Mcdaniel v. McDaniel

• Decision Date: 04 April 2013
• Docket Number: No. SD 31845.,SD 31845.
• Citation: 419 S.W.3d 828
• Parties: In re the MARRIAGE OF Kevin W. McDANIEL and Shannon M. McDaniel, Kevin W. McDaniel, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Shannon M. McDaniel, Respondent–Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

419 S.W.3d 828

In re the MARRIAGE OF Kevin W. McDANIEL and Shannon M. McDaniel,Kevin W. McDaniel, Petitioner–Respondent,

v.Shannon M. McDaniel, Respondent–Appellant.

No. SD 31845.

Missouri Court of Appeals,

Southern District,

Division Two.

April 4, 2013.

Joseph J. Kodner, St. Louis, MO, attorney for appellant.

Ronda L. Cortesini, Waynesville, MO, attorney for respondent.

MARY W. SHEFFIELD, J.

Shannon McDaniel (“Mother”) appeals from the trial court's judgment modifying the child custody and support provisions in the decree which dissolved Mother's marriage to Kevin McDaniel (“Father”). Mother raises four points on appeal: (1) the trial court's findings regarding the best interest of the children are not supported by substantial evidence and are against the weight of the evidence; (2) the trial court erred in adopting Father's Form 14; (3) the trial court erred in awarding retroactive child support prior to the date on which Father, the prevailing party, filed his motion to modify child custody and support; and (4) the trial court's judgment with respect to the amount of retroactive child support is too vague to be enforceable.

Mother's first two points fail, but her second two points have merit. Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

Standard of Review

We review judgments involving child custody and child support cases the same as any other court-tried case. See In re Marriage of Campbell, 868 S.W.2d 148, 150 (Mo.App. S.D.1993). That is, we will affirm the judgment “if it is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and does not erroneously declare or apply the law.” In re Marriage of Copeland, 148 S.W.3d 327, 329 (Mo.App. S.D.2004). “We must accept as true the evidence and permissible inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the decree and disregard all contrary evidence and inferences.” Tracy v. Tracy, 961 S.W.2d 855, 858 (Mo.App. S.D.1998). “A trial court is free to believe or disbelieve all, part or none of the testimony of any witness.” Campbell, 868 S.W.2d at 150.

Facts and Procedural History

Mother and Father were married in 1999. During the marriage, they had three children (“the children”): A.K.M., G.W.M., and A.R.M. The parties' marriage was dissolved in November 2009. The dissolution decree provided the parties would have joint physical and legal custody of the minor children with Father's address being designated as the residential address. The decree further provided the parties would alternate three week periods of custody and alternate holidays. The plan did not include provisions to account for the possibility that the parties might live far apart because at the time of the dissolution, Mother indicated she intended to maintain her residence in Missouri. The dissolution decree did not order Father to pay child support, but he nonetheless had an allotment of $700 per month from his military pay sent to Mother's account to help with the children's expenses.

At the time of the dissolution in 2009, the children had been visiting their maternal grandparents in South Carolina. At that time, Father was a member of the U.S. Army and was deployed to Afghanistan. Mother was traveling back and forth between Missouri and South Carolina.

Father returned from Afghanistan in April 2010. Father visited South Carolina for a month and had unlimited access to the children in South Carolina. In June, Father stopped sending money to Mother because Mother said she “had no intention of coming back to Missouri and bringing the kids back[.]” When Father took the children for the summer in June 2010, Mother made him promise in writing that he would return them because she “was afraid he was going to keep the kids.” The children returned to South Carolina in August 2010.

In September, Father traveled to South Carolina for A.K.M.'s birthday and to bring the children back to Missouri to begin school. Mother told Father she would call the police if he took the children. Fearing police action might hurt his military career, Father returned to Missouri without the children. Mother then filed a motion to set aside the dissolution decree based on allegations of fraud. The children returned to Missouri to spend time with Father for Thanksgiving in 2010. After the Thanksgiving, Father did not return the children to South Carolina.

Mother filed a motion to modify child custody and support on December 3, 2010. Father filed a counterclaim and his own motion to modify on August 30, 2011. Although they characterized the facts differently, both parties alleged Mother's move to South Carolina was a substantial and continuing change in circumstances which merited a modification of the child custody and support provisions of the dissolution decree.

The trial court held a hearing on all motions. Mother, Father, the children's maternal grandmother (“Grandmother”), and Grandmother's husband testified. The trial court found there had been a substantial change in circumstances which justified modifying the original judgment. Neither party challenges this conclusion on appeal. The trial court found the parties did not agree on a proposed parenting plan and rejected both proposed parenting plans. The trial court then made specific findings of fact with respect to each of the factors in section 452.375.2 ¹. The trial court ordered the parties to continue to exercise joint legal and physical custody. The residence of the children was to be with Father. The trial court adopted Father's Form 14, found the presumed child support amount in that Form 14 was reasonable, and ordered Mother to pay $431 per month in child support, effective December 3, 2010. As the judgment was dated October 19, 2011, the trial court ordered Mother to pay retroactive child support from December 3, 2010, at $100 per month until the amount due was paid in full. This appeal followed.

Discussion

Point I: Mother Fails to Demonstrate the Trial Court's Findings Regarding the Best Interest of the Children Are Not Supported By Substantial Evidence or Are Against the Weight of the Evidence

In Point I, Mother argues the trial court's findings with respect to the best interest of the children are not supported by substantial evidence and are against the weight of the evidence. Specifically, Mother contends: (1) the trial court improperly relied on conduct that occurred prior to the dissolution decree; (2) the evidence showed Mother would be more likely to promote relationships with significantothers; (3) the evidence showed Mother would be more likely to promote a continuing relationship between the children and Father; and (4) the evidence showed the children wanted to live with Mother. Mother's arguments are without persuasive force because they ignore the standard of review.

The standard of review in civil cases contemplates two types of arguments regarding the factual support for a trial court's judgment: a challenge that the decision is not supported by substantial evidence and a challenge that the decision is against the weight of the evidence. Houston v. Crider, 317 S.W.3d 178, 186–87 (Mo.App. S.D.2010). To present an argument that the judgment is not supported by substantial evidence, the appellant must complete three steps:

(1) identify a challenged factual proposition, the existence of which is necessary to sustain the judgment;

(2) identify all of the favorable evidence in the record supporting the existence of that proposition; and,

(3) demonstrate why that favorable evidence, when considered along with the reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence, does not have probative force upon the proposition such that the trier of fact could not reasonably decide the existence of the proposition.

Id. at 187. To present an argument that the judgment is against the weight of the evidence, the appellant must complete four steps:

(1) identify a challenged factual proposition, the existence of which is necessary to sustain the judgment;

(2) identify all of the favorable evidence in the record supporting the existence of that proposition;

(3) identify the evidence in the record contrary to the belief of that proposition, resolving all conflicts in testimony in accordance with the trial court's credibility determinations, whether explicit or implicit; and,

(4) demonstrate why the favorable evidence, along with the reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence, is so lacking in probative value, when considered in the context of the totality of the evidence, that it fails to induce belief in that proposition.

Id. Where the appellant fails to follow this framework, the appellant's argument is “analytically useless and provides no support” for his or her challenge. Id. at 188.

The argument section in support of Mother's first point wholly ignores this framework. Mother's argument is structured around the best interest factors of section 452.375.2, and she has a separate section challenging the trial court's findings regarding four of the factors. In none of the sections does she make it clear whether she is arguing that the evidence does not support the judgment or that the judgment is against the weight of the evidence. Furthermore, under the discussion of each factor, she fails to account for evidence or inferences favorable to the trial court's findings.

For example, when discussing the factor of the ability and willingness of the parents to perform their parental functions, Mother argues the trial court improperly relied on Mother's conduct prior to the marriage, pointing to the trial court's citation of Grandmother's testimony. Grandmother did say that prior to the dissolution Mother was not a model parent. At that time, Mother associated with people who wanted her to party and drink, and she did party and drink. While it is true that conduct occurred prior to the dissolution, Mother's argument does not mention Father's testimony on the issue. Father expressed continuing concerns about Mother's...