Court Opinion

ID: 9654901
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 18:54:23.525034+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:14.601742
License: Public Domain

LAURA DENVIR STITH, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion as to the meaning of the word “complete” as used by the legislature in Section 452.340.5. That section states, in relevant part, that the parental support obligation will continue until a child completes his or her education:
If, Avhen a child reaches age eighteen, ... the child is enrolled in an institution of vocational or higher education ... and so long as the child enrolls for and completes at least twelve hours of credit each semester ... and achieves grades sufficient to reenroll at such institution ...
Sec. 452.340.5. As the majority notes, the legislature thus imposed three requirements for continued support: (1) enrollment in college, (2) completion of 12 hours of credit each semester, and (3) achievement of grades sufficient to reenroll at that institution.
In effect, the majority is holding that any student who, like Ms. Lombardo, fails to receive passing grades in at least 12 hours of classes per semester is no longer eligible for child support. If the legislature had intended to make such a drastic change in the law, however, it would and could have said so more clearly, such as by stating that the child must enroll in and receive passing grades in at least 12 hours of credit each semester. The legislature did not require that a child receive passing grades in at least 12 hours of course credit each semester, however. To the contrary, it simply required that the child complete those 12 hours of credit. Ms. Lombardo did complete them, albeit not successfully. However, successful completion is not a requirement under the statute.
This is not to say that a child can continually attend one school after another and flunk all of his or her courses year after year, yet receive child support, as the majority suggests would occur unless we interpret completion to mean successful completion. This argument results from the majority’s confusion of the second and third statutory requirements. As the majority notes, the first requirement is that the child enroll in college, and all agree this was accomplished here. The second requirement is that the child complete 12 hours of credit each semester, and Ms. Lombardo has done so by completing her 12 hours of classes.
Academic achievement comes into play in the third, not the second, requirement. In addition to enrolling and completing 12 hours of credit, the child must achieve grades sufficient to reenroll, and to do so at such institution. The institution which Ms. Lombardo attended, the University of Texas at San Antonio, found her eligible to re-enroll (on academic probation) for the following semester. It is evident from the record that, had she reenrolled and again flunked all of her classes, she would not have been eligible to reenroll again. In that instance, she would not have met the third requirement for child support, and her support would have terminated at that *392tune. Wisely, given her academic performance at the University of Texas, she instead chose to enroll in a junior college. If she successfully completed 12 hours of credit there, and was eligible to reenroll there in the fall, then she would have continued to be eligible for child support. If not, her support would have ended. However, since she had completed 12 hours credit and was eligible to reenroll at the University of Texas in January, she was entitled to get a chance to complete another semester of college, and to do so at a level which would allow her to reenroll there.
Contrary to the majority’s argument, this interpretation of the statute is also consistent with the legislative history of the requirements for continued child support while obtaining a post-secondary education. Prior to 1990, a child needed simply to attend an institution of vocational or higher education. See Sec. 452.340.5 RSMo. Supp.1989. In 1990, the statute was revised to require the child to continue to attend the institution. See Sec. 452.340.5 RSMo Supp.1990. In other words, the child could not obtain funds if the child simply enrolled and then dropped out. In 1997, the statute was changed to its current form. This constituted a major change, for not only does the child have to continue to attend the school, but the child must enroll in and complete 12 hours of credit. Thus, the child cannot just enroll in 4 hours of classes, or enroll in 12 hours of classes but then drop 8 of those hours. The child must enroll in and complete at least 12 hours of classes each semester. This imposed, basically, a requirement that the child attend school full time. In addition, the legislature imposed the academic requirement that the child achieve grades sufficiently good to allow the child to reen-roll the following term.
Unfortunately, the majority mixes the purpose of the second criterion for eligibility for child support - completion of a full-time load - with the purpose of the third criterion for eligibility - achieving a minimum academic proficiency in completing that load. This is not what the legislature intended. Completion of 12 hours of credit should be interpreted to mean just that - completing the hours, whatever the grades given. Academics are sufficiently taken care of under the third criterion.
In conclusion, I note that many students now attending school who flunk one of their courses and only pass 10 or 11 hours of credits will be very surprised at the majority’s interpretation of the statute. Surely these students thought that as long as they enrolled in and attended at least 12 hours of classes, and did well enough to be allowed to re-enroll, they would continue to be eligible for child support even if they flunked one class. Apparently, the majority believes that not to be the case. Certainly, it holds it is not the case for Ms. Lombardo. However well she did her semester at junior college, she was not eligible for support during that semester under the majority’s ruling. I respectfully disagree with this interpretation of the statute, and dissent.