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

News Release from the Jackson County Circuit Court:

Starting in March, there will be no more mad dashes to the courthouse by attorneys to file papers at the last minute. The Circuit Court in Jackson County will begin paperless electronic filing which is expected to save shoe leather for attorneys and public dollars for the community.

The Court has been working for years in its efforts to get ready for electronic filing. The Office of State Courts Administrator in Jefferson City has given the Court a green light to go green."It is a distinct privilege for Jackson County to enter the future with electronic filing which, at its core, is another tool to facilitate the public's access to the courts," said Presiding Judge Marco A. Roldan.

 Electronic filing will start for civil and domestic cases filed and pending in Independence

on March 4. Electronic filing will start in Kansas City on March 25. The move to electronic filing is expected to save the Court money in reduced paper costs, less postage, and document storage, and lead to administrative efficiencies. It will also benefit attorneys who will no longer need to file papers in person. Computer filings will be mandatory for attorneys in civil and domestic cases. At this time, paper filings will continue to be used in criminal, probate, and juvenile matters, as well as in pro se filings where the parties represent themselves without an attorney. Pro se cases are typically filed in small claims, in adult abuse petitions and divorce filings.

Thus far, three circuits out of 45 in the state have instituted electronic filing. However,

Jackson County will be the largest circuit to date. In fiscal year 2012, according to the state’s

figures, there were a total of 49,210 civil and domestic cases filed in the Circuit Court of Jackson

County.“Due to the hard work of the Jackson County court staff, our civil divisions have already gone paperless in anticipation of eFiling,” said Joel P. Fahnestock, who is chair of the Circuit

Court’s Technology Committee, and who is a member of the Missouri Court Automation

Committee in Jefferson City. “The judges and staff are excited that the state’s eFiling system is

coming to Jackson County next. It is quite an honor.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Missouri law allows for a man that has been named to be the father of the child, but is not biologically the father of the child, to petition the court to terminate a child support order that is two years old or less, and, among other things, extinguish the child support arrears. Missouri’s paternity set aside law provides that:

Upon a finding that the genetic test referred to herein was properly conducted, accurate and indicates that the person subject to the child support payment order has been excluded as the child’s father, the court shall, unless it makes written findings of fact and conclusions of law that it is in the best interests of the parties not to do so:

(1) Grant relief on the petition and enter judgment setting aside the previous judgments of paternity and support, or acknowledgment of paternity under section 210.823 only as to the child or children found not to bet the biological child or children of the petitioner;

(2) Extinguish any existing child support arrearage only as to the child or children found not to be the biological child or children of the petitioner; and

(3) Order the department of health and senior services to modify the child’s birth certificate accordingly.

A general order of child support for multiple children does not automatically preclude a trial court from setting aside at least some arrearages pursuant to law. Where the petitioner is not the father of any other unemancipated children subject to the general order and the arrearages owing that are attributable to the child at issue can be determined by competent, substantial evidence, the trial court shall set aside such arrearages, unless the trial court makes written findings of fact and conclusions of law that it is the best interests of the parties not to do so.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Recent Case: State of Missouri (FSD) v. [Family Court Commissioner] Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD75408

State ex rel. State of Missouri, Department of Social Services, Family Support Division ("Relator") sought a permanent writ of prohibition to prevent enforcement of an order issued by “Family Court Judge” directing the State to advance the cost of genetic paternity testing in an action filed by the alleged father seeking to set aside a judgment of paternity pursuant to section 210.854. The Court issued a writ of prohibition.

Section 210.854 was enacted in 2009, and creates a right to seek to set aside an otherwise final, non-appealable judgment determining paternity and to unwind the financial and criminal ramifications of non-support resulting from the judgment. Section 210.854.3 provides that genetic paternity testing costs required to contest a final judgment of paternity shall be paid by the petitioner, in this case, the alleged father. The Judge entered an order requiring the State to advance the cost of genetic paternity testing. But by the plain language of the section 210.854.3, the Judge did not have the authority or the discretion to impose the obligation to pay for genetic paternity testing on the State, even temporarily.  The Judge argued that the alleged father is indigent and could not be required to pay for genetic paternity testing pursuant to section 514.040.1. However, It is immaterial whether the alleged father had been permitted to pursue this action in forma pauperis,(as a poor person) or whether the cost of genetic paternity testing is a fee, tax, or charge within the scope of section 510.040.1, as there is no authority in any event to shift the alleged father’s statutory obligation to pay for section 210.854 genetic paternity testing to the State.  Absent statutory authority, costs cannot be recovered in state courts from the state of Missouri or its agencies or officials. The State can be assessed the obligation to pay the cost of genetic paternity testing pursuant to the authority of section 210.834.4, a provision relating to the initial determination of paternity. However, that provision has no application to an application to set aside paternity under section 210.854.   

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Recent ruling:
TC A Minor Child, by and through JC, Next Friend and JC, Individually v SI
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD7455

Father appeals from a judgment entered in the Circuit Court of Clay County in an action to establish the paternity of his daughter, T.C.C. Father challenges the trial court's decisions related to custody, visitation, and child support.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

Where Father was awarded parenting time starting 7:15 a.m. Wednesday with an ending time alternating between 4:45 p.m. Thursday and 4:45 p.m. Friday, half of holidays, and an additional five consecutive days over the summer, the trial court erred in declaring Mother to have sole physical custody in light of the significant parenting time awarded to Father.
 

Though the trial court mislabeled the physical custody awarded in its judgment, it is unnecessary to remand for correction of the decree where this court can simply recognize and clarify that he is a joint physical custodian. 

The question of whether or not a sole custody award to one parent with parenting time to the other parent is truly a sole physical custody award, the question is whether or not the parenting time awarded to the other parent is "significant".  It has been held that a typical every other weekend with one evening per week schedule is "significant".

It is this author's belief that in most situations where the parents share parenting time on some sort of schedule, it is a joint physical custody arrangement rather than "sole custody with visitation"   Care should be taken in the drafting of the parenting plan and the judgment to reflect the proper terminology, as sole custody and joint custody are clearly  very different It would be only in the most restrictive of parenting plans where "sole custody with visitation" could legally exist.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Recent Case: M.R.H., Respondent, vs. J.N.P., Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District - ED97338

J.N.P. ("Mother"), biological mother of M.R.H. ("Child"), appeals from the judgment of the trial court following a paternity suit brought by M.R.H. ("Father") in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County. Mother argues the trial court erred in failing to grant her request to change Child's surname from Father's alone, to a hyphenated combination of both Mother and Father's surnames.

AFFIRMED. Division Three Holds: When analyzing requested changes to a child's surname during paternity actions, the trial court is afforded wide discretion. Here, the trial court rejected Mother's requested alteration to Child's surname after holding a hearing on the matter and listening to the testimony of both Mother and Father as to their respective positions. Upon our review of the record, the Court finds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in making its determination.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In Missouri, there are guidelines that the Court must follow in making a child custody determination.  While all child custody determinations must be made in accordance with the best welfare and interests of the child, there is also a statutory and case law framework that guides the court in making the determination.  Note that when parties come to an agreement on custody, most courts take the position that the parents are in a better position to determine what is in their child's best interest, and will generally approve a joint parenting plan (although a joint parenting plan is advisory only, and the Court can make it's own determination in any case-albeit infrequently).  However, when the parents cannot agree on a parenting plan, the Court will decide the case based on the following:

Statutory Factors

1. Wishes of the parents and the proposed parenting plan submitted by the parents;
2. The needs of the child for a frequent, continuing, and meaningful relationship with both parents, and the ability and willingness of parents to actively perform their functions as mother and father for the needs of the child;
3. The interaction and interrelationship of the child with the parents, siblings, and any other person who may significantly affect the child's best interests'
4. Which parent is more likely to allow the child frequent, continuing, and meaningful contact with the other parent;
5. The child's adjustment to home, school, and community;
6. The mental and physical health of all individuals involved, including any history of abuse of any individuals involved;
7. The intention of either parent to relocate the principal residence of the child;
8. The wishes of the child as to the child's custodian.

Case law factors:

1. A good and stable home is the most important single consideration in addition to the statutory factors;
2. Stability, including frequent moves and intent to relocate;
3. Parenting skills and primary care;
4. Moral fitness as it relates to the children;
5. Adultery, sexual misconduct, and cohabitation (note however that these facts, in and of themselves, do not necessarily affect a custody decision.  There must be an effect on the child's interests)
6. Homosexuality (although, in and of itself, cannot be a basis for denying a parent custody);
7. Drug and alcohol use;
8. Attempted alienation of the child;
9. Religious beliefs;
10. Custodial preference of the child (although age of the child will affect the weight given, or if considered at all).
11. Any other relevant factors.

A child custody determination is based on evidence that is highly fact specific, and every case is different.  The above factors do not constitute a complete list, and any particular case can be decided on any one or multiple factors, depending on the situation.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Under § 452.377, RSMo, relocation of child’s residence requires strict compliance to statutorily required notice before strict compliance with time to file objection to relocation is required. Abraham v. Abraham, No. 31099 (Mo. App. S.D., October 26, 2011), Rahmeyer, J.

A dissolution of marriage was granted to the parties in April 2006. In September 2010, the Mother sent a certified letter of her intention to relocate their child’s residence to Orlando, Florida. The Father did not file an objection to the move until 37 days after receipt of the letter. The Mother asserted that the tardy objection was ineffective to preclude her absolute right to the relocation in accordance with an opinion issued in Baxley v. Jarred, 91 S.W. 3d 192, 199 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002). In Baxley, it was held that an objection to relocation that was not timely filed gave the relocating party an absolute right to relocate and that the only issue left for the court was the appropriate adjustment in parenting time between the parties. The trial court rejected that theory and denied the Mother her request to relocate. She appealed.

Held: Affirmed.“Mother claims that ‘strict compliance’ with the elements of a relocations letter is not required….” The Father asserted that the Mother’s failure to provide known details of the address to which relocation is intended renders her notice effective.

“We believe the legislature intended that the date for any legal obligation to begin for the nonrelocating party was the date of receipt of the certified letter which strictly complies with the provisions of the statute; it was intended as a bright line for parents, practitioners and the court. To hold otherwise causes confusion in the courts and the practicing bar as to whether a motion to prevent relocation needs to be filed.”

“[T]he notice requirement of § 452.377 must be strictly complied with.” Here, the Mother did not give notice of the actual specific address and mailing address of her new intended residence although she knew it. If one party must be held to compliance with the 30 day rule to object, the relocating party must be held to strict compliance with the notice provisions that trigger that obligation to act.

Concurring Opinion: “Waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right.’” In Baxley, neither party complied with the requirements of the statute as to notice and time to object. Yet, they weren’t treated the same in that the failures of the notice to relocate were forgiven while the failure to file a timely objection was not. However, in the instant case they were each given their day in court regarding the relocation. Thus, neither party was prejudiced by such non-compliance.

Rather than require strict compliance with the statute in all aspects here, the opinion asserts that the proper analysis is whether a party was prejudiced by such non-compliance. Thus, in the instant case, neither party complied with the statutory requirements and a full hearing of the relocation issue ensued. That was the proper result, not for failure of strict compliance, but rather because the trial court gave each party full and fair hearing on the relocation issues.

Concurring Opinion #2: There should be no “absolute right” to a default on the issue of relocation when an objection is not timely filed. There should be consideration given to the facts of the case because the welfare of the child is the paramount concern.

Source for Post:  Missouri Bar Courts Bulletin. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

New Case Law: CB v. DB Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD31614

Notwithstanding the fact that the Missouri case law generally states that tax benefits must go to the custodial spouse unless the trial court expressly finds it unjust or inappropriate to do so, our western district has held that noncompliance with Form 14 directions is not reversible error unless the appellant is prejudiced thereby. Sarwar v. Sarwar, 117 S.W.3d at 171.  Appellate review is for prejudice, not mere error Pruett v. Pruett, 280 S.W.3d 749, 751 (Mo.App. 2009).

“Here, Wife does not argue or suggest any prejudice, nor could [the Court] glean any from the scant record that she has provided. In fact, the indication is otherwise. In her post-trial motion, Wife represented to the trial court that her only income during the two-year history of litigation was unemployment benefits, which had expired; that she had been unable to obtain employment; and that her gross income was “zero.” By contrast, Husband was earning an income, and apparently could benefit from the tax exemption, while Wife seemingly could not. A judgment will not be reversed unless an appellant is prejudiced by an error that materially affected the merits of an action. Rule 84.13(b).”

Wife did not meet her obligation to show that she was entitled to appellate relief and the judgment was affirmed.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Recent Ruling: Termination of parental rights requires proof of statutory grounds by clear, convincing and cogent evidence, and proof of child’s best interest by a preponderance of the evidence. In an action to terminate parental rights, the statutory ground of abandonment means six pre-petition months of “a voluntary and intentional relinquishment of the custody of the child to another, with the intent to never again claim the rights of a parent or perform the duties of a parent; or ... an intentional withholding from the child, without just cause or excuse, by the parent, of his presence, his care, his love, and his protection, maintenance, and the opportunity for the display of filial affection.” Neglect means continuous failure to provide. The juvenile officer alleged and proved that father had no contact with child for six months before amended petition. But evidence showed that father learned of child’s existence only two weeks before filing of amended petition and, on doing so, attempted to develop relationship. Such evidence is not substantial evidence of abandonment or neglect. 

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD31470

The opinion can be read here.

Source for Post:  The Missouri Bar

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Missouri Supreme Court has recently issued an order that, effective, January 1, 2012, increases the maximum allowable Form 14 child support overnight credit to 50%.  Specifically, on the Form 14, which is Missouri's child support calculation formula, the non-custodial (paying) parent is given a credit for the number of overnights that parent spends with the child.  The default amounts for periods of overnights totaling 109 or fewer annually remain unchanged, but for total overnights that exceed 109 per year, the allowable credit has been increased from the old maximum of 34% to a new maximum of 50%, but it is still at the discretion of the Court.  The new line 11 overnight credit amounts are as follows:

Annual overnights                 Credit

Less than 36                           0%

36-72                                       6%

73-91                                       9%

92-109                                    10%

110+                                       10-50% at the discretion of the Court

Note however that in order for the paying parent to be eligible for the overnight credit, the parent recieving the child support must meet minimuim income requirements.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Administrative child support orders are available for the support of all eligible children, including children of citizens of other countries. Lajeunesse v. State of Missouri Department of Social Services, No. 73477 (Mo. App. W.D., October 4, 2011), Martin, J.

A child was born to a Russian citizen in West Virginia. Father was a Missouri resident and a support order was sought for the child through the Department of Social Services (DSS), which established paternity and Father’s financial responsibility for support. Mother and child now live in Russia. The Father filed a petition for judicial review and the trial court found that Department of Social Services was without jurisdiction to enter an administrative order requiring Father to pay child support. Upon Father’s motion the trial court overturned the administrative order. DSS appealed.

Held: Reversed. “. . . Father argues that unless a recipient is a resident of the State of Missouri or another state, the recipient is not eligible for child support services.”

The applicable sections of the statutes, § 454.425 and 454.400, do not provide for child support relief for only United States residents. “By its plain terms, § 454.400.2(14) is broad, requiring child support services to be provided to any other child for whom services are applied. This is in keeping with § 454.425, which also broadly permits services to be provided to all children, custodial parents, and persons entitled to receive support. A harmonious reading of § 454.425 and 454.400.2(14) indicates that the legislature intended to authorize and require DSS to provide services to any child for whom services are applied. This broad and unrestricted directive is not, by its terms or by implication, limited to residents (or citizens) of the United States.”

An agreement that maintenance will terminate “only” upon death excludes application of § 452.370 for termination of maintenance upon remarriage. Simpson v. Simpson, No. 91498 (Mo. banc, October 4, 2011), Fischer, J.

The parties were divorced in 2005. They entered into an agreement by which the Husband would pay the Wife $12,000 per month in non-modifiable maintenance for 15 years. Said maintenance was to “terminate prior to the expiration of said 15 year period only in the event of the death of either party.” In 2009, the Wife remarried. The Husband filed a motion to terminate maintenance on the basis of her remarriage. The Wife responded by filing a motion to dismiss his claim, which was granted. The Husband appealed, and the matter ended up in the Missouri Supreme Court to address the applicability of § 452.370.3, RSMo, that provides that maintenance terminates immediately upon Wife’s remarriage unless otherwise agreed in writing or expressly provided in the judgment.

Held: Affirmed. “The problem with the Husband’s argument is that he and Wife agreed in writing in the separation agreement that maintenance would terminate ‘only in the event of the death of either party.”

“[T]he use of the word ‘only’ in the separation agreement is sufficient to overcome the statutory presumption of § 452.370…”

Generally, retained earnings of closely-held corporation are corporate assets and not marital property and distributions to liquidate corporation in exchange for non-marital stock are not marital property. Short v. Short, No. 95663 (Mo. App. E.D., October 25, 2011), Sullivan, J.

This was an action for dissolution of marriage in which the parties had a prenuptial agreement. The meaning of the agreements terms were in dispute, especially regarding whether it provided that earnings derived from separate property had been excluded from marital property. Both parties appealed. As a side note, it is interesting that the parties met four days before the wedding to discuss the terms of the prenuptial agreement in detail. A draft of the agreement was first presented to the unrepresented Husband the day before the wedding. The trial court’s determination that the agreement should be upheld as valid was affirmed despite the short amount of time noted herein.

The trial court found that the agreement did not expressly exclude as non-marital property the income earned from that non-marital property during the marriage. During the marriage the Wife received several million dollars in liquidating distributions in exchange for cancellation of her non-marital stock interest in a closely-held corporation. The trial court found those distributions to be marital property.

Held: Reversed in part as to the character of the corporate liquidation payments in exchange for non-marital stock. “Evidence presented at trial showed that approximately 97% of (corporation’s) assets at the time of (corporation’s) liquidation were comprised of …̔ retained earnings.’ Generally, retained earnings of a corporation do not constitute marital property. Hoffmann v. Hoffmann, 676 S.W.2d 817, 827(Mo. banc 1984); Craig-Garner v. Garner, 77 S.W.3d 34, 38 (Mo. App. E.D. 2002). Retained earnings and profits of a corporation are a corporate asset and remain the corporation’s property until severed from other corporate assets and distributed as dividend. Hoffmann v. Hoffmann, at 827; Craig-Garner v. Garner, at 38.”

Moreover, “[t]he money Wife received as liquidating distributions from the dissolution of (corporation) was not income earned by her separate stock; rather, it was liquidated capital distributions received in exchange for, and in cancellation, of her stock in (corporation), which was her separate property.”

Source for Post:  November issue of Courts Bulletin.  A publication of the Missouri Bar

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

There are many ways that the income tax dependency for children in divorce can be handled, although most of them are not supported by the law.  If the parties are in agreement, then nearly any method of claiming the children can be used, including alternating years, splitting the deductions between the parents (in the case of multiple children), allowing the non-custodial parent to claim the children provided that child support is current, a combination of these, or any other method that the parties can come up with.

However, under Missouri law,  the custodial parent is entitled to claim the children for tax purposes each and every year, period.  So unless there is an agreement otherwise, this is what the Court will order.  However, regardless of any agreement or Missouri court order, federal income tax law requires a child to reside with a parent at least 50% of the time to be claimed as a dependent. So, if the parties have agreed to something else, such as alternating years, and the non-custodial parent has the children less than 50% of the time, the Internal Revenue Service (or Department of Revenue) can reject the claimed dependency notwithstanding the court order, as Missouri family courts do not have jurisdiction over the IRS or the power to alter federal law.  The only remedy would then would be for the parties to return to state court to seek reimbursement for the dollar value of the claimed dependency from the other parent, which the Court may not even entertain. 

So the general rule would be that the custodial parent gets to claim the children each year, unless an agreement is reached otherwise. But the word of caution on agreements (particularly for the non-custodial parent), is that both parties have to follow it, or it can be rejected by the taxing authority with the only possible remedy being a return to state court.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

While Missouri courts normally follow the “American Rule” regarding legal fees – that each party is responsible for his or her own costs – Missouri dissolution of Marriage statutes give the court the discretion to order one party to contribute to the other party’s fees. Specifically, Section 452.355.1 provides:

Unless otherwise indicated, the court from time to time after considering all relevant factors including the financial resources of both parties, the merits of the case and the actions of the parties during the pendency of the action, may order a party to pay a reasonable amount for the cost to the other party of maintaining or defending any proceeding pursuant to sections 452.300 to 452.415 and for attorney's fees, including sums for legal services rendered and costs incurred prior to the commencement of the proceeding and after entry of a final judgment. The court may order that the amount be paid directly to the attorney, who may enforce the order in the attorney's name.

The court is always required to consider the financial resources of each party before deciding on a request for attorney’s fees.  While the court must consider the financial resources of each party, a spouse is not required to forego a claim for attorney's fees merely because assets on hand are available to make payment.

In most cases, attorney fees are not an issue, and usually judges are reluctant to award attorney fees. However, when the issue does arise, the conduct of the parties during the litigation and how the judge perceives the parties are usually just as important as financial resources in determining the award.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In a recent decision by the Missouri Court of Appeals, clear, cogent and convincing evidence supported a finding of neglect in protecting the child, maintaining the household, and supervising the child.  "If a parent is unable to pay for all of a child's financial needs, he or she has a duty to provide as much as he or she reasonably can." A Father’s occasional support for child does not outweigh clear, cogent and convincing evidence of financial neglect through reluctance to work. The Circuit court’s determination of child’s best interests is subject to review for abuse of discretion. The Guardian ad Litem’s opinion is not controlling but merits “respectful consideration."

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD30632

Source for Post:  Missouri Bar

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Missouri’s paternity disestablishment law, enacted in August 2009, allows men who have been declared the father of a child by a court or the Division of Family Services to set aside (overrule) the finding of paternity and terminate child support and child support arrearages. Under this law, alleged fathers wishing to file such an action were given a 2 year “open season”, where the action could be filed regardless of when the original child support order was entered. This period expires on December 31, 2011. On January 1, 2012, the statute of limitations takes effect, and a paternity and child support order can only be set aside if the case is filed within 2 years of the entry of the original order. If not filed within that time, then relief under the statute is precluded. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The statute provides that, when considering whether to terminate parental rights, the circuit court must consider certain factors, as to which evidence was either absent; less than clear, cogent and convincing; or favored the parent.  Factors including whether mental condition will improve does not mean intelligence.  Whatever else may be appropriate, judgment terminating parental rights on such record is erroneous. 

The requirements that the court must consider are as follows:

(a) The terms of a social service plan entered into by the parent and the division and the extent to which the parties have made progress in complying with those terms;

(b) The success or failure of the efforts of the juvenile officer, the division or other agency to aid the parent on a continuing basis in adjusting his circumstances or conduct to provide a proper home for the child;

(c) A mental condition which is shown by competent evidence either to be permanent or such that there is no reasonable likelihood that the condition can be reversed and which renders the parent unable to knowingly provide the child the necessary care, custody and control;

(d) Chemical dependency which prevents the parent from consistently providing the necessary care, custody and control over the child and which cannot be treated so as to enable the parent to consistently provide such care, custody and control[.]

 Proof of any one of these four factors (“relevant factors”) is sufficient to establish the trial court‟s authority to terminate a parent‟s rights.

Also, the following must be considered:

(1) The emotional ties to the birth parent;

(2) The extent to which the parent has maintained regular visitation or other contact with the child;

(3) The extent of payment by the parent for the cost of care and maintenance of the child when financially able to do so including the time that the child is in the custody of the division or other child-placing agency;

(4) Whether additional services would be likely to bring about lasting parental adjustment enabling a return of the child to the parent within an ascertainable period of time;

(5) The parent‟s disinterest in or lack of commitment to the child;

(6) The conviction of the parent of a felony offense that the court finds is of such a nature that the child will be deprived of a stable home for a period of years; provided, however, that incarceration in and of itself shall not be grounds for termination of parental rights;

(7) Deliberate acts of the parent or acts of another of which the parent knew or should have known that subjects the child to a substantial risk of physical or mental harm.

In this case, the court held that there was no clear and convincing evidence that the statutory factors were not met. The entire opinion can be read here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Missouri statute that mandates the continuation of child support after age 18 if the child attends college was amended in 2007, and provisions were added that are somewhat contradictory. In a recent ruling by the Missouri Court of Appeals, the Court clarified the statute, as well what will cause a child to fail to meet the credit hour requirements of the statute.

Section 452.340.5 RSMo states: If when a child reaches eighteen, . . . [i]f the child is enrolled in an institution of vocational or higher education not later than October first following graduation from a secondary school . . . and so long as the child enrolls for and completes at least twelve hours of credit each semester, not including 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-one, whichever first occurs. . . .  

The statute goes on to provide 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." 

The case law until the statute was amended clearly held that a child must enroll and actually complete 12 hours of credit, and failing grades in any class could cause the child not to meet the credit hour requirement as no credit is given for a failing grade. However, the court has now clarified that the prior case law, specifically the Lombardo line of cases, is effectively overruled and now, with the addition of “failing half or more of his or her courseload” language, a failing grade no longer triggers a failure to comply with the credit-hour requirement, provided that the child does not fail half or more of their classes (if enrolled in at least 12 hours). The Court stated:

“Where a student voluntarily withdraws from a class prior to its completion, he or she clearly fails to meet the requirements of the statute that the student complete the class [12 hour requirement]. On the other hand, where a child receives a failing grade in a course, provided the child does not fail half or more of his or her classes, the child is deemed to satisfy the requirements of § 452.340.5.3” 

Interestingly, in the recent case, the child actually withdrew from the class instead of failing, but the evidence showed that the child was withdrawn by the teacher and not the student himself as a “favor” to avoid receiving a failing grade, so the Court deemed that a failing grade and treated it as such under the statute.  Outside of this exception however, it seems that a typical withdrawal will fall under the “completion” requirement of the statute.

The entire opinion can be read here

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In today’s turbulent economic climate, where job losses or reductions in income are frequent, it is critical to immediately deal with a child support order upon any significant change in income. Failure to act quickly can lead to an even greater financial disaster.  Here’s why:

• In Missouri, a child support order, regardless of whether it is administrative (Family Support Division “FSD”) or judicial (through the Courts), remains in effect until modified. This means that even if income is reduced or lost, the obligor is liable for the child support under the order, regardless of income, until a formal modification proceeding takes place. 
• It is critical to file a motion to modify immediately upon an income change as the Court only has jurisdiction to go back and adjust child support back to the date of filing. Once it is filed, the obligor can then seek temporary immediate relief from the original order, and avoid the accumulation of child support arrearages.
• Failure to modify quickly can lead to the accumulation of child support arrearages that cannot be erased, which in turn can result in civil contempt, criminal non-support, suspension of driver licenses, interception of income tax refunds, additional payments to cover the past due child support, and other unpleasant results.
• It is not required that a person wait three years to modify the child support order, even if it is an administrative order. That is just the time interval in which the FSD may, on its own, review an order for modification. A child support order is modifiable at any time by either party.
•  It is always better to consult an attorney for a judicial modification rather than going to the FSD for an administrative modification. The court has power over the FSD and can modify any administrative or judicial order much more quickly, and can issue temporary orders for relief.
•  Once a judicial motion to modify is filed, even if the obligor stops paying child support or reduces the amount paid, the party will avoid contempt charges and administrative enforcement issues, and the Court can sort out what the new child support amount should be and adjust it accordingly back to the date the motion was filed. This may result in some child support arrearages, but nowhere near what there could be without the modification on file. At this stage of the game, damage control is crucial.
• The modification action can result in attorney fees and case costs, but those typically are minimal in comparison to the savings in child support, and are almost always a wise investment.
• Care should always be taken, however, before engaging in a child support modification, and it is not a good idea to do so without consulting an attorney. Modification cases can be full of possible land mines, so care and experience are required to keep a bad situation from getting worse.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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.

• 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 cases involving children, the Court must, either by agreement or by trial, set up some sort of custodial arrangement for the kids involved. There are many options available, all of which fit under a just a few legally recognized categories. There are as many if not more “definitions” of custody floating around out there that don’t actually mean anything legally. People usually have at least some idea of what it is that they are seeking in their minds, but they have trouble defining it. So here we go with a little Child Custody 101 to assist those with their initial case preparation:

Legal Custody. This is one of the two types of custody that must be determined by a Missouri Court in all cases. The legal aspect of custody means decision making and parental authority, basically. It means having the legal right to make (and participate in) any material decisions affecting the children.  Included are the choice or change of school, college, camp, or comparable summer activity, special tutoring, music, sports, art, dance, and other cultural lessons, psychological or psychiatric treatment or counseling, doctors, and surgeons; notice of illness and injury; access to school and medical records; and all other material decisions affecting the health, education, and welfare of the children. Specifically, decisions regarding educational instruction, religious instruction, health care, discipline, and child care providers are included in the model parenting plan, but anything relevant to the children could be included in the definition. Legal custody can be granted to one or both parents, but the overwhelming preference is for joint legal custody. 

Physical Custody. This is the second aspect of custody that must also be determined. Physical custody simply means the right to have actual physical possession of the children at a certain specified time. The preference is for joint physical custody, which only means that both parents have the right to physical possession of the children at certain times. The actual schedule can vary greatly, however, and this is where tailoring to the specific needs of the family is important. Joint physical custody could be an alternate weekend schedule, alternate weeks, holidays and spring break only, summertime only, 3 day/4 day, 5 day/2 day, 50/50, open ended, or whatever other schedule is appropriate for the case. Just as a note, in a 50/50 joint physical parenting schedule, reduced child support is still usually paid in some form or another.

Joint Custody. As discussed above, this is the preferred arrangement and will usually be awarded unless a physical or emotional danger to the child is demonstrated. The Court has to determine whether joint custody is appropriate as to both the legal and physical aspects of custody.

Sole Custody. This is the alternative to joint custody where only one parent is granted either all of the decision making rights (sole legal custody) or all of the physical parenting time with the other parent  being excluded completely (sole physical custody), or both. Courts are reluctant to order either of these options unless it is shown to be in the children’s best interests, which usually means that physical or emotional danger to the children will occur under any other alternative. Also, as many times as I have seen it, there is no such thing as sole physical custody to one parent along with a parenting schedule for the other parent. If both parents are to see the children, whatever the schedule, that is joint physical custody by definition.

Split Custody.  This is an arrangement where the children are “split up” between the two parents, meaning that some of the children reside with one parent while the other children reside with the other parent. This is not too common, but it does happen. Courts are usually reluctant to split up children except in the most unique of circumstances, but the parents can agree to such an arrangement if they feel it is best.

Full Custody. There is no definition of Full Custody in Missouri and it has no legal significance.  When referring to this, people are talking about some combination of the above types of custody.

Primary Custody. This is no longer a legal definition in Missouri.   Now it is called “residential address for education and mailing purposes.” It usually means the home where the children reside for the greater amount of time, and the home that is in the children’s school district. The parents are supposed to be equal so they are no longer referred to as the primary parent and the lesser parent.

Visitation. This is the time where you view the body before a funeral.  So, if you are talking about your kids, call it something else, like “parenting time”.

Hopefully, this helps to clarify a little bit, but when it comes down to it, it is still just a bunch of words on paper. Put the children first, focus on what is best for them and what will really work with your family, and don’t get too wrapped up in the terminology.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In a recent ruling by the Missouri Court of Appeals, in a custody modification proceeding, the trial court’s modified parenting plan delegated the authority to make all medical, educational, and extracurricular decisions for one of the parents’ two children to her “team of doctors.” The Court held that these provisions of the plan are too vague and indefinite to be enforceable in that the phrase “team of doctors” is not sufficiently definite and specific. Provisions in a judgment should be definite as indefinite provisions are unenforceable. The judgment must be sufficiently certain to be susceptible of enforcement in the manner provided by law without requiring external proof.

Although not specifically held, it was noted that  452.375.5(5)(a) allows a court to grant custody to a third party when it finds that each parent is unfit, unsuitable, or unable to be a custodian, or the welfare of the child requires, and it is in the best interests of the child. However, to do this, the court must make that third person a party to the action.  However, parents who share joint legal custody of a child or children can agree to designate a third party as a tie-breaker to resolve individual issues upon which they cannot agree, and such an arrangement does not violate section 452.375.1(2).  In this case, the “team of doctors” were not made a party to the case, and the modified parenting plan was against the weight of the evidence in that the parents did not intend to delegate to the team of doctors their authority to make educational or extracurricular decisions for their daughter.  

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

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

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

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

Effective yesterday, July 1, 2008, Supreme Court Rule 88.09 comes into effect which requires parties not represented by counsel to participate in a litigant awareness program that explains the risks and benefits of self representation, as well as requiring certain court forms to be used and accepted by the Court.   The amended rule reads as follows:

88.09 PARTIES NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL

Every party not represented by counsel who participates in a proceeding for dissolution of marriage, legal separation, parentage or the modification of a judgment in any such proceeding shall:

(a) Complete a litigant awareness program that includes an explanation of the risks and responsibilities of self-representation, unless waived by the circuit court. The awareness program shall be prepared by a committee designated by this Court, but each circuit may determine the manner and means by which the training shall be provided and the proof of compliance; and

(b) Unless such use is waived by the trial court, use the pleadings, forms, and proposed judgment prepared by a committee designated by this Court that have been approved by this Court. These forms shall be accepted by the courts of this state, until disapproved or superseded by this Court.

(c) Nothing in this Rule 88.09 prevents a court from determining the legal sufficiency of any pleading nor prevents a court from entering judgment in a form different from the judgment form approved pursuant to Rule 88.09(b).

• 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

Recent decision from the MIssouri Court of Appeals:

In an action to establish paternity under Uniform Parentage Act, preliminary advisory hearing to determine whether action is in Child's best interest shall be informal, without applying law of evidence, conducted by a special master, closed to the public. Circuit Court held the hearing before Circuit Judge. Circuit Judge conducted it as an evidentiary hearing and dismissed the action. Reversed.
In the Matter of D.A.B. Alesya Beaird Litvinov, Appellant v. Paul G. Beaird, et al., Respondents; and In the Matter of D.A.B. Konstantin Litvinov, Appellant v. Paul G. Beaird, et al., Respondents. Missouri Court of Appeals Southern District

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Recently from the Georgia Family Law Blog

WHAT IS PATERNITY?

Paternity means fatherhood, the quality or state of being a father.

WHAT IS A PATERNITY TEST?

A Paternity Test is a DNA (Deoxyribonucleic Acid) or genetic test that determines whether a given man could be the biological father of a child.

ON WHAT GROUNDS CAN I RECEIVE A PATERNITY TEST?

Paternity test are not just used to determine whether an individual is the biological father of a child. A Paternity test is useful in many situations, including:

• Assisting women seeking child support from a man who denies he is a child s biological father.
• Helping men attempting to win custody or visitation rights.
• Providing peace of mind for men wishing to confirm paternity.
• Establishing proof of heritage for an adopted child seeking their biological parents.
• Determining grand parentage, inheritance rights, insurance claims or Social Security benefits.
• Assisting in immigration cases on the grounds an individual is a biological relative of a citizen.
• Establishing Native American Tribal Rights.
• Determining rightful heirs by DNA profiling for estate purpose.
• Providing conclusive evidence of sisterhood or brotherhood for siblings separated for long periods of time.

WHAT IS THE PATERNITY TEST PROCEDURE?

There are several ways in which a paternity test can be performed. Test samples can come from blood cells, cheek cells, tissues samples, and semen. Paternity experts prefer using Blood test and the Buccal (cheek) swab test to determine Paternity. When an individual takes a blood test, a blood specimen (one tablespoon or less) is drawn from the forearm. Unlike a blood test, the buccal scrap is done by brushing a swab vigorously against the inside of the subject s cheek. Since the DNA is the same in every cell of the body, the accuracy of testing performed on cheek cells with the swab is the same as using blood.

• 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

The following post is information for clients who have paternity or custody actions pending in Eastern or Western Jackson county Missouri about the PTLA program which is required by the Court.

PTLA (Parenting Together Living Apart) is a parent educational program designed to teach parents who have never been married to each other but have children together the value of co-parenting their child(ren) cooperatively so as to maximize the healthy emotional development of their child(ren). This program is most effective when utilized prior to mediation. There is no cost for attendance.

Program Objectives:

• Parents will have a better understanding of the importance of co-parenting.
• Parents will practice positive communication skills.
• Parents will learn about child development states in parental conflict.
• Parents will increase positive parenting skills to work with each other cooperatively.

PTLA Curriculum:

• Parental responsibilities
• Children’s basic needs
• Why children need both parents
• Emotional reactions to the lost relationship
• Children’s developmental states in parental conflict
• Paternity establishment
• Positive co-parenting
• Effective communication skills
• Responsive discipline
• Parenting time suggestions

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks