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.

• 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