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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.