PRESTON SCOTT BUCKALLEW INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF AND MINORS v. SHELBY HALL (2026)

Preston Buckallew (“Father”) appeals from a judgment denying his motion to modify an award of child support entered in a paternity action. Father argues that the trial court misapplied the law in that it failed to adhere to Rule 88.01 and the guidelines set forth in Form 14.¹ Finding no error, we affirm.

Factual and Procedural History 2

In March 2023, Father filed a paternity action with respect to two minor children, B.B. and K.B (collectively “the Children”), whose natural mother is Shelby Hall (“Mother”). Following a bench trial, the trial court issued a judgment and decree of paternity on October 30, 2023 (“Paternity Judgment”). The Paternity Judgment found that a father-child relationship exists between Father and each of the Children; awarded joint physical and legal custody of the Children to Mother and Father pursuant to the parenting plan jointly proposed by the parties; and ordered Father to pay Mother $650 per month in child support pursuant to the Form 14 calculation proposed by Mother and adopted by the trial court. The parenting plan contemplated a roughly 50-50 parenting time schedule, with Mother having a right of first refusal should Father be unable to exercise his overnight parenting time. Consistent with the directions for preparing a Form 14, the presumptive child support calculation allowed Father a 34 percent adjustment because the parenting plan awarded Father 181 to 183 overnight visits per year.

On November 6, 2024, Father filed a motion to modify the child support award (“Motion to Modify”). The Motion to Modify asserted that there had been a substantial and continuing change in circumstances that necessitated a modification of the child support order. The Motion to Modify argued that the Form 14 originally adopted by the trial court included a monthly credit for child care in the amount of $380 that was no longer required, and that the presumptive child support award should be reduced from $650 to $432 per month. Father submitted a proposed Form 14 to support his Motion to Modify that included information identical to the original Form 14 with the exception of removal of the $380 credit for child care costs. Father argued that the presumed child support calculation reflected on his Form 14 deviated from the original child support award by 20 percent or more.

The trial court held a bench trial in June 2025 to consider the parties’ arguments and evidence on the Motion to Modify. Mother argued that the child support calculation in the Form 14 submitted by Father should be rebutted as unjust and inappropriate because it continued to include a 34 percent adjustment for Father's exercise of overnight parenting time. Mother presented evidence that Father only exercised overnight parenting time with the Children on 112 nights in 2024, and on 45 nights during the first five months of 2025. Mother also complained that she still wanted to send the Children to a summer YMCA camp to assist with child care.

Father acknowledged that while the parenting plan adopted by the trial court in the Paternity Judgment provided for a 50-50 split of parenting time, the Children did not spend 50 percent of their overnights with him. Father explained that, as a firefighter, he works 24-hour shifts, and pursuant to the parenting plan, he must give Mother the right of first refusal, which she has exercised on nights that he has to work. The evidence also established other occasions unrelated to work when Father was out of town or otherwise unavailable to exercise his overnight parenting time.

On August 22, 2025, the trial court issued a judgment denying Father's Motion to Modify (“Judgment”). The Judgment acknowledged that the Form 14 submitted in support of the Motion to Modify reflected a presumed child support amount that deviated from the original child support award by more than 20 percent, resulting in a prima facie showing of a substantial change in circumstances that rendered the original child support award unreasonable pursuant to section 210.845.1.³ However, the trial court found that Father's Form 14 was not correct because: (i) in assuming the same financial resources Father had when the original child support order was entered, Father failed to account for the extent to which his reasonable expenses are or should be shared by his live-in girlfriend; (ii) Father removed the full credit of $380 per month for child care even though only $280 of that amount was allocable to the early child care program that was no longer being used, while $100 was allocable to a YMCA program Mother still wanted to use for summer child care for the Children; and (iii) Father included a 34 percent adjustment for his overnight parenting time even though the overnights Father had been exercising since entry of the Paternity Judgment would only support an adjustment of 10 to 13 percent.

The trial court concluded that because Father's Form 14 was not correct, Father had not established a deviation in the presumptive child support award of 20 percent or more from the original child support award as to require the trial court to recalculate child support pursuant to section 210.845.2.⁴ The trial court denied Father's Motion to Modify.

Father appeals.

Standard of Review

The standard of review for the denial of a motion to modify a child support award is “the same as in any other court-tried case.” L.K.B. by Bethel v. Salmon, 702 S.W.3d 88, 91 (Mo. App. W.D. 2024) (quoting Sansone v. Fulton, 679 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Mo. App. W.D. 2023)). “We will affirm the trial court's judgment unless it is unsupported by substantial evidence, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law.” Id. (quoting Sansone, 679 S.W.3d at 13). We give no deference to the trial court's declaration or application of the law and instead review those determinations de novo. Eikmeier v. Granite Springs Home Owners Ass'n, 727 S.W.3d 432, 435-36 (Mo. banc 2026). We will reverse only “if [a] misapplication of law ‘materially affects the merits of the action [so that we have] a firm belief that the ․ judgment is wrong.” McLeod v. McLeod, 681 S.W.3d 215, 229 (Mo. App. W.D. 2023) (quoting Odermann v. Mancuso, 670 S.W.3d 461, 471 (Mo. App. W.D. 2023)).

Analysis

In his single point on appeal, Father argues that in denying the Motion to Modify, the trial court misapplied the law because “it did not follow Supreme Court Rule 88.01 and the guidelines laid out in the Form 14 when calculating child support.”⁵ Specifically, Father challenges the trial court's conclusion that his Form 14 was incorrect because it included a 34 percent adjustment in accordance with the 181 to 183 overnight visits per year awarded by the Paternity Judgment even though Father actually exercised far fewer overnight visits than were awarded. Father claims this is an issue of first impression, and argues as a matter of public policy that “[a] child support calculation should be forward looking and based off of the objective factors laid out in the Form 14,” and that the trial court's consideration of the actual overnight parenting time he exercised creates “a scenario where the parties will need to go back to [c]ourt every year to modify said support [order] to accurately reflect the overnight visitation.”⁶

Section 210.845 governs the modification of child support in paternity cases. It provides:

1. The provisions of any decree respecting support may be modified only upon a showing of changed circumstances so substantial and continuing as to make the terms unreasonable. In a proceeding for modifications of any child support award, the court, in determining whether or not a substantial change in circumstances has occurred, shall consider all financial resources of both parties, including the extent to which the reasonable expenses of either party are, or should be, shared by a spouse or other person with whom he cohabits, and the earning capacity of a party who is not employed. If the application of the guidelines and criteria set forth in supreme court rule 88.01 to the financial circumstances of the parties would result in a change of child support from the existing amount by twenty percent or more, then a prima facie showing has been made of a change of circumstances so substantial and continuing as to make the present terms unreasonable.

2. When the party seeking modification has met the burden of proof set forth in subsection 1 of this section, the child support shall be determined in conformity with criteria set forth in supreme court rule 88.01.

Section 210.845.1 thus describes two paths for modifying a child support award in a paternity action. One path is benefitted by a prima facie showing of the requisite criteria for modification if a deviation in the presumed child support amount of 20 percent or more is shown. The other path requires proof of the requisite criteria for modification without the benefit of a presumption if the deviation in the presumed child support amount is less than 20 percent.

Father's Motion to Modify relied on the 20 percent deviation option described in section 210.845.1. Father's Motion to Modify submitted a Form 14 that calculated his presumed child support amount as $432, a deviation in the presumed child support award of at least 20 percent from the original child support award of $650. Thus, the Motion to Modify relied on a prima facie showing of a substantial and continuing change in circumstances that rendered Father's existing child support obligation unreasonable, so that the trial court was obligated under section 210.845.2 to recalculate child support. But, the trial court correctly observed that the prima facie right to require a recalculation of child support afforded by section 210.845.1 only applies to a Form 14 that is correctly calculated pursuant to the guidelines and criteria set forth in Rule 88.01. See Ndiaye v. Seye, 489 S.W.3d 887, 899 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016). As the party seeking modification of a child support award based on the 20 percent presumption, it was Father's burden to prove all of the facts which constitute “an integral part of the Form 14 calculation.” Kohl v. Kohl, 397 S.W.3d 510, 516 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013).

Here, the trial court concluded that the Form 14 submitted with Father's Motion to Modify was incorrectly calculated for three reasons: (i) it failed to consider the extent to which Father's reasonable expenses are or should be shared by his live-in girlfriend; (ii) it removed $380 per month for child care even though only $280 of that amount was allocable to the early child care program no longer being used by the Children, while $100 per month remained allocable to a summer YMCA program Mother wanted to use for child care; and (iii) it continued to assume a 34 percent adjustment for Father's overnight parenting time even though the overnights Father had been exercising since the Paternity Judgment was entered would only support an adjustment of 10 to 13 percent.

Father's appeal challenges the trial court's determination that the overnight parenting time adjustment in his proposed Form 14 was incorrect. Father does not challenge the other two grounds relied on by the trial court to find that his Form 14 was incorrect. Ordinarily, that omission could be fatal to Father's appeal. KDW Staffing, LLC v. Grove Constr., LLC, 584 S.W.3d 833, 838-39 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019) (holding that the failure to challenge on appeal each independently sufficient ground to support a trial court's judgment is fatal to an appeal). We do not believe it appropriate to resolve Father's appeal on that basis, however, and instead reach the merits of his point on appeal.⁷

Father's Form 14 included a 34 percent adjustment for overnight parenting time based on the 181 to 183 overnight visits awarded in the Paternity Judgment. The Judgment found the 34 percent adjustment to be incorrect because the evidence established that, since the Paternity Judgment's entry, Father had only exercised 108 to 112 overnight visits per year, supporting an adjustment of 10 to 13 percent. If recalculated to reflect an adjustment for overnight parenting time in this range, Father's Form 14 would not establish a downward deviation of 20 percent or more from the original child support award.

Father argues that the trial court misapplied the law because this determination was not consistent with Rule 88.01 and Form 14. The directions to Form 14 belie his argument.

Rule 88.01(b) provides that “[t]here is a rebuttable presumption that the amount of child support calculated pursuant to Civil Procedure Form No. 14 is the correct amount of child support to be awarded.” Line 11 of Form 14 requires the trial court to make an “adjustment for a portion of amounts expended by the parent obligated to pay support during periods of overnight visitation or custody.” The directions to line 11 include a table that sets forth a percentage downward adjustment based on the number of overnights per year. A 34 percent adjustment is appropriate for 181 to 183 overnights. But, the directions further provide that the trial court should make the adjustment “based on the number of periods of overnight visitation or custody per year awarded to and exercised by the parent obligated to pay support under any order or judgment.“ (Emphasis added.) Comment C(1) to Line 11 of Form 14 states that the overnight credit percent specified in the Form 14 directions can be rebutted where,“[w]ithout fault of the parent entitled to receive support,” the paying parent “does not exercise the periods of overnight visitation or custody with the children ․ awarded under any order or judgment.” This “rebuttal” is part of calculating the presumed child support amount under Form 14, and is not the same as rebutting the presumed child support amount as unjust and inappropriate after the Form 14 calculation has been completed. See Conrad v. Conrad, 76 S.W.3d 305, 311 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002); Rickfels v. Rickfels, 39 S.W.3d 865, 871-72 & n.6 (Mo, App. W.D. 2001).

The Form 14 directions thus contemplate that the calculation of a presumed child support amount can be influenced by whether awarded overnight parenting time is actually exercised. Allowing consideration of “exercised” overnight visits for purposes of calculating child support permits a trial court to more accurately make an “adjustment for a portion of amounts expended by the parent obligated to pay support during periods of overnight visitation or custody,” the stated intent of line 11 on Form 14.

That is precisely what the trial court did in this instance, as reflected by the trial court's determination in the Judgment that it can permissibly “consider the extent to which [Father] actually exercises his overnight visitation or custody regardless of what the parenting plan says in determining his allowed adjustment.”⁸ The trial court did not misapply the law in denying Father's Motion to Modify.

Father's point on appeal is denied.

Conclusion

The Judgment is affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   All Rule and Form references are to Missouri Court Rules, Volume 1--State, 2024 unless otherwise noted.

3.   All statutory references are to RSMo 2016 as supplemented through the date of the trial on Father's Motion to Modify.Section 210.845.1 addresses the modification of child support in paternity actions. Its corollary in dissolution actions is section 452.370.1. The provisions are so similar that decisional law addressing one of these provisions is generally of equal application to the other.

4.   Although Father's Motion to Modify relied on the 20 percent prima facie rule set forth in section 210.845.1, the trial court gratuitously and alternatively explained that Father also failed to sustain his burden to establish a substantial and continuing change in circumstances rendering the original child support award unreasonable (though deviating by less than 20 percent), considering statutory and non-statutory factors pursuant to section 210.845.1 and Rule 88.01. These alternative findings of the trial court are not contested by Father.

5.   While Father's point relied claims that the trial court misapplied the law, he mentions in the argument supporting the point relied on that the trial court's determination that his presumptive child support calculation was incorrect is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Whether a judgment is against the weight of the evidence or misapplies the law are “separate and distinct inquiries, each requiring its own discrete legal analysis.” Macke v. Patton, 591 S.W.3d 865, 869-70 (Mo. banc 2019). “We do not review arguments and issues raised in the argument under a point that are not fairly encompassed by that point.” New LLC v. Bauer, 586 S.W.3d 889, 899 n.11 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019) (quoting Douglass v. Douglass, 570 S.W.3d 130, 137 n.9 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019)).

6.   Mother argues that Father's appeal should be dismissed. First, Mother argues that Father's brief fails to comply with the briefing requirements set forth in Rule 84.04. While compliance with Rule 84.04 is mandatory, we will disregard technical briefing errors in order to reach the merits of an appeal so long as the brief “gives[s] notice to this Court and to the other parties as to the issue presented on appeal.” Lexow v. Boeing Co., 643 S.W.3d 501, 505 (Mo. banc 2022) (quoting J.A.D. v. F.J.D., 978 S.W.2d 336, 338 (Mo. banc 1998)). Though there are issues with Father's compliance with Rule 84.04, his brief gives notice of his claim that the trial court misapplied Rule 88.01 and the guidelines set forth in Form 14 by considering the overnight visits he actually exercised in lieu of the overnight visits he was authorized to exercise in the parenting plan.Second, Mother argues that Father has not preserved the issue he raises on appeal because he “never once argued below that the trial court lacked power to consider his actual exercised parenting time in determining whether a change in circumstances made the existing child support unreasonable.” Our review of the record confirms that although Father did not use the same phrasing now employed on appeal, he plainly argued before the trial court that the parenting plan controlled the adjustment for overnight visits.Finally, Mother argues that, even if Father “somehow raised his argument” below, Father failed to file a Rule 78.07(c) motion challenging the form or language of the Judgment. Rule 78.07(c) requires “allegations of error relating to the form or language of the judgment, including the failure to make statutorily required findings, [to] be raised in a motion to amend the judgment in order to be preserved for appellant review.” Father's appeal does not present a challenge to the form or language of the Judgment, and instead claims legal error in the method used by the trial court to evaluate the correctness of his proposed Form 14.We decline Mother's request to dismiss Father's appeal.

7.   Father's exclusion of $100 allocated to summer child care from his Form 14 would not have independently deprived him of the benefit of the 20 percent prima facie showing because this adjustment would have resulted in a presumed child support amount on Father's Form 14 of $498 instead of $432, a deviation of 20 percent or more from the original child support award.Father's failure to consider the effect of live-in girlfriend's contribution to his financial resources poses an issue not squarely addressed in Missouri decisional law. The second sentence of section 210.845.1 plainly requires consideration of this statutory factor when modification of a child support award is sought without the benefit of a 20 percent prima facie showing. Thus, the trial court's finding the Father failed to account for his live-in girlfriend's contributions was relevant to the trial court's conclusion that even if Father did not qualify for the 20 percent prima facie showing, he did not otherwise sustain his burden to establish a statutory right to modification.It is less clear whether the statutory factors described in the second sentence of section 210.845.2 must be considered when modification of a child support award is sought with the benefit of a 20 percent prima facie showing. In the latter case, the third sentence of section 210.845.1 does not mention the statutory factors, and instead requires a request for modification to be supported by a Form 14 prepared pursuant to the guidelines and criteria of Rule 88.01. Our courts have generally held that those guidelines and criteria do not permit consideration of the income of a cohabitant in the calculation of a presumed child support award on Form 14. See Thomas v. Thomas, 989 S.W.2d 629, 636 (Mo. App. W.D. 1999) (“[A] trial court cannot consider the income of a stepparent in calculating the presumptively correct child support amount for a child under Form 14,” though that evidence can be later considered by a trial court to rebut a presumed child support award as unjust and inappropriate.). We recognize that Rule 88.01(a) provides that in determining the correct amount of child support, “a court ․ shall consider all relevant factors, including all relevant statutory factors.” It could be argued that this emphasized language renders a cohabitant's contribution to a parent's financial resources a statutorily relevant factor that must be considered in connection with every child support modification request, whether or not benefitted by the 20 percent prima facie showing and even though our jurisprudence generally holds that such evidence cannot be considered in determining the presumptive child support amount. We need not resolve this issue here.

8.   The trial court's conclusion that the proper adjustment for overnight parenting time should have been 13 percent was reflected on a Form 14 prepared by the trial court, yielding a presumed child support award of $824. The trial court rebutted the presumed child support amount of $824 determined by its Form 14 as unjust and inappropriate, and concluded that the just and appropriate amount of child support should remain at $650.

Cynthia L. Martin, Judge

All concur