Langston v. Langston
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Clay County to Missouri Court of Appeals – Western District
WD82954
Opinion Filed December 29, 2020
Trial Court Ruling Affirmed
J. Langston (hereinafter “Father”) and L. Langston (hereinafter “Mother”) were divorced on March 13, 2012 and are the parents of one child. Mother was granted sole physical custody and both she and Father had joint legal custody. Father was ordered to pay $453.00/month in child support. Each parent was also required to pay half of uninsured medical expenses for the child and half of the child’s extracurricular expenses.
Following protracted litigation, Father’s monthly child support award increased to $1,600.00/month. The increase was based on Father’s income, uninsured costs for the child’s psychiatric treatment and therapy and tutoring expenses.
Father raised five points on appeal: (1) The trial court erred in requiring Father to pay a portion of Mother’s attorney’s fees; (2) the trial court erred in the determination of Father’s child support award; (3) the trial court miscalculated Father’s income; (4) the trial court erroneously included Mother’s child-care costs and (5) the trial court erroneously included the costs related to the child’s psychiatric treatment and tutoring expenses.Point 1: Trial Court Erred in Ordering Father to pay a Portion of Mother’s Attorney’s Fees
The trial court found Mother’s testimony that she lacked the financial resources to pay her attorney’s fees to be credible. Additionally, Father engaged in misconduct during the litigation including filing voluminous and frivolous discovery requests and failing to disclose information until the eve of trial. Father failed to disclose in a timely manner that he had been charged with multiple felonies in May of 2018 which prolonged litigation. Trial court ruling affirmed.Point 2: The Trial Court Erred in Calculating Father’s Income
The Appellate Court found that the trial court’s method of calculating Father’s monthly income to be reasonable and not against the weight of the evidence. The trial court rejected that Father’s income information from four years ago should be used in the present matter. Trial court ruling affirmed.Point 3: Trial Court Erred in Including Work Related Child Care Costs in the Child Support Award
The child support award, based on Father’s calculated monthly income was not against the weight of the evidence. The trial court found that Mother’s testimony regarding the necessity and cost of child care was credible. Trial court ruling affirmed.
Point 4: Trial Court Erred in Including Child’s Therapy and Psychiatric Expenses in the Child Support Award
Father argues that the child’s psychiatric and therapy expense should excluded from his monthly child support award because: (1) Mother failed to consult Father about the child’s psychiatric treatment and (2) the inclusion of these expenses in the trial court’s Form 14 duplicated expenses to be paid by Father pursuant to the Judgment of Dissolution.
Mother testified that the child had been seeing a therapist since he was five years old. The uninsured expense for therapy was $61.00/month and the uninsured expense for the psychiatrist was $74.00/month. Father had refused to contribute to both of these expenses. The trial court found that it was appropriate to include the $135.00/month as recurring expense for the purposes of the child support calculation. Furthermore, the trial court found that these services were medically necessary for the child. The Appellate Court rejected Father’s argument that the expense was duplicated. Trial court ruling affirmed.Point 5: Trial Court Erred in Including Child’s Tutoring Expenses in the Child Support Award
Father argued that the tutoring expenses were unnecessary since Mother did not consult him about it and the inclusion of these expenses in the trial court’s Form 14 duplicated expenses to be paid by Father pursuant to the Judgment of Dissolution.
Mother testified that the child needs academic support, tutoring was recommended by his teachers and that the child has been receiving tutoring for several years. Father has refused to contribute to this expense. The trial court found Mother’s testimony to credible. The Appellate Court rejected Father’s argument that the expense was duplicated. Trial court ruling affirmed.
Do you have questions about your child support award? Contact The Shah Law Firm, LLC for your free initial 30 minute consultation!
