Wolfgang Shields v. Mildred Epanty (Previously Shields), 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1138

Background

Parties divorced in 2006; two children (daughter 14, son 11) are subject of a 2015 modification proceeding.
Prior orders provided joint legal and physical custody with an alternating parenting schedule; parties have longstanding co‑parenting conflict.
Father (Shields) filed to modify custody in 2014 alleging a substantial and continuing change; trial court found such a change and entered a revised parenting plan in December 2015.
Trial court continued joint legal custody, adopted a new parenting schedule (more one‑on‑one time for daughter with mother; different schedule for son), but the written plan omitted any holiday or vacation schedule.
Court adopted father’s Form 14 and imputed monthly income of $4,305 to father; ordered mother (Epanty) to pay child support of $872/month and to continue children’s medical insurance.
Epanty appealed, raising five points: statutory omission of holiday/vacation schedule, overnight‑credit miscalculation, failure to credit medical insurance, failure to impute voluntary income reduction, and that the parenting time/separation of children is not in children’s best interests.

Issues

Issue	Epanty’s Argument	Shields’ Argument	Held
1. Parenting plan compliance with statutory requirement to include holiday/vacation schedule	Parenting plan is deficient because it omits holiday and school vacation schedule required by §452.375.9/§452.310.8	Trial court adopted a complete revised plan; omission harmless or not required	Reversed in part — remanded to include holiday and vacation schedule; statutory omission requires correction
2. Overnight‑credit in Form 14 calculation	Court should have awarded overnight visitation credit (Line 11) for Epanty’s overnights	Father’s Form 14 reflected correct adjustment; Epanty only had 24 overnights so no Line 11 credit applies	Affirmed — no overnight credit because Line 11 requires at least 36 overnights annually
3. Credit for providing children’s medical insurance in Form 14	Mother should receive credit in Form 14 for paying children’s health insurance	Father’s Form 14 was adopted; mother failed to submit her own Form 14 or proof of insurance cost at trial	Affirmed — mother did not present a Form 14 or evidence at trial, so appellate relief denied
4. Whether father’s income reduction was voluntary and should be imputed	Income reduction was voluntary/misconduct (tax noncompliance, bankruptcy) and should be imputed to prevent reduction in support	Court permissibly imputed income but did not treat bankruptcy as per se voluntary reduction; no legal basis to bar modification	Affirmed — court did not abuse discretion; bankruptcy/noncompliance not automatically treated as voluntary dissipation to deny modification
5. Best interests: parenting time change and separating the children	New schedule (including increased one‑on‑one time and separating siblings) is against the children’s best interests and against the weight of the evidence	Trial court considered statutory factors, guardian ad litem recommendations, and specific needs of each child; modification serves best interests	Affirmed — trial court’s custody decision supported by evidence and not against the weight of the evidence

Key Cases Cited

Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (standard of review for judge‑tried cases)
Simon‑Harris v. Harris, 138 S.W.3d 170 (Mo. App.) (parenting plan must include holiday/vacation schedule)
Percher v. Percher, 398 S.W.3d 580 (Mo. App.) (Form 14 presumed child support framework)
Conrad v. Conrad, 76 S.W.3d 305 (Mo. App.) (two‑step review of child support awards)
Dodge v. Dodge, 398 S.W.3d 49 (Mo. App.) (abuse‑of‑discretion review of rebuttal to Form 14)
Hoefer v. Hoefer, 860 S.W.2d 376 (Mo. App.) (party must present Form 14 and evidence at trial to challenge support calculation on appeal)
Moran v. Mason, 236 S.W.3d 137 (Mo. App.) (voluntary dissipation of income not necessarily a basis to deny modification)