In Re Marriage of Angell, 328 S.W.3d 753

Divorce on December 22, 2004, with joint legal custody and Mother's address used for Child's educational and mailing purposes.
Original child support order: Father $650/month, based on a deviation from the presumed amount, with Mother's income $2,540/month and Father's $7,420/month, per Form 14 in dissolution.
Modification action tried June 2008–July 2009; both parties remarried; Father had two more children, Mother had two more children.
Child began counseling in 2006, later diagnosed with ADHD and placed on medication; counseling continued through modification trial.
Trial court calculated Father’s income as $19,416/month and Mother’s as $432/month, ordered Child support modification to $1,200/month despite a higher presumed amount.
Court held there were substantial and continuing changes in Child’s needs and that Mother’s reduced outside employment did not negate the need for increased support.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there substantial and continuing change in circumstances?	Angell contends no substantial change since 2004; needs not clearly changed.	Angell argues changed needs from counseling and ADHD, plus family growth, justify modification.	Yes; substantial and continuing change found.
Was Father's income properly supported by substantial evidence?	Angell asserts trial court correctly used his gross income without deducting business expenses.	Angell argues the amount is unsupported and overstates income due to not deducting necessary expenses.	Yes; income evidence supported the trial court’s calculation.

Ibrahim v. Ibrahim, 825 S.W.2d 391 (Mo. App. S.D. 1992) (preservation and Form 14 issues; challenge to change in circumstances allowed without Form 14 if threshold issue contested)
Hackmann v. Hackmann, 847 S.W.2d 193 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993) (Form 14 requirement not automatic review bar; modification challenges may survive)
Boudreau v. Benitz, 827 S.W.2d 732 (Mo. App. E.D. 1992) (note on Form 14 and review; caution against appellate relief without proper forms)
Bell v. Gilliam, 852 S.W.2d 198 (Mo. App. S.D. 1993) (challenge to substantial change despite failure to file Form 14; focus on change in circumstances)
Hueckel v. Wondel, 270 S.W.3d 450 (Mo. App. S.D. 2008) (evidence of changes such as counseling and employment supports substantial change)
Cook (In re Marriage of Cook), 636 S.W.2d 419 (Mo. App. S.D. 1982) (inflation and growing-child needs can justify modification if original decree unreasonable)
Eaton v. Bell, 127 S.W.3d 690 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004) (after change in circumstances, child support must follow §452.340 and rules)
Talley v. Bulen, 193 S.W.3d 881 (Mo. App. S.D. 2006) (increased parental income alone is not enough; needs evidence of increased child expenses)
Payne v. Payne, 206 S.W.3d 379 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006) (imputing income to discourage underemployment; case-specific imputation allowed)
Rogers v. Rogers, 923 S.W.2d 381 (Mo. App. W.D. 1996) (change in income is a relevant factor but not sole basis for modification)