359 S.W.3d 44
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Mother, a minor in 1994, lived with Ward Slusher; Father, then 52, had power of attorney and access to Slusher's residence where a relationship with Mother began.
- Mother later married Villines in 2001; marriage ended in separation in 2004.
- Spring 2008 Mother became pregnant; blood testing establishes Father as the biological father; Child born November 20, 2008.
- March 31, 2008 judgment of separation noted Father as the presumed father; April–May 2008 Mother filed petitions for paternity and testing; Father conceded paternity in 2009 and sought custody and support relief.
- Trial was held October 27–28, 2009; Mother sought leave to amend to recover birthing costs and attorney's fees; initial denial but later permitted amendment; Judgment of paternity entered January 20, 2010; subsequent amended judgment disposed of the requested relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Insurance obligation findings | Villines contends no insurance responsibility finding was required by statute. | Phillips argues the court is not required to make specific insurance findings here. | Waived; point denied due to Rule 78.07(c) and no prejudice shown. |
| Relocation notice language | Mother argues the relocation notice language should not appear since Father has no custody/visitation. | Phillips contends the language applies to any custody/visitation order and should stay. | Point denied; language properly included and enforced. |
| Credit for derivative Social Security benefits | Mother argues Craver controls, forbidding credits for derivative Social Security payments. | Father relies on Craver to limit such credits against child support. | Weaks doctrine applies; derivative benefits earned by Father may be credited; point denied. |
| Attorney's fees and birthing costs due process | Mother asserts due process was not violated by late amendment and award of birthing costs/attorney's fees. | Father claims lack of timely notice/preparation undermines due process. | Denied; court allowed evidence and amendments; no due process violation shown. |
| Child support calculation and Form 14 | No argument specific to Form 14 eligibility or imputation issues. | Imputation issues challenged under Form 14 caveat; invited error. | Denied; invited error doctrine precludes reversal. |
| Hessenflow attorney's fees | Mother seeks payment for Hessenflow's fees; father argues lack of evidence. | Father contends misalignment of fee award with evidence. | Denied; award to Hessenflow upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Craver v. Craver, 649 S.W.2d 440 (Mo. banc. 1983) (Craver overruled by Weaks on derivative Social Security credit)
- Weaks v. Weaks, 821 S.W.2d 503 (Mo. banc. 1991) (credit for benefits paid to child derived from father's earnings)
- Holtgrewe v. Holtgrewe, 155 S.W.3d 784 (Mo. App. E.D. 2005) (derivative benefits credited in child-support context)
- Schindler v. Schindler, 209 S.W.3d 35 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006) (consideration of derivative benefits in support calculations)
- Hueckel v. Wondel, 270 S.W.3d 450 (Mo. App. S.D. 2008) (relocation notice in paternity context)
- Wright ex rel. McBath v. Wright, 129 S.W.3d 882 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004) (relocation notice compliance)
- Pease v. Pease, 877 S.W.2d 681 (Mo. App. W.D. 1994) (statutory interpretation of health insurance obligation)
- In re Marriage of Turner, 5 S.W.3d 607 (Mo. App. S.D. 1999) (health insurance obligation context)
- Hosack v. Hosack, 973 S.W.2d 863 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998) (health care obligation considerations)
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc. 1976) (standard of review in court-tried cases)
- Weaks v. Weaks, 821 S.W.2d 503 (Mo. banc. 1991) (see above (derivative benefits credit))