Phillips v. Missouri Dept. of Social Services Child Support Enforcement Div., 68118

Decision Date13 January 1987
Docket NumberNo. 68118,68118
Citation723 S.W.2d 2
PartiesMyra Lea PHILLIPS as guardian ad litem for Nicole Michelle Phillips and Kelea Marie Phillips, Appellant, v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DIVISION, Respondent.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Norman W. Lampton, Columbia, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., William E. Cornwell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

RENDLEN, Judge.

The essential facts are not in dispute and appear to be as follows: In 1981, the Circuit Court of Audrain County, in a civil proceeding there, entered a judgment ordering Kenneth Phillips to pay child support for Shannon Littrell, his child born out of wedlock to him and Barbara Long. In the years that followed Phillips became delinquent under the judgment for child support, and respondent, who had supplied aid for the dependent child because of Kenneth Phillips' delinquencies, as the assignee of Barbara Long ordered execution and garnishment in aid thereof to collect the amounts due upon said judgment from the wages of Kenneth Phillips. Sometime after Shannon's birth, Kenneth Phillips married Myra Lea Phillips, and two daughters, Nicole and Kelea Phillips, were born of the marriage. Myra Lea Phillips, as guardian ad litem for Nicole and Kelea, filed a petition in the Circuit Court of Boone County on January 17, 1986, seeking a temporary restraining order to prevent respondent from garnishing Kenneth Phillips' wages. That proceeding, No. 319803, came on for hearing, and after evidence was taken and argument heard, the cause was submitted to the circuit court and judgment was entered on January 22, 1986, denying plaintiff's claim for equitable relief and costs were "taxed against Petitioner."

Thereafter the guardian ad litem filed two petitions in the Circuit Court of Boone County, one for declaratory judgment and the other for "preliminary and permanent injunction." Those actions were combined and filed as case # 319803-01 and a single summons issued directing the Missouri Department of Social Services as defendant to appear within thirty days from the date of service. By her petitions, the guardian ad litem sought a declaration that §§ 452.140, RSMo 1978, and 454.505, RSMo Cum.Supp.1984, were unconstitutional as denying Nicole and Kelea their rights to due process and equal protection under U.S. Const. amends. V and XIV and "similar provisions of the Missouri Constitution," 1 and to enjoin respondent from proceeding with the pending garnishment in aid of execution under the judgment of the Circuit Court of Audrain County. The defendant, respondent here, moved to dismiss the petitions and the circuit court after considering the pleadings as well as the argument of counsel, on April 9, 1986, sustained respondent's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and it is from that judgment that the guardian ad litem appealed. 2 Because the validity of a statute is in issue, the cause falls within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of this Court. Mo. Const. art. V, § 3.

As noted above there is no challenge to the efficacy of the Audrain County judgment ordering Kenneth Phillips to provide support for his minor child Shannon and no dispute as to the fact of his delinquencies. Neither is any question raised concerning the manner of issuance or the form of the execution and writ of garnishment in aid thereof. Instead appellant contends that under the garnishment statutes 3 the holding of a portion of Kenneth Phillips' wages would deny Nicole and Kelea: (1) due process in that they would be unconstitutionally deprived of their interest in their father's wages without notice and hearing; and (2) equal protection in that they will be unconstitutionally discriminated against if 55% of Kenneth Phillips' wages are garnished for Shannon's support, because assuming 100% of his wages are available for the support of his children, such garnishment would leave only 22.5% of Kenneth Phillips' wages for each of them.

Reviewing the dismissal of appellant's petitions, we allow the pleadings their broadest intendment, treat all facts alleged as true and construe the allegations favorably to appellant. Martin v. Crowley, Wade & Milstead, Inc., 702 S.W.2d 57 (Mo. banc 1985). A motion to dismiss presents the question whether plaintiff has stated enough to invoke substantive principles of law which entitle him to some relief. City of Creve Coeur v. Creve Coeur Fire Protection Dist., 355 S.W.2d 857, 859 (Mo.1962). In this case, Nicole and Kelea fail to state a claim entitling them to relief because they lack standing to challenge the garnishment of Kenneth Phillips' wages. They were in no way involved in, nor parties to, the original Audrain County trial and judgment to which this garnishment proceeding is ancillary. "The requirement that a party have standing to bring an action is a component of the general requirement of justiciability." Harrison v. Monroe County, 716 S.W.2d 263, 265 (Mo. banc 1986). In an action for declaratory judgment or one of injunctive relief, the criteria for standing is whether the plaintiff has a legally protectable interest at stake. Schweig v. City of St. Louis, 569 S.W.2d 215, 223 (Mo.App.1978). "A legally protectible interest contemplates a pecuniary or personal interest directly in issue or jeopardy which is subject to some consequential relief, immediate or prospective." Absher v. Cooper, 495 S.W.2d 696, 698 (Mo.App.1973).

Nicole and Kelea lack the legally protectable interest in the wages to be garnished required to afford them standing. Their father's common law duty to support his children, e.g., State ex rel. Division of Family Servs. v. Standridge, 676 S.W.2d 513, 515 (Mo. banc 1984), does not provide them sufficient standing to bring the actions contemplated here. A father's financial status does not determine his duty to support his family, id. at 517, and garnishment of Kenneth Phillips' wages will not affect his duty to support Nicole and Kelea. There has been no...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Smith v. Duesenberg (In re J.D.S.), WD 78318
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 26. Januar 2016
    ... ... WD 78318 C/w WD 78492 Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District. OPINION ... "), are maternal grandparents of the minor child, J.S. 1 Respondent, Amy Duesenberg ... banc 2002), to support these statements. Farmer states that ... In support the Smiths cite to Phillips v. Mo. Dep't of Soc. Servs., which excluded ... ...
  • Noble v. Noble
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri
    • 10. März 2015
    ... ... Linda L. Noble, Appellant. WD 77476 Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District. OPINION ... or modify pre-trial maintenance would support, at most, the return of two months of payments, ... Phillips v. Mo. Dep't of Soc. Servs. Child Support rcement Div., 723 S.W.2d 2, 4 (Mo. banc 1987). A legally ... ...
  • Noble v. Noble
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 10. März 2015
    ... ... Linda L. Noble, Appellant. WD 77476 Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District. OPINION ... or modify pre-trial maintenance would support, at most, the return of two months of payments, ... Phillips v. Mo. Dep't of Soc. Servs. Child Support rcement Div., 723 S.W.2d 2, 4 (Mo. banc 1987). A legally ... ...
  • Citizens for Preservation v. City of Rolla
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 7. August 2007
    ... ... CITY OF ROLLA, Missouri, et al., Defendants-Respondents ... No. 28083 ... Phillips v. Mo. Dept. of Social Services, 723 S.W.2d 2, 4 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT