Petitioner/Father, Kevin Foster, appeals from a pendente lite order granting Respondent/Mother, Tammy Foster, custody of their minor child, Justin Foster, child support in thе amount of $520 per month and $1,000 for attorney’s fees. We affirm.
The parties were married on September 20, 1985. Justin was born on October 25, 1986. Father left the household in Decеmber 1988. In a proceeding not a part of the present record, a court ordered Father to pay Mother $200 per month child support. Father moved tо Salem, Missouri, in November of 1989. Sometime in 1989 or 1990, he stopped paying child support after paying approximately $2,000. In 1990 and into 1991, Mother experienced finanсial difficulties and moved in with her mother. The child visited Father in Salem for agreed periods in 1990 and 1991. On March 17, 1991, Father took his son to his home in Salem, and refused to return the child tо Mother.
On April 15, 1991, Father filed for dissolution of marriage. On July 30, 1991, Mother filed a motion and affidavits for temporary maintenance, child support, attorney’s fees and also requested custody of the minor child. On October 16, 1992, Father filed a response and cross motion requesting custody, child support, attorney’s fees, suit money and costs pendente lite.
On November 18, 1992, the trial court held a hearing on both motions. The court granted custody of the minor child to Mother, subject to visitation with Father, and ordered Father to pay child support of $520 per month and to pay attorney fees of $1,000.
On appeal Father raises two issues. First, he asserts the trial court erred in аwarding custody of the minor child to Mother because the award was not supported by substantial evidence and constituted an abuse of discretion. Second, hе contests the award of child support as excessive and argues was not calculated pursuant to Rule 88.01. It is agreed that neither party filed a Form No. 14 reрort.
In reviewing motions in a temporary custody order, this court is limited to determining whether the order is supported by substantial evidence, whether it is against the weight of the evidence, or whether it erroneously declares or applies the law.
Murphy v. Carron,
*561 Father argues the trial court did not consider the best interests of the child by failing to give weight and consideration to the home environment in which the child will live. He contends his home is clearly the best lоcation for the child to live. Father asserts the Mother’s home environment will have an adverse effect on the welfare of the child. Father supports thesе arguments by noticing that Mother has moved three times during their separation, she works, she allowed the child to live with Father for several months, and Father will arrange frequent visits between the child and his half-sister.
Mother replies that she has had custody of the child from the separation until March of 1991, she allows the child regular visits with his half-sister, and she hаs respected Father’s parental rights. She further points out that Father is currently living with his fiancee and he was in arrears on child support which he owed to Mother.
A gоod environment and stable home are considered the most important factors in custody cases,
Rothfuss v. Whalen,
Father next contends the trial court erred in ordering him to pay child support in the amount of $520 per month to Mother because the deсision was against the weight of the evidence and is an erroneous application of the law.
Father argues the trial court erred as a matter of law by nоt requiring the parties to file Form No. 14 reports. Father also claims the court erred by not entering a finding explaining why the court did not use Form No. 14.
Section 452.340.7 RSMo Cum.Supp.1990 mаndates the use of the child support guidelines in determining the amount of child support.
Rothfuss,
However, no presumption and no requirement for a written finding exists when the parties to the child support action did nоt complete Form No. 14 and submit it to the trial court. Neither party filed Form No. 14. A party cannot invoke this presumption by submitting Form No. 14 in the appellate court.
See Ibrahim v. Ibrahim,
In this case, neither Father nor Mother submitted a completed Form No. 14 to the trial court. Therefore, there is no available presumption that the award calcu *562 lated according to Form No. 14 is corrеct and controlling. Furthermore, the trial court committed no error solely because it failed to make a written or specific finding on the record regarding thе amount of the award where the evidence supported the amount.
Father’s next argument is the trial court’s order that he pay $520 per month in child support was аgainst the weight of the evidence. He contends Mother only needs $65 per month for the child’s direct needs and $100 per month for the child’s housing needs. It is his view that Mother’s incоme meets these needs and, therefore, no assistance is needed. Father also contends the trial court erred in imputing income to him after he testified thаt he was no longer working.
Wide discretion is vested in the trial court with respect to the granting of child support.
Rothfuss v. Whalen,
We affirm.