Court Opinion

ID: 9669687
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:06:20.533821+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:59.732261
License: Public Domain

NANCY STEFFEN RAHMEYER, Judge.
I respectfully dissent. I believe this case does not come within section 452.340.8 or section 454.4001 and, thus, is a case of first impression. As such, I would find that Rule 882 and the use of the Form No. 14 are not warranted in a third-party custody arrangement.
I arrive at this conclusion because chapter 452 is entitled “Dissolution of Marriage, Divorce, Alimony and Separate Maintenance” and concerns itself primarily with dissolution and custody matters. The issues involving children in foster care are not contained within these sections of the statute. Likewise, section 454.470, which is in the chapter entitled “Enforcement of Support Law,” provides that the director may issue a notice and finding to a parent who owes a state debt or who is responsible for-the support of a child on whose behalf the custodian of that child is receiving support enforcement services from the division. Section 454.465 determines what a “state debt” is:
a payment of public assistance by the division of family services to or for the benefit of ... the caretaker of the child, creates an obligation, to be called “state debt,” which is due and owing to the department by the parent, or parents, absent from the home where the dependent child resided at the time the public assistance was paid.
I do not believe either prong is at issue in this case with a child who was in the custody of the Benton County Division of Family Services.3 There is nothing in the record to indicate that a state debt was proven or plead, nor was there any indication that the custodian of the child was receiving support enforcement services from the division.
I believe the trial court correctly determined that Rule 88 was inapplicable to a *593third-party custody arrangement. All of the comments and presumptions for use of the Form No. 14 support that reasoning. For instance, the worksheet refers to “the parent obligated to pay support” and “the parent entitled to receive support.” If the Form No. 14 were to be used with the State as the “parent entitled to receive support,” there would still have to be some dollar amount used for the “parent entitled to receive support.” The directions for use become nonsensical when the State’s income is used in the Form No. 14. Among the assumptions used to calculate the child support, guidelines are based on “the income shares model, which seeks to apportion to the child the amount that the parents would have spent if the household were intact.” Again, what income would be apportioned to the child had the grandmother’s home remained intact? Throughout the assumptions, the term “parent entitled to receive support” is used. There is no assumption for a child in third-party custody. In fact, an obvious dilemma will be presented when a child is placed with a relative. If the guidelines apply to third-party custody, are both parents and the custodian’s income to be used in the Form No. 14? There is no provision for such in the Form No. 14.
I believe public policy supports a decision that Rule 88 is inapplicable in third-party custody cases such as this. By this ruling, we place grandmother in a horrible quandary when faced with providing necessary care for a child with extraordinary medical needs. If she had kept the child in her home, she would have the benefit of the child’s social security payments plus the total amount of her own income to provide a home for the child, but the child’s health needs would still not be met. On the other hand, because she could not provide the necessary health benefits for the child without assistance from the State, she voluntarily placed the child in a situation to benefit from better health care and is now being forced to keep health insurance on the child (with no indication that the health insurance is necessary or used by the State) and lose approximately one-fourth of her disposable income, severely limiting her capacity to provide for herself or future care for the child. I do not think the legislature contemplated a situation such as this when enacting chapters 452 and 454. I would find the use of Rule 88.01(b) and the Form No. 14 to be inapplicable in a third-party custody situation and would affirm the trial court’s decision.

. All references to statutes are to RSMo 2000, unless otherwise specified.

. All rule references are to Supreme Court Rules (2004), unless otherwise stated.

.The State of Missouri now refers to the Division of Family Services (DFS) as the Family Support Division (FSD).