Opinion ID: 2165900
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Challenges to Regulation 13 CSR 30-5.010 are Without Merit.

Text: Ms. Hansen alternatively challenges 13 CSR 30-5.010, the regulation that sets forth the guidelines to be followed by the Division . . . to determine the current amount of support due when establishing or modifying child support obligations. She contends that the regulation improperly permits the Division to consider only a subset of the statutory factors under section 452.340, which govern a court's modification of child support orders. As a result, she argues, the regulation violates Missouri's constitutional prohibition against the legislature enacting a special law . . . regulating the practice or jurisdiction of, or changing the rules of evidence in any judicial proceeding or inquiry before courts . . . or other tribunals. Mo. Const. art. III, sec. 40(4). A special law includes less than all who are similarly situated, but a law is not special if it applies to all of a given class alike and the classification is made on a reasonable basis. Murray v. Mo. Highway & Tranport. Comm'n, 37 S.W.3d 228, 237 (Mo. banc 2001). The regulation Ms. Hansen is challenging applies whenever the Division is involved in establishing or modifying child support obligations. Thus, the law applies to all persons subject to support orders with which the Division is involved. Even assuming a regulation can be a special law, 13 CSR 30-5.010 is not one. [5] Ms. Hansen alternatively argues that 13 CSR 30-5.010 is invalid because it is inconsistent with the statute governing a court's modification of child support orders, sec. 452.340, and Rule 88.01, which governs any modification of such orders. She contends that the regulation permits the Division to use a different standard in that it does not require the Division to consider all the relevant factors in deciding whether to file a motion to modify a child support order. Ms. Hansen is correct that Rule 88.01 mandates that both courts and administrative agencies involved in determining the correct amount of child support . . . shall consider all relevant factors, including all relevant statutory factors, and must follow the guidelines provided in Form 14. [6] Rule 88.01(a)-(b) (emphasis added); see also sec. 452.340.1 (listing statutory factors). Indeed, it would be counterproductive to permit the Division to consider different factors than the court that issued the original support order, as evaluation of different factors would necessarily lead to a determination that a different amount of support is required in cases in which the different factors are relevant. The Division is not free to disregard the requirements of Rule 88.01 or to adopt regulations that are inconsistent with applicable statutes and Supreme Court rules. PharmFlex, Inc. v. Div. of Employment Sec., 964 S.W.2d 825, 829 (Mo.App. W.D.1997) (The rules or regulations of a state agency are invalid if . . . they attempt to expand or modify statutes. Further, regulations may not conflict with the statutes and if a regulation does, it must fail.). The effect of the alleged variation between the regulation and the applicable statute and rule is particularly unclear given that the regulation states that the Division shall follow, as its Child Support Obligation Guidelines, . . . Rule 88.01 and . . . Form 14 and the accompanying Schedule of Basic Child Support Obligations, 13 CSR 30-5.010(1)(B). In this case specifically, it is not clear how the alleged variations between the Division's regulation and the statute will affect Ms. Hansen, for she has challenged the regulation before learning the basis on which the Division has moved to modify her child support. At this point, when no administrative hearing has yet been held, it is speculative whether the administrative determination of Ms. Hansen's child support obligation will be inconsistent with the statute or at variance with the dictates of this Court's rules. If the Division, at some later date, attempts to apply a standard different than that required by Rule 88.01 or section 452.340, [7] Ms. Hansen can then seek the appropriate relief. [8] To the extent that Ms. Hansen seeks to have this Court declare the regulation invalid as a general matter, and not as applied to her, she is seeking declaratory relief. See sec. 536.050.1, RSMo Supp. 2006 (The power of the courts of this state to render declaratory judgments shall extend to declaratory judgments respecting the validity of rules, or of threatened applications thereof); Rule 87.02(c) (same). She has not, however, filed a declaratory judgment action. Rather, Ms. Hansen is seeking a writ prohibiting the holding of a contested administrative proceeding. This is not the proper forum to seek such declaratory relief, for a court cannot render such a judgment without a sufficiently complete state of facts presenting issues ripe for determination. City of Joplin v. Mo. Lead & Zinc Co., 861 S.W.2d 157, 160 (Mo.App. S.D.1993). [9]