« September 2007 | Main | February 2008 »

November 25, 2007

Child Support - coming to MO

In Missouri our child support continues past the age of 18 years and ends at the end of the child's graduation from college or the age of 21, whichever comes first.  In special circumstances such as a special needs child the support can continue past 21.  Other states, however, end the support when the child turns 18 years of age.  So which law prevails when a custodial parent moves into Missouri with a child support order from a state that terminates the support at age 18?  Recently the Easter District of the Missouri Court of Appeals ruled that Missouri law prevails.  In Burke v. Hutto, decided November 20, 2007, the custodial parent (mother) moved into Missouri from California.  In 1991 a California court dissolved the parents' marriage and ordered the father to pay child support, which was later increased in a modification action.  Thereafter mother moved to Missouri and the father moved to Georgia.  In 1994 mother filed  in Missouri a motion to modify the child support amount and to have the father pay fifty percent of the child's college expenses.  The trial court granted the motion to modify.  When the child turned 19 years of age the father filed an affidavit for termination of the child support pursuant to California law that emancipated the child upon the 19th birth date.  The trial court terminated the child support upon its finding that the support issue was controlled by the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Law (URESA).  Mother appealed. 

The Appellate Court found that the father had waived any defense of lack of personal jurisdiction in the modification action filed in Missouri due to the fact that  father did nothing to impeach the modification judgment at the time it was sought to be enforced when a wage withholding was entered nor when he sought to terminate the child support.    With this waiver Missouri law applied to the the modification action and Missouri required, at that time, that child support continue until the child reaches the age of 22 or completes a post-secondary schooling, whichever comes first. (This is now changed to the age of 21).  In his argument the father stated that through URESA Georgia law should be applied because that is where he has lived since 1994 and Georgia terminates child support at the age of 18 years.  The Appellate Court ruled that URESA does not apply in this case because the mother did not initiate the action to enforce the child support order in Georgia but that father initiated the action in Missouri to terminate his child support obligation, and even if it did apply, Missouri controls.  In citing Lewis v. Roskin, 895 SW2d 190 (Mo. App. 1995), the court ruled that "Missouri's interest in protecting the welfare of its resident child outweighed the interest of the issuing state  . . .  in protecting its sovereignty."  The trial court's termination of the child support order was reversed and the trial court was ordered to reinstate the previous child support order issued by Missouri.

The conclusion - if the custodial parent moves to Missouri and seeks a modification of a child support order and the personal jurisdiction is not challenged and won, Missouri law will prevail on child support orders and the parent paying support could end up paying child support until the child reaches the age of 21 years or graduates from college, whichever comes first, regardless of the laws of the  state where the initial divorce was granted.

New Perspective on Representing Clients

I have represented divorce clients for almost 18 years now.  I thought I always had compassion and understanding about  my clients' needs, and I did.  I just didn't understand it exactly from their viewpoint or perspective.  Now I do.  I am in the process of getting divorced myself and let me say, it has opened my eyes on a lot of the emotional issues involving a divorce.    I have two children and I am trying to keep their best interests in mind with dealing with my soon to be ex.  It isn't always easy and I find myself biting back words, especially if I know the children are close by.  Dealing with him not wanting to pay child support even though I have the children the majority of the time, paying joint bills, deciding where to live,  when each will have the children, etc.   The list goes on.  There are so many issues that I disagree with him on but have to remain calm for the children's sake.  They are the most important part of this divorce and it is hard enough on them without us adding to their worries.  So, to all of you out there that have went through a divorce and managed to keep the children out of the battles - I salute you.  You have my utmost respect.  I know that when I represent a divorce client in the future, I will have more insight and respect for what the client is going through and, hopefully, my personal experience will make me a more compassionate attorney and more able to  guide them through the emotional process as well as the legal process.

Disclaimer

  • The materials on this web site have been prepared by The Umstattd-Cope Law Firm, LLC for information only. It is not intended to be nor should it be construed as legal advice or creating an attorney/client relationship. It is not guaranteed or warranted to be correct, complete or up-to-date. You should consult an attorney of your choice for legal advice. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Materials on this web site may only be reproduced in their entirety (without modification) for the individual reader's personal and/or educational use and must include this Disclaimer.
Blog powered by TypePad