Hagen v. Harris

680 S.W.3d 529

Matthew W. HAGEN, Respondent,

v.Jamie L. HARRIS, Appellant.

No. ED 110935

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.

Filed: November 21, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Honorable Joseph L. Green, Judge

FOR APPELLANT: Michael P. Cohan, The Cohan Law Firm, LLC, 225 South Meramec Avenue, Suite 502, Clayton, Missouri 63105.

FOR RESPONDENT: John T. Bridges, Medler & Roither, LLC, 7733 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1850, St. Louis, Missouri 63105.

GUARDIAN AD LITEM: Dawn K. whittle, 8000 Crescent Drive, Clayton, Missouri 63105.

Philip M. Hess, Judge

Introduction

Jamie Harris ("Mother") appeals the circuit court’s finding of paternity and judgment for custody and child support of a child ("Child") she shares with Matthew Hagen ("Father"). Mother raises two points on appeal. In Point I, Mother alleges the circuit court erred in its Form 14 child support calculation of the presumed correct support amount ("PCSA"). In Point II, Mother alleges the circuit court erred in overruling her motion to reopen the case to consider additional evidence of charges related to Father driving while intoxicated ("DWI" and "alcohol-related charges") given his alleged alcohol use was a contested issue in the case.

Because the circuit court erred in calculating the PCSA, we grant Point I. Because the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mother’s request to reopen the evidence and consider new evidence of Father’s alcohol-related charges, we deny Point II.

The circuit court’s judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the case remanded for the circuit court to recalculate Line 11 in the PCSA to match the circuit court’s amended exchange schedules.

Factual and Procedural Background

Mother and Father (collectively, "Parents") share a two-year-old child ("Child"). Father is listed as Child’s father on her birth certificate and is her biological father according to both parties. On January 19, 2020, Parents were engaged in a domestic dispute at Father’s house, and the police were called. On January 21, 2020, St. Charles County Circuit Court issued an adult ex parte order of protection against Mother and an ex parte child order of protection against Mother upon Father’s request. On the same day, St. Louis County Circuit Court issued an adult ex parte order of protection against Father upon Mother’s request. A day later, Mother obtained an ex parte child order of protection against Father. Father filed a petition for child custody and support on January 29, 2020. A guardian ad litem ("GAL") was appointed for Child.

Relevant to the points on appeal, Parents submitted proposed parenting plans and Form 14s. Mother’s proposed Form 14 provided a Line 11 adjustment of 23% for 131-136 overnights with Father. Father’s proposed Form 14 provided a Line 11 adjustment of 34% for 181-183 overnights. Mother’s proposed Weekday and Weekend Exchange Schedule ("exchange schedule") provided Father with every Wednesday overnight and every other weekend beginning at 4:00 p.m. on Friday and ending at 4:00 p.m. on Monday. Father’s exchange schedule proposed Father receive Child from 6:00 p.m. Friday through 6:00 p.m. Wednesday every other week and 6:00 p.m. Monday through 6:00 p.m. Wednesday every other week for a 50-50 split. The GAL also submitted a proposed parenting plan. The GAL’s exchange schedule proposed Mother receive custody beginning on Sunday in the first week, with Father receiving Wednesday overnight in the first week and every other weekend.

The circuit court held a trial on September 2, 2021. Father, Mother, Mother’s boyfriend, and the GAL testified. Relevant to these points on appeal, Father testified he drinks alcohol two to three times a month and smokes a pack of cigarettes a day. Father denied drinking while exercising custody. Father testified he underwent alcohol monitoring and testing. Father testified there were no positive results from either program. Regarding the protection orders, Father testified Mother alleged he was drunk, he shoved her, and beat her while she was holding Child. Father denied these events happened. Father alleged Mother accused him of talking to other women, and as a result, he refused to let Mother take Child with her and she left without her. Father alleged Mother pushed and scratched him, but he did not contact the police at that time; instead he obtained the order of protection the next day.

Mother testified she believed Father to be a violent person, due to his anger outbursts, which usually occurred after his binge drinking. Mother testified Father’s behavior worsened after Child was born. Mother testified Father drank every weekend, consuming a six- or thirty-pack of beer or "whatever else" was in the home. Mother testified Father would come home from work during the week, consume a six- or twelve-pack of beer, and then go to sleep. Mother acknowledged Father’s court-ordered drug and alcohol tests were negative, although she believed there was a missing test result.

Regarding the protection orders, Mother testified Father drank a large bottle of alcohol while caring for Child, which upset Mother, causing an argument. Mother testified Father began to get physical, punched her multiple times, and pushed her to the ground while she was holding Child. Mother testified Father took Child from her, took Child into the bedroom, and locked the door. Mother testified she left to not escalate the situation. Mother testified Father subsequently left, driving off through the front yard, and not telling her where he was taking Child. Mother testified she was pregnant at the time of this incident, but later miscarried. Mother testified she believed the miscarriage was caused by Father shoving her down.

On April 22, 2022, the circuit court, on its own motion, dismissed all orders of protection pending between Parents. On May 6, 2022, the circuit court entered its judgment awarding Father and Mother joint legal and physical custody of Child. The circuit court’s judgment further ordered: Mother and Father to perform their duties as parents according to the parenting plan; Father to pay Mother $221.00 per month in child support; and Mother to prepare income withholding. The judgment awarded the GAL $7,880.00 in fees and awarded Mother to pay $5,000.00 toward Father’s attorney’s fees. The circuit court accepted Father’s Form 14 calculations and did not rebut the PCSA as being unjust or inappropriate. The circuit court rejected Parents’ exchange schedules and instead accepted the GAL’s schedule "with a couple of exceptions." As to Father’s alleged alcoholism and drug abuse, the circuit court determined:

Mother not only alleged that Father was an alcoholic but also alleged that Father’s entire family were alcoholics. Mother alleged that Father was intoxicated in the incident referenced above on January 19, 2020. The responding police officer’s narrative in the police report stated "[Father] did not display any signs that he was impaired and I did not detect any signs of impairment."

The documented evidence via Soberlink and drug tests, supports a finding that the current existing conditions are one in which Father does not suffer from alcohol/substance abuse.

More importantly, there is absolutely no credible evidence presented that Father currently abuses alcohol or illicit drugs that would impair his ability to parent or impaired his ability to care for [Child]."

The circuit court further found, "Father does not suffer from any current substance abuse or addiction problems that would impair his ability to parent [Child] or inhibit his ability to care for [Child]."

On June 2, 2022, Mother moved to reopen the evidence because on or about January 9, 2022, Father was arrested for alcohol-related charges.¹ Mother also moved to amend the judgment asking the circuit court to correct alleged factual errors. The circuit court heard Mother’s motion and then denied her motion to reopen the evidence and her motion to amend the judgment except for correcting Child’s date of birth in the judgment (the "Amended Judgment").

This appeal follows.

Discussion

Point I: Form 14 Miscalculation

Party Positions

In Point I, Mother alleges the circuit court erred in its child support award in calculating the Form 14 PCSA.² Mother argues the circuit court’s error is on Line 11, the custody credit. Mother further argues the circuit court erred when it "implicitly" determined it would not rebut the PCSA as unjust or inappropriate. Mother requests this Court to reverse the award of child support and remand the case for a new calculation.

Standard of Review

This Court will affirm the circuit court’s judgment "unless it is not supported by substantial evidence, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law." Schumert v. Dreyer, 481 S.W.3d 885, 888 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016) (citing Kamler v. Kamler, 213 S.W.3d 185, 187 (Mo. App. E.D. 2007)); Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976).

Analysis

[1, 2] In determining child support, the circuit court must follow the two-step procedure in Woolridge v. Woolridge, 915 S.W.2d 372, 379 (Mo. App. W.D. 1996). "In determining the [PCSA] under the first step, the trial court can either accept one of the parties’ Form 14 calculations or reject both parties’ calculations and prepare its own Form 14 calculation." Roberts v. Roberts, 391 S.W.3d 921, 922 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) (citing Woolridge, 915 S.W.2d at 381). In step two, the circuit court must "consider whether to rebut the [PCSA], as found by the court, as being unjust or inappropriate after consideration of all relevant factors." Id. at 922-23 (quoting Woolridge, 915 S.W.2d at 379).

Mother alleges the circuit court erred in its Line 11 credit determinations. Line 11 allows for adjustment for a portion of amounts expended by the parent obligated to pay child support during periods of overnight visitation or custody. In its directions for Line 11, "The...