In re Marriage of Douglas

13 Citing cases

  1. Woolridge v. Woolridge

    915 S.W.2d 372 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 209 times
    Holding that the record must properly frame the legal and factual issues such that meaningful appellate review is possible

    Civil Procedure Form No. 14 is captioned PRESUMEDCHILD SUPPORT AMOUNT CALCULATION WORKSHEET. The Form 14 worksheet and its directions for completion mandate which items are to be considered in the calculation and constitute a "formula" for determining the presumed correct child support amount as envisioned by § 452.340.7 and Rule 88.01. In re Marriage ofDouglas, 870 S.W.2d 466, 470 (Mo. App. 1994); Vehlewald v.Vehlewald, 853 S.W.2d 944, 951 (Mo. App. 1993). And, although Rule 88.01 leaves it to the court to determine whether a Form 14 item should be included in a Form 14 calculation under a given factual situation and the correct amount of the item to be included, the "formula" to be employed and the factors to be considered in calculating the presumed correct child support amount is not discretionary.

  2. In re M.D.P.-W.

    684 S.W.3d 357 (Mo. Ct. App. 2024)

    Clearly, this wording presumes each parent will incur necessary childcare costs during his or her custodial time.See, e.g., In re Marriage of Douglas, 870 S.W.2d 466, 470-71 (Mo. App. S.D. 1994) (holding a divorce decree stating that a custodial father should pay the custodial mother "one-half of the amount of child care expense incurred … for work related child care" presumed necessary childcare expenses that warranted consideration in the Form 14). Yet, without explanation, the trial court entered "0" for lines 6a and 6b of Form 14, the reasonable work-related childcare costs of the parent receiving support and the parent paying support, respectively.

  3. Llana v. Llana

    121 S.W.3d 286 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 6 times
    Holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding $2,500 and then $1,100 in monthly maintenance where spouse claimed her expenses exceeded $6,000 per month

    Ms. Llana also claims that the trial court erred in not determining an actual amount of work-related childcare costs in completing Form 14 and by awarding her eighty-five percent of all work-related childcare costs incurred by her. She cites In re Marriage of Douglas, 870 S.W.2d 466 (Mo. App. 1994), where the trial court erred in awarding one-half of all work-related child care costs to the mother without calculating the actual amount of expense that would be incurred. A court "must either award child support in conformity with the result obtained by using Form 14 or make a finding on the record that an award of such amount . . . is unjust or inappropriate."

  4. Anderson v. Anderson

    4 S.W.3d 639 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 4 times

    Yet, the court did not determine an amount for child care costs and did not include an amount on its Form 14. The trial court neither calculated child support per Form 14 nor made a finding that the amount so calculated, after consideration of all relevant factors, was unjust or inappropriate. See, e.g., In re Marriage of Douglas, 870 S.W.2d 466, 471 (Mo.App.S.D. 1994). In addition, the court did not articulate, and the record did not clearly indicate, why the court did not determine an amount for child care costs on Form 14 or how the court arrived at the amount of child care expenses it ordered father to pay.

  5. In re Matter of C.N.H. L.K.G

    998 S.W.2d 553 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 26 times

    Interference by one parent with the other parent's decretal rights is contrary to public policy and society's interest in "assur[ing] children frequent and meaningful contact with both parents." Section 452.375.4. SeeIn re Marriage of Douglas, 870 S.W.2d 466, 469[2] (Mo.App. 1994). See alsoA.B.C. v. C.L.C., 968 S.W.2d 214, 219 (Mo.App. 1998); Cornell, 809 S.W.2d at 873.

  6. In re the Marriage of Colley

    984 S.W.2d 163 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 26 times
    Holding that in the absence of a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law, pursuant to Rule 73.01(c), none are required

    If that occurred, it was necessary that there be a finding that the amount so calculated was unjust or inappropriate. In re Marriage of Douglas , 870 S.W.2d 466, 470-71 Mo. App. S.D. 1994). No such order was entered.

  7. Chapin v. Chapin

    985 S.W.2d 897 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 9 times
    Stating that "absent manifest error, we will not disturb the trial court's determination of custody unless the welfare of the child demands a different result"

    Therefore, absent manifest error, we will not disturb the trial court's determination of custody unless the welfare of the child demands a different result. In re Marriage of Douglas, 870 S.W.2d 466, 469 (Mo. App. 1994). Father notes that he presented evidence unfavorable to mother as custodian, including evidence that in 1994 and 1995 Mother had expressed her desire to no longer be a wife and mother, and that in December 1996 Mother lost her job and announced to Father that she was unhappy and that she would probably file for divorce after the first of the year.

  8. In re Marriage of Colley

    No. 21987 (Mo. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 1998)

    If that occurred, it was necessary that there be a finding that the amount so calculated was unjust or inappropriate. In re Marriage of Douglas , 870 S.W.2d 466, 470-71 Mo.App.S.D. 1994). No such order was entered.

  9. Newsom v. Newsom

    976 S.W.2d 33 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 10 times

    A trial court's determination of custody will not be disturbed on appeal unless the appellate court is firmly convinced it is erroneous and the award is against the child's best interests and welfare. Flathers , 948 S.W.2d at 471; In re Marriage of Douglas , 870 S.W.2d 466, 469 (Mo.App. 1994). Section 452.375.2, RSMo Cum. Supp. 1997, lists eight factors for the trial court to consider in determining custody in accordance with the best interests of the children.

  10. Hicks v. Hicks

    969 S.W.2d 840 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 13 times
    Concluding that wife's student loans were marital debt because the loan funds were not only used to pay wife's tuition, but were also used to buy groceries and pay bills and childcare costs

    This court will not disturb the trial court's determination of custody unless it is manifestly erroneous and the welfare of the children demands a different result. In re Marriage of Douglas , 870 S.W.2d 466, 469 (Mo.App. 1994). Section 452.375.2, RSMo Cum. Supp. 1997, lists eight factors for the trial court to consider in determining custody in accordance with the best interests of the children.