monthly gross income on Form 14 because such reimbursements are a repayment or indemnification, which is compensation for loss or damage, as opposed to a benefit, which is profit or gain.

 

Next Installment:  Imputed income

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On October 8, 2009 the Supreme Court of Missouri issued an order repealing the current child support guidelines and the formula for calculating the child support amount (Civil Procedure Form 14); and ordered new child support guidelines to take effect as of January 1, 2009. 

The changes to the child support guidelines include the following:

• Credit to paying parent for other children in their custody means other children primarily residing with that parent.
• Increase in the amount of income for the custodial parent in order for the non-custodial parent to claim a credit for nights of overnight parenting time
• Definition of split custody means when one or more, but not all, of the children primarily reside with each of the parents
• One factor for consideration to deviate from the presumed amount of support based on income increases from $20,000 to $30,000
• Assumption that non-duplicated fixed expenditures percentage of the basic child support amount does not vary even with split custody
• Maximum credit for overnights on line 11 is 34%
• 2007 Child Care Tax Credit Table Incorporated
• Increase in Basic Support Amount schedule
• New Form 14

To see a complete copy of the new guidelines, click here. For the new Basic Support Amount Schedule, click here

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Missouri Court of Appeals for the Western District of Missouri has recently held that Incompletes, later completed with passing grades, count as college credit hours under statute determining continuation of child support obligation past the age of 18 years. 
 

Generally, a parent's child support obligation terminates when the child reaches the age of eighteen.  However, f when a child reaches eighteen, ... the child is enrolled in an institution of vocational or higher education not later than October first following graduation from a secondary school or completion of a graduation equivalence degree program and so long as the child enrolls for and completes at least twelve hours of credit each semester ... at an institution of vocational or higher education and achieves grades sufficient to re-enroll at such institution, the parental support obligation shall continue until the child completes his or her education, or until the child reaches the age of twenty-one (twenty-two before August 2008), whichever first occurs.

To remain eligible for such continued parental support, at the beginning of each semester the child shall submit to each parent a transcript or similar official document provided by the institution of vocational or higher education which includes the courses the child is enrolled in and has completed for each term, the grades and credits received for each such course, and an official document from the institution listing the courses which the child is enrolled in for the upcoming term and the number of credits for each such course.

A child who is employed at least fifteen hours per week during the semester may take as few as nine credit hours per semester and remain eligible for child support so long as all other requirements of this subsection are complied with.

In the recent case of Wilkerson v. Wilkerson, the college student had two "incomplete" grades when the term ended and, therefore, she actually completed only seven hours during that semester.  However, she later completed the classes and received full credit for that particular semester, so the Court ruled that she met the statutory requirements completing the classes and the child support obligation continued.  Note however that the case of Lombardo v. Lombardo held that that a student who had failed courses could not meet the statutory requirements by merely enrolling and attending classes.

The Court in Wilkerson apparently viewed incomplete grades as temporarily incomplete.  However, there was no indication given as to how long a student would be given to complete the class, or when the child support would terminate in the event that the incomplete was not eventually completed.  

 

  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As most people know, the California Supreme Court recently ruled that the state's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.  So what does that mean for Missourians? 

• In California, there were two statutes that said that a marriage is between a man and a woman, which was interpreted to prohibit same sex marriage.  The Supreme Court ruled those statutes to be unconstitutional under the California Constitution (not the federal).   It is now legal for same sex couples to marry in California.

 

• Missouri is different.  In Missouri, rather than a statutory ban on same-sex marriage, we have a constitutional amendment (2004) that defines marriage as being only between a man and a woman, and marriages between same-sex couples are not recognized.  There is also a federal statute in play called the Federal Defense of Marriage Act which permits Missouri (and other states) to deny full faith and credit to the marriage laws of another state.  This means that Missouri does not have to recognize a same-sex marriage that is perfectly legal in California since it is inconsistent with Missouri law.  The federal law's constitutionality has not been fully challenged yet.

 

• Taken together, it is presumed that if a same sex married couple moved to Missouri, or Missourians went to California to get married and returned to Missouri, their marriage would not be recognized.

 

• This also means that same-sex married couples could not obtain a divorce in Missouri because there would be no jurisdiction for the courts.  Thus, dissolution of marriage laws that control child custody, visitation, support, maintenance, and property division would presumably not apply.

 

• In the event of a separation the couple would probably have to file an action under the Uniform Parentage Act (commonly known as a paternity action currently) to determine custody, visitation, and child support issues if adopted children are involved.

 

• Same sex couples may want to utilize prenuptial agreements, antenuptial agreements, contracts, and other documentation to control the disposition of assets, including real estate, personal property, bank accounts, securities, business interests, etc.

Source for Post:  mobar.org Esq. soundbite. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Two proposals by the Family Law Section of the Missouri Bar failed to pass in 2008. 

House Bill 1358 proposed to enact the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act.  Missouri remains one of only four jurisdictions that has not adopted the Act.  If adopted, the act would have changed the rules pertaining to initial child custody jurisdiction, continuing jurisdiction, modification jurisdiction, and emergency orders.  Text of the bill can be read here.

House Bill 1360 would have made changes to Missouri's Interstate Family Support Act, which governs jurisdiction and enforcement for interstate child support orders.  The proposed bill would have also established several direct interstate enforcement mechanisms for caretaker parents.  Text of the bill can be read here.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Princeton encourages it. Harvard’s a big fan. From Tufts to MIT, some of the most prestigious universities in the nation are urging students to consider something that would make most parents cringe: The idea of putting off college for a year in favor of some much-needed down-time. 

It’s called a “gap year.” And while it’s been a common and popular rite of passage in Australia and the U.K. for decades, the concept is now starting to gain significant steam here in America.

Why? A growing number of high school seniors are balking at riding the academic conveyer belt from preschool, all the way to university. They’re burnt out. Or not quite ready. Or they want to explore a few interests before deciding what to study in college. So instead of packing their bags in anticipation of freshman year, they’re volunteering in New Orleans or teaching in Thailand. They’re starting the great American novel, or interning to help figure out what they want to do with their lives.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Circuit Court May Depart From Recommendations On Physical Custody
Guardian ad litem and court-appointed therapist both recommended joint legal custody and supervised visitation for Father. Circuit Court followed the former but not the latter. When evidence supports an alternative award, “the trial court is not bound by the requests of any party as to custody or visitation, even when both parties agree.” No judgment required Father to pay child support and Mother forgave some of it, so Circuit Court did not abuse its discretion in awarding no retroactive child support.
In re the Matter of L.J.S., by A.C.H., as next friend, and A.C.H., individually, Petitioner-Respondent, v. F.R.S., Respondent-Appellant. Missouri Court of Appeals Southern District

Circuit Court Must Decide Contempt Action
Upon dismissal of motion to modify custody, guardian ad litem was discharged, and testified only as to fees, mooting motion to remove guardian. Circuit Court issued an order that Father show cause why he should not be held in contempt for failure to pay child support. Circuit Court consolidated contempt action with child support modification action for all purposes, giving notice to Father, so that Circuit Court's failure to rule on it did not result in loss of jurisdiction. Circuit Court must decide it. Record supported Circuit Court's findings as to parties' relative income.
Angela Shapiro McCoy, Appellant v. Samuel Scavuzzo, Respondent. Missouri Court of Appeals Western District

 Findings Show Grounds For Termination Of Parental Rights
Presence of findings related to abuse shows that parental unfitness was not the sole grounds for termination of parental rights. Past abuse and lack of present reform raise presumption of future threat to Child's future.
In the Interest of: K.R.G., A.K.G., and R.C.G., C.G., Appellant v. The Christian County Juvenile Office, Respondent. Missouri Court of Appeals Southern District

Objection To Relocation Waived
Statute requires notice before permanently relocating children's residence. After temporary relocations, Mother gave notice of intention to permanently relocate as required by statute. Father did not file objection as required by statute and so waived objection.
Gina M. Dent, Petitioner/Respondent v. Charles W. Dent, Respondent/Appellant. Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District

Source for Post:  The Missouri Bar

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

From The Missouri Bar
Editor:
  John W. Dennis, Jr., Esquire

Paternity: Change of surname/meeting burden of proof. Warren Joshua Wright, Respondent v. Anden Richard Buttercase by his next friend, Heather Ladawn Buttercase, and Heather Ladawn Buttercase, Appellants, No. 67861 (Mo. App. W.D., January 15, 2008), Lowenstein, J.
  This child was born out of wedlock and given his mother's surname. In this action to establish paternity, custody and support, the trial court also ordered the child's surname changed to that of father. Mother appealed.
  Held: Affirmed. It is axiomatic that the party seeking to change the child's surname has the burden of proving that the change is in the child's best interest. Neither parent's name is presumed preferable to the other.
  The factors: (a) the child's age – here the child is too young to know the difference; (b) potential embarrassment or discomfort of the child in a change – here, the child is too young to know and is not in school, so no change will result in confusion, embarrassment or discomfort; and, (c) how the name change will affect the child's relationship with his parents. Father here testified that he was trying to build a relationship with the child. In addition, “every” child in the community had his father's surname and a change would help the child identify with the father's family. The trial court concluded that, given those circumstances, the child would be more likely to feel accepted by father if they shared a last name. Moreover, the child was so young that the change of surname would not affect his relationship with his mother.
  The foregoing was found to be substantial evidence to support the trial court's decision.
  Editor's Note: Although this case may be fact specific in relation to the outcome, it is instructive, in that there are outside factors to look for beyond a parent's motivation for seeking a name change for his/her child.

Child Support and College grades: Adequacy of notice. James Waddington, Petitioner/Appellant/Cross-Respondent v. Maureen (Waddington) Cox, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, No. 88992 (Mo. App. E.D., January 2, 2008), Shaw, J.
  The parties were divorced in 1996. The parties' son was placed in the “primary” care of father, and mother was ordered to pay child support of $378 per month. In October, 2000, son went off to college. He provided mother with the university's letter of conditional acceptance. Throughout his college career, the child provided mother with notice of his grades via an on-line access service the university provided to its students. Mother did not pay child support. Eventually, father sought enforcement of the child support judgment. Mother claimed the notice of son's grades was inadequate because the on-line printout was not an official transcript. The trial court agreed. Father appealed.
  Held: Reversed. This is a case of first impression in Missouri. Section 452.340.5 RSMo requires the child to provide each parent with a “transcript or similar official document” from the institution showing grades, courses and credits earned. There is no question that the records provided to mother were not official transcripts.
  “Given the varying definitions and the ubiquity and security of online student records systems similar to [the one provided here], this Court declines to speculate whether the legislature assumed that a 'transcript' is inherently official or considered the possible implications of such an assumption in a case like the one before us. We can only observe that the legislature did not include the word 'official' before transcript. As such, 'official' only modifies the word 'document.' To interpret the statute to require an official transcript would be to add qualifying language where it does not exist.”
  “Missouri courts liberally construe section 452.340.5 to be consistent with the public policy of promoting the pursuit of higher education. Mandel v. Eagleton, 90 S.W.3d 527,531 (Mo. App. E.D. 2002) (internal citations omitted). “Therefore, we conclude that a parent's obligation to provide financial support to a child in college should not terminate merely for lack of an official stamp, where, as here, substantial evidence demonstrates that the parent received actual notice in the form of an inalterable online transcript containing all the information required by the statute.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 
Statute passed in 2007 did not apply to obligation in 2002. In 2002, statute provided that Child working 15 hours per week could maintain support obligation by completing at least nine credit hours of post-secondary education. Child completed eight credit hours. No manifest circumstances shown.

Father appeals from a judgment ordering him to pay retroactive child support to Mother for their child. Father contends that the trial court misapplied Section 452.340.5 because: (1) Daughter became emancipated as of January 1, 2004, after failing to satisfy the minimum college credit-hour requirements prescribed in this statute; and (2) neither she nor Mother provided Father with a transcript or similar official document so as to remain eligible for continued child support.

Mother argues that the trial court’s ruling should be upheld because of a 2007 amendment to Section 452.340, which states that "[w]hen enrolled in at least twelve credit hours, if the child receives failing grades in half or more of his or her courseload in any one semester, payment of child support may be terminated and shall not be eligible for reinstatement." Mother contends this amended language gave the trial court discretion to decide that Daughter was not emancipated. In essence, Mother is arguing that the 2007 amendment should be applied retrospectively.

The Missouri Constitution prohibits laws that are retrospective in operation.  A retrospective law includes one that creates a new obligation or duty with respect to past transactions. If a law gives something already done a different effect from that which it had when the events transpired, it is retrospective. Under the law in effect in 2003, Father’s obligation to pay child support terminated when Daughter failed to satisfy the minimum credit-hour requirements of Section 452.340.5. Therefore, the 2007 amendment to Section 452.340.5 cannot be applied retrospectively to those past events to create a new obligation to pay child support.

The Opinion can be read at: In re the Marriage of: Marsha Ann (Wood) Maggi and Brian Allen Wood, Marsha Ann (Wood) Maggi, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Brian Allen Wood, Respondent-Appellant.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Administrative child support order was void because of prior judicial order. Court of Appeals denies motion to supplement record with evidence, of non-custodial parent's liability for child support, not received in Circuit Court. But non-custodial parent did not prove Family Support Division's liability for over-collected amounts because he did not show how much Family Support Division improperly received.
Tony Ward, Respondent, v. Janel Luck, As Director Family Support Division, Missouri Department of Social Services, Appellant. Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

California child support order was due to expire, but Mother moved to Missouri and obtained modification. Father failed to appeal modification, and to impeach it when enforced or in his own action, and so waived personal jurisdiction. Father sought termination of child support, but Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Law only enforces payment of California order, not its termination. Missouri statutes extend child support through secondary education. "[T]he interest of Missouri in the welfare of its resident child outweighs the interest of [State] where father resides, in protecting its sovereignty."
Melissa Burke, Appellant, v. Earl Hutto, Respondent. Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District

 

Source for Post: Missouri Bar

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I recently posted an article discussing Missouri Senate Bill No. 25 which, affects, among other things, the age of emancipation of children for purposes of child support.  Under the old law, child support would continue until the child reaches the age of 22 or graduates from college, whichever is sooner, provided that the child enrolled in college by October of the year that they graduated high school and remained continuously enrolled.  Under the new law effective August 27, 2007, the age is reduced to 21 with some additional requirements for the support obligation to continue. The text of the new law pertaining to child support and enrollment in college, RSMo Section 452.340 is set forth in my previous post dated July 18.  

Since that post, I have received a number of inquiries regarding whether or not this new law would apply to pre-existing child support cases.  This question has not yet reached the courts, so there is no absolute answer that I am aware of yet.  However, we can look to past precedent and the current attitude of at least some Missouri courts for guidance on the issue.  

The statute itself does not state that the new law only applies to child support cases enacted after a certain date, and this is not the first time that the Missouri legislature has changed the child support emancipation law.  Previously, when emancipation was changed from 21 to the 18/22 rule, the courts held that the law at the time of emancipation of the child controlled.  The logic was that the amended statute did not violate savings statutes but operated to terminate future child support payments at an earlier date than anticipated when the order was entered.  The change in age was sufficient grounds for a modification to terminate child support payments because the child had reached the age of emancipation.

It is also true that at least some Missouri Courts have taken the same position regarding the new law.  So, we can reasonably conclude, unless and until the courts instruct us otherwise, that when a child reaches the age of 21, or earlier if all requirements are not met for continued support, they are emancipated and child support should terminate, regardless of when the order was first entered.  This would apply retroactively as to previous orders, but not retroactively to the 21st birthday if the child turned 21 before the enactment of the statute.  In this situation the date of emancipation would be the date the statute was enacted, August 28, 2007. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Challenge to administrative review of child support. State ex rel. Sherrie L. Hansen, Relator v. State of Missouri, Department of Social Services, Family Support Division, Janel Luck, Director, Respondent, No. 88242 (Mo. banc, June 26, 2007), Stith. J.
  This is another attempt to challenge the authority of the State of Missouri to seek modification of child support judgments administratively. The opinion highlights the difference between perception and reality in that the state cannot enter orders modifying child support. “…[S]ection 454.496 'does not vest the Division with powers reserved exclusively by the constitution to the judicial department' because it does not, in fact, permit the Division to administratively modify a child support order. Rather, the statute merely provides a procedure whereby the Division can seek judicial modification of such an order.'” Chastain v. Chastain, 932 S.W.2d 396 (Mo. banc 1996).
  Held: Preliminary writ of prohibition quashed.
  One of the interesting arguments made by Hansen in challenging the authority of the Division of Family Support was essentially that the division's conclusions on a child support modification do not take into consideration all of the requisite factors under § 452.340.1 and Rule 88.01 (a)-(b).
  However, since the preliminary writ of prohibition halting the division's administrative process occurred prior to a hearing and judicial review, consideration of this aspect of the case was premature. The opinion notes that the statute requires the division to consider all relevant factors related to the modification of child support. “If the Division, at some later date, attempts to apply a standard different than that required by Rule 88.01 or section 452.340, Ms. Hansen can then seek the appropriate relief.” What this opinion does not say but implies is that the “different standard” is the process for modification consisting of nothing more than the mathematical computation of a Form 14. Therefore, this issue is not necessarily dead.

Income tax deductions in true joint physical custody. Harold Robertson, Appellant v. Samantha Robertson, Respondent, No. 67330 (Mo. App. W.D., July 24, 2007), Newton, P.J.
  Father appealed on several grounds the modification judgment as to child custody and support. This summary only addresses the one upon which reversal was ordered. In the original divorce in 1997, the trial court awarded both dependency exemption deductions to father. In the modification judgment, the trial court “… granted . . .the tax deduction for one of the children” to mother. Although the parties have joint physical custody, father claimed to be the “primary” physical custodian. Therefore, he argues that he should get both deductions in accordance with the Internal Revenue Code.
  The opinion notes that this parenting plan provides for a virtual 50/50 physical custody split.
  Held: Reversed.
  “Assignment of the tax deduction must follow federal law under 26 U.S.C. Section 152(e). Simon-Harris v. Harris, 138 S.W.3d 170 at 183 (Mo. App. WD 2004). In order to grant the child tax deduction to the non-custodial parent, the trial court must order the other parent to annually assign the tax deduction to the non-custodial parent. Id. Custody in this case is shared equally; 26 U.S.C. Section 152 (c)(4)(B)(ii) grants the deduction to the person with the highest adjusted gross income where custody is shared equally. Since the trial court has found that each parent should obtain the deduction for one of the children, the trial court must order the parent with the highest adjusted gross income to annually assign one of the deductions to the other.”

From The Missouri Bar Courts Bulletin, 7-Aug

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On July 13 of this year, Governer Matt Blunt signed Senate Bill 25 into law.  This bill affects, among other things, the age of emancipation of children.  Under the current law, child support will continue until the child reaches the age of 22 or graduates from college, whichever is sooner, provided that the child enrolled in college by October of the year that they graduated high school and remained continuously enrolled.  Under the new law, the age is reduced to 21 with some additional requirements for the support obligation to continue.

The text of the new law pertaining to child support and enrollment in college, RSMo Section 452.340 is set forth below.  Items in brackets are parts of the current law that are removed, and items in bold are the text of the new law:

 Unless the circumstances of the child manifestly dictate otherwise and

 the court specifically so provides, the obligation of a parent to make child support

 payments shall terminate when the child:

 (1) Dies;

 (2) Marries;

 (3) Enters active duty in the military;

 (4) Becomes self-supporting, provided that the custodial parent has

 relinquished the child from parental control by express or implied consent;

 (5) Reaches age eighteen, unless the provisions of subsection 4 or 5 of this

 section apply; or

 (6) Reaches age [twenty-two] twenty-one, unless the provisions of the

 child support order specifically extend the parental support order past the child's

[ twenty-second] twenty-first birthday for reasons provided by subsection 4 of

 this section.

 4. If the child is physically or mentally incapacitated from supporting

 himself and insolvent and unmarried, the court may extend the parental support

 obligation past the child's eighteenth birthday.

 5. If when a child reaches age eighteen, the child is enrolled in and

 attending a secondary school program of instruction, the parental support

 obligation shall continue, if the child continues to attend and progresses toward

 completion of said program, until the child completes such program or reaches

 age twenty-one, whichever first occurs. If the child is enrolled in an institution

 of vocational or higher education not later than October first following graduation

 from a secondary school or completion of a graduation equivalence degree

 program and so long as the child enrolls for and completes at least twelve hours

 of credit each semester, not including the summer semester, at an institution of

 vocational or higher education and achieves grades sufficient to reenroll at such

 institution, the parental support obligation shall continue until the child

 completes his or her education, or until the child reaches the age of [twenty-two]

 twenty-one, whichever first occurs. To remain eligible for such continued

 parental support, at the beginning of each semester the child shall submit to each

 parent a transcript or similar official document provided by the institution of

 vocational or higher education which includes the courses the child is enrolled in

 and has completed for each term, the grades and credits received for each such

 course, and an official document from the institution listing the courses which the

 child is enrolled in for the upcoming term and the number of credits for each such

 course. When enrolled in at least twelve credit hours, if the child

 receives failing grades in half or more of his or her courseload in any

 one semester, payment of child support may be terminated and shall

 not be eligible for reinstatement. Upon request for notification of the

 child's grades by the noncustodial parent, the child shall produce the

 required documents to the noncustodial parent within thirty days of

 receipt of grades from the education institution. If the child fails to

 produce the required documents, payment of child support may

 terminate without the accrual of any child support arrearage and shall

 not be eligible for reinstatement. If the circumstances of the child manifestly

 dictate, the court may waive the October first deadline for enrollment required

 by this subsection. [If the child has pursued a path of continuous attendance and

 has demonstrated evidence of a plan to continue to do so, the court may enter a

 judgment abating support for a period of up to five months for any semester in

 which the child completes at least six but less than twelve credit hours; however,

 such five-month period of abatement shall only be granted one time for each

 child.] If the child is enrolled in such an institution, the child or parent obligated

 to pay support may petition the court to amend the order to direct the obligated

 parent to make the payments directly to the child. As used in this section, an

 "institution of vocational education" means any postsecondary training or

 schooling for which the student is assessed a fee and attends classes

 regularly. "Higher education" means any junior college, community college,

college, or university at which the child attends classes regularly. A child who

 has been diagnosed with a [learning] developmental disability, as defined in

 section 630.005, RSMo, or whose physical disability or diagnosed health

 problem limits the child's ability to carry the number of credit hours prescribed

 in this subsection, shall remain eligible for child support so long as such child is

 enrolled in and attending an institution of vocational or higher education, and the

 child continues to meet the other requirements of this subsection. A child who

 is employed at least fifteen hours per week during the semester may take as few

 as nine credit hours per semester and remain eligible for child support so long as

 all other requirements of this subsection are complied with.

 

 

The bill also contains modifications to other statutes pertaining to child support, foster parents, and child protection and reformation.  The entire bill can be read here. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Senate Bill 25, set to take effect on August 28 of this year, was delivered to governor Matt Blunt on May 30, 2007.  The Bill affects various statutes pertaining to child protection, enforcement of child support, and termination of child support, The summary of the bill is as follows:

             CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT INVESTIGATIONS

This act prohibits the Missouri Children's Division from closing a child abuse or neglect investigation if a child subject to the investigation dies during the course of the investigation, until such time as any separate investigation by the Division regarding the death is completed. (Section 210.145)

FOSTER PARENTS' BILL OF RIGHTS

This act modifies several provisions regarding the rights of foster parents, and states that the children's division and its contractors shall provide foster parents with written notification of the rights enumerated in this act at the time of initial licensure or renewal of licensure.

The act provides that the division and its contractors shall provide foster parents with regularly scheduled opportunities for preservice training and pertinent inservice training, as determined by the Missouri State Foster Care and Youth Advisory Board. The division and its contractors shall provide to foster and potential adoptive parents, prior to placement of children, a full disclosure of all medical, psychological, and psychiatric conditions of the child, information from previous placements that would indicate a propensity of the child to engage in violent or destructive behavior, information related to the child or child's family including history of mental or physical illness, sexual abuse or perpetration, criminal background, fire-setting or other destructive behavior, substance abuse, or any other information that is pertinent to the care and needs of the child and protection of the foster or adoptive family. Knowingly providing false or misleading information in order to secure placement for a child shall be denoted in the caseworker's file and shall be kept on record by the division. Foster parents shall be informed in a timely manner of all team meetings related to licensure status or children placed in their home. Foster parents shall follow all division and contractor procedures related to requesting and using respite care.

The act also provides that foster parents may share otherwise confidential information about children in their care with school personnel in order to secure safe and appropriate education for such children, and may share such information as is necessary for medical or psychiatric care of the child. Foster parents also must share any concerns that arise in the care of any child in their home with members of the child welfare team. Foster parents are also required to be flexible and cooperative with regard to family visits.

The act states that the division and its contractors shall provide foster parents with training that specifically addresses cultural needs of foster children, including but not limited to skin and hair care, and religious or cultural practices of the child's biological family, and shall provide referrals to community resources for ongoing education and support. Foster parents shall use discipline methods which are consistent with division policy.

The act also provides that foster parents shall give two weeks notice when requesting removal of a child in their home, except in emergency situations. Also, if a child reenters the foster care system and cannot be placed in a relative home, such child's former foster parents shall be given first consideration for placement of the child. If a foster child becomes free for adoption, foster parents shall inform the caseworker within 60 days of any inquiry as to whether they desire to pursue adoption, and if they choose not to do so, foster parents shall support the child's placement in a permanent home by providing information on the history and care needs of the child, as well as accommodating transitional visitation. The act provides that foster parents shall be informed by the court no later than two weeks prior of all court hearings pertaining to a child in their care.

The act also provides that the division and its contractors shall provide access to an impartial grievance procedure to address issues relating to foster parent licensure, case management decisions, and service issues. (Section 210.566)

These provisions are substantially similar to SB 697 (2007).

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT

This act modifies various provisions relating to child support enforcement. Under current law, the Child Support Enforcement Division may certify a person who owes a child support arrearage in excess of 5,000 dollars to the appropriate federal agency for denial, suspension or limitation of a passport to such person. This act lowers the arrearage threshold for passport denial certification from $5,000 to $2,500. This act also allows the division to open a corresponding child support case based on another state’s request for assistance.

Definitions for "parent," "dependent child," "obligee," "obligor," and "public assistance" are modified. Among such modifications are adding putative father and legal father into the definition of "parent" and adding the state into the definition of "obligee."

This act also allows the Child Support Enforcement Division to collect past due support owed to the state when a caretaker relative was on assistance or the child was in the custody of the state. The division is also allowed to establish an administrative order against any parent who does not already have an order against them. Under current law, the division can only establish an order if there is no order of support for the child. The division is also allowed to vacate an order which was improperly entered without jurisdiction or due process. Under current law, a court order is needed in order to avoid these orders. This act also specifies that an administrative modification can be made and must be approved by the court to become an enforceable order. If the order is not approved, the matter is then set for trial de novo.

This act also authorizes the Missouri Gaming Commission to direct gambling boats to intercept and pay over gambling winnings to individuals who owe past-due support or state debt, if winnings meet criteria for reporting to the Internal Revenue Service. (Section 454.390, 454.455, 454.460, 454.470, 454.496, 454.511, 511.350)

These provisions are substantially similar to SB 603 (2007) and HB 936 (2007).

CHILD SUPPORT MODIFICATION

This act allows a parent to stop paying child support when his or her child reaches 21 years of age or is at least 18 years of age and receives two failing grades in half or more of his or her courseload in any one semester when enrolled in at least 12 credit hours of higher education. (Section 452.340)

These provisions are substantially similar to HB 493 (2007).

The entire bill can be read here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Burden of proof of stalking for order of protection. Thomas Schwalm, Respondent v. Lori Schwalm, Appellant, No. 87829 (Mo. App. E.D., March 20, 2007), Richter, P.J.
  This case is instructional to the extent it discusses the failure of proof that required the reversal of the judgment for an order of protection.
  Husband sought an order of protection where the evidence showed that wife knocked on husband's door multiple times, once blocked husband's vehicle in a parking lot, followed him to work on occasion and once approached him at a gas station. That sounds like stalking, except for one crucial element. “While the statutory definition of stalking requires alarm (in the victim), a plaintiff is required to do more than simply assert a bare answer of 'yes' when asked if he was alarmed. A plaintiff must show that a defendant's conduct caused him fear of danger of physical harm as stated in the statutory definition of alarm. See Section 455.010(10)(c).”
  Note: A similar case was just reported for the same proposition: Clark v. Wuebbeling, No. 88413 (Mo. App. E.D., March 20, 2007), opinion also by Judge Richter.

Identical twins yield identical paternity tests. State of Missouri, ex rel., Department of Social Services, Division of Child Support Enforcement, and Holly Marie Adams, Petitioners/Respondents v. Raymon Miller, Respondent/Appellant and Richard Miller, Respondent, No. 27188 (Mo. App. S.D., March 14, 2007), Garrison, J.
  This was a paternity action in which twin brothers were having sexual relations with the eventual mother of a child for whom child support was sought. The brother named as the father appealed on the basis that the burden of proof of his paternity was not met because of the results of DNA testing of both brothers. The results were identical.
  Held: Affirmed. When competing tests for paternity show two potential fathers, the court must look to the nongenetic evidence to determine if there is a preponderance of evidence of the identity of the father. Here, the mother's testimony established that appellant was the only one of the two who could be the father.

Disqualification of guardian ad litem in modification action. State of Missouri, ex rel. Larry Dreppard, Relator, v. Hon. Phillip Jones, Com., and Hon. John Essner, Respondents, No. 89214 (Mo. App. E.D., March 6, 2007), Norton, P.J.
  A motion to modify was filed and the trial court re-appointed the guardian ad litem (“GAL”) from the dissolution of marriage action. Within 10 days of that appointment, father asked for the disqualification of the GAL. The request was denied. Father now seeks a writ of mandamus compelling the trial court to grant the motion to disqualify.
  Held: Writ made absolute. Section 452.423.1, RSMo provides that each party has a right to one disqualification of an appointed GAL if requested in a timely manner (within 10 days of the appointment). The trial court viewed the motion to modify as a continuation of the original dissolution action. However, the opinion notes “… that by 're-appointing' the GAL following the motion to modify, the court recognized that the modification proceeding was independent from the original dissolution proceeding. Otherwise, no appointment would have been necessary.” Since the motion to modify is deemed by the rules to be an independent proceeding, the parties had a right to disqualify the GAL.

Pension benefits and disability payments. Sandra Ray Coffman, Respondent v. Elvin Cale Coffman, Appellant, No. 66204 (Mo. App. W.D., February 27, 2007), Ellis, J.
  In this dissolution of marriage action, the parties were married in 1982. At that time, husband had worked for General Motors for approximately 4 ½ years. He continued that employment until December 2002 for a total of 24 years. Earlier that year he had been admitted to a psychiatric hospital and his father was named as his guardian and conservator by the probate court. He was 45 years old as of his last day at General Motors. He had received disability payment from General Motors and eventually qualified for Social Security disability benefits, too. He qualified and was ultimately receiving disability benefits from General Motors. The trial court determined that all but the pre-marital years of credited service were marital property having been accumulated during the marriage. It was divided equally between the parties. Husband appealed.
  Held: Reversed. The court of appeals determined from the evidence that the only reason the husband had begun receiving benefit payments was because of his disability. Otherwise, he would not be eligible for pension benefits until reaching retirement age under the plan. Further, the terms of the General Motor benefits provided that husband would receive the disability payments based on his years of service until either he reached age 65 (retirement age) or became capable of gainful employment. After age 65 the benefits would revert to being pension benefits in character. Thus, the benefits he was and would later be eligible for were partially marital and non-marital in character. The opinion notes that disability benefits are not marital property “… if they serve as a substitute for earnings lost due to the recipient's inability to work. In re: Marriage of Thomas, 21 S.W.3d 168,173 (Mo. App. S.D. 2000).”
  The case was remanded for a determination of which portion of the marital portion of the benefits will be awarded between the parties and to award husband the non-marital portion thereof.

Order of protection between brothers-in-law. Terry Pratt, Respondent, v. Chuck Lasley, Appellant, No. 65992 (Mo. App. W.D., January 16, 2007), Ellis, J.
  The two parties are brothers-in-law because they are each married to women who are sisters. Respondent was found to have assaulted the Petitioner and an order of protection was entered. The Respondent appealed asserting that the definition of family member in the statute (§455.020.1) did not apply since there is no blood relation between them.
  Held: Affirmed. “Had the legislature intended to limit the statute's applicability to those 'of kin' or related by cosanguinity or direct affinity as proposed by (respondent), the legislature would have used those terms in the statute.
  “The plain and ordinary meaning of the phrase 'related by marriage' includes one's brother-in-law.”

Source for Post:  The Missouri Bar

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Modifying Child Support Order Requires Calculation Of Presumed Amount
On motion to modify child support, Circuit Court must determine presumed amount, and determine whether to accept or reject it, even when no party requested findings of fact.
Laura M. Klingseisen, n/k/a Laura Al-Amery, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Robert E. Klingseisen, Respondent. Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District

No Continuing Change Needed To Modify Custody
Statutes do not require a continuing change for modification of custody, only for modification of child support. Despite Circuit Court's use of incorrect basis to deny motion to modify, Court of Appeals affirms because Circuit Court found that Child's best interests also favored denial. Awarding attorney fees based only on the parties' incomes, without regard to their expenses, is an abuse of discretion.
Misti L. Kinner, Formerly Isenbletter, Petitioner-Appellant/Cross-Respondent, v. Michael L. Scott, Respondent-RespondentCross-Appellant. Missouri Court of Appeals Southern District

Order To Pay For Private School Not Supported In Record
To order a Parent to pay tuition for a private or parochial school, record must have evidence of Child's educational needs or parents' agreement. Court of Appeals affirms award of attorney fees to party who prevailed on issues in motion to modify, but such an award does not constitute maintenance.
Kenneth D. Goins, Appellant, v. Lori D. Goins, Respondent. Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District

Paternity Determination Between Twins Affirmed
Blood tests showed that paternity by either twin was equally likely. Circuit Court was entitled to rely on other evidence, including testimony of Mother, to determine paternity. Affirmed.
State of Missouri, ex rel., Department of Social Services, Division of Child Support Enforcement, and Holly Marie Adams, Petitioners/Respondents v. Raymon Miller, Respondent/Appellant and Richard Miller, Respondent. Missouri Court of Appeals Southern District

Source for Post:  Missouri Bar

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks