Roberts v. Alford, 59945

• Decision Date: 02 June 1992
• Docket Number: No. 59945,59945
• Citation: 832 S.W.2d 331
• Parties: Angela A. ROBERTS, Aleah Roberts and Rosina Roberts, Respondents, v. Elijah C. ALFORD, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 331

832 S.W.2d 331

Angela A. ROBERTS, Aleah Roberts and Rosina Roberts, Respondents, v. Elijah C. ALFORD, Appellant.

No. 59945.

Missouri Court of Appeals,

Eastern District,

Division Four.

June 2, 1992.

Larry D. Hale, Peoples, Hale and Coleman, St. Louis, for appellant.

Irvin Dubinsky, St. Louis, for respondents.

SMITH, Presiding Judge.

Defendant appeals from a judgment determining him to be the father of the two plaintiff children, awarding the plaintiff mother $8000 in back support, awarding future support of $300 per child per month, and awarding attorney's fees of $4500 to mother. We affirm. Defendant first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the finding of paternity. Mother testified that she and defendant engaged in sexual intercourse three or four times a week for a twelve year period. She testified that defendant was her only sexual partner during that period and both children were conceived during that period. Blood test results were entered into evidence by stipulation but those results are not included in the record on appeal. We may in those circumstances conclude that the intendment and content of the exhibit is favorable to the trial court's ruling and is unfavorable to the appellant. Doyle v. Doyle, 786 S.W.2d 620 (Mo.App.1990) . In 1978 mother brought a paternity action involving the first born daughter against defendant. That case was dismissed when defendant agreed to provide support for the daughter. Subsequently, defendant paid mother $65 per month until December 1986, when the present action was commenced.

In reviewing the judgment of the court we look to the evidence that supports the judgment and disregard that which is unfavorable to the judgment. Division of Family Services v. Guffey, 795 S.W.2d 546 (Mo.App.1990) [4, 5]. The favorable evidence establishes exclusive access to mother by defendant during the conception period, conduct by the defendant indicating acknowledgement of paternity of the first child and presumptively scientific evidence pointing to defendant as the father. We are entitled to disregard defendant's denial of access to the plaintiff and his explanation that he paid plaintiff because she was causing him trouble in his employment. Defendant also refers to plaintiff's testimony that she utilized birth control throughout the relationship. There was no evidence of the birth control utilized or the efficacy of the particular method utilized. The evidence is fully sufficient to support the finding of paternity.

Defendant next challenges the award of back support on the basis that it also is not supported by the evidence. The award covered the period from January 1987 to the date of the decree, a period of 62 months. The amount awarded divided by the months covered indicates...