F.J.M. vs. F.L.J.
Appeal from Circuit Court of Carroll Court to the Missouri Court of Appeals –Western District
WD83840
Filed May 11, 2021
Outcome: Trial Court Ruling Affirmed
This case contains a lengthy procedural history. In summary, the parties, F.J.M. (hereinafter “Father”) and F.L.J. (hereinafter “Mother”) were in a romantic relationship when A.E.J.J. (hereinafter “minor child”) was born on August 4, 2010. When Mother sought to obtain child support from Father in 2015, both he and Mother acknowledged his paternity in an affidavit. In 2016, Father filed a Father’s Paternity Action alleging that he was biological and natural father of the minor child. Additionally, Mother also admitted that he was the Father of the minor child.
In April of 2018, Mother filed a motion requesting paternity testing of Father and Child based on her belief that Father may not, in fact, be Child’s father. On June 18, 2018, Mother filed a motion to dismiss Father’s petition alleging that genetic testing excluded Father as the biological father of Child and that pursuant to section 210.834.4 the action should be dismissed as to Father. Finally, in November 20, 2018, Mother filed an amended answer and third-party petition seeking to add M.D.H. as the natural father of Child.
After a trial in December 2019, the trial court found that: The trial court entered judgment declaring Father to be the natural, biological Father of the child and establishing child custody, visitation and support.
Mother then filed a four (4) point appeal, pursuant to which she alleged that: that the trial court erred in: (1) refusing to dismiss Father’s “petition for determination and declaration of paternity, order of child custody, and order of support” (“Father’s Paternity Action”) because it misapplied the law in that 2 under sections 210.845 and 452.370.6,1 the Pettis County circuit court, which docketed a prior administrative order for child support, had continuing and exclusive authority over a modification of that support; (2) refusing to dismiss Father as a party because it misapplied the law in that a paternity test established that he was not the biological father of Child; (3) declaring Father to be the Child’s father and proceeding to decide the action even though genetic testing showed he was not the biological father; and (4) in dismissing Mother’s third-party petition for paternity against an alleged biological father.
Point 1: The Court disagrees that the Circuit Court of Carroll County did not have authority to modify child support in Father’s Paternity Action. The Appellate Court noted that Mother misunderstood the relevant statute, in its opinion the Court held that: “Section 210.845.1 provides the burden of proof for seeking modification of a support decree. It does not provide any statement regarding continuing and exclusive authority to act with respect to a child support order.” Similarly, Section 452.370 expressly provides for the modification of court judgments, not administrative orders. Finally, “Section 454.490 merely provides an enforcement mechanism, and does not . . . transform administrative orders into circuit court judgments.”
Point 1 Denied.
Point 2: The Appellate Court held that the trial court did not err when it refused to dismiss Father as a party to the paternity action when a paternity test demonstrated that he was not the natural/biological father of the minor child.
The Appellate Opinion that both Mother and Father asserted on numerous occasions and past legal proceedings that Father was the natural and biological father of the minor child. Furthermore, the Appellate Court agreed with the trial court’s finding that Father’s Acknowledgment of Paternity was never properly challenged as required pursuant to Section 210.823. Furthermore, a 3rd party has not come and challenged the Father’s acknowledgement of paternity.
Point 2 Denied.
Point 3: The Appellate Court held that the trial court did not err when it declared that Father is the Child’s father and deciding Father’s paternity action while also acknowledging that DNA testing conclusively showed he was not the Child’s natural father.
This point fails due to Appellate Opinion’s determination with regards to Point II, that the Acknowledgment of Paternity is considered a legal finding of Father’s paternity which has remained unchallenged pursuant to section 210.823.
Point 3 Denied.
Point 4: The Appellate Court held that the trial court did not err in dismissing Mother’s third-party petition for paternity.
The Appellate Opinion held that: “This point also fails due to our determination in Point II, that the Acknowledgment of Paternity is considered a legal finding of Father’s paternity which has remained unchallenged pursuant to section 210.823. As such, Mother is precluded from challenging the legal finding of Father’s paternity except as provided in Section 210.823.1(2), which did not occur.”
Trial Court Ruling Affirmed.
