Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District, Second Division
from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis
1122-FC02201-03 Honorable Thomas J. Frawley
P. Page, Presiding Judge
Reinaldo Rosas ("Father") appeals the judgment of
the trial court, granting in part and denying in part Maria
Ximena Lopez's ("Mother") motion to modify
child support. We affirm.
2003, the parties were Pennsylvania residents but dissolved
their marriage by consent in Colombia. The Colombian
dissolution decree awarded Mother physical custody of their
minor child ("Child") and child support for ten
months per year. Father was awarded reasonable visitation and
child support two months per year. The parents were awarded
joint legal custody. Father subsequently relocated to St.
30, 2011, with Mother's consent, Father first invoked the
jurisdiction of Missouri courts when he registered the 2003
Colombian dissolution decree in the City of St. Louis Circuit
Court. Father then filed a motion to modify in order to
facilitate his work-related relocation to England with Child.
On July 25, 2011, the court entered its consent modification
judgment ("Consent Judgment") which awarded Father
sole legal and sole physical custody of Child. Neither party
was ordered to pay child support to the other.
December 11, 2012, Father filed a second motion to modify
Mother's visitation rights. In response, and in spite of
her prior consent, Mother filed a motion to set aside the
Consent Judgment alleging the court previously lacked
jurisdiction pursuant to Section 452.740 RSMo (2016) of the
Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act
because both parties falsely asserted Child resided in
Missouri for six months prior to Father filing his
modification. The court agreed with Mother. On March 8, 2013,
the court held "there was no statutory authority
… to enter a Motion to Modify on the Foreign
Judgment" and declared the July 25, 2011 Consent
Judgment void. In April 2013 Mother took custody of Child and
relocated to Colombia, where they currently reside.
the parties continued to file a dizzying array of litigation
in Missouri. On August 25, 2013 and July 7, 2014, Father
filed motions to quash income withholding orders. On
September 4, 2013, he filed a motion to determine amounts due
and owing. Father relocated to Missouri on September 13,
2013. On October 20, 2014, Mother filed her motion to modify
child support. Father filed a motion to dismiss Mother's
modification "for lack of jurisdiction" in spite of
all of his own pending litigation. Moreover, he subsequently
filed motions to determine amounts due and owing and for
contempt on July 28, 2015. 
January 19, 2016, the trial court heard all motions together.
Mother's motion to modify was granted in part and denied
in part as was Father's motion to determine amounts due
and owing. Father's motion for contempt was denied. The
court ordered each parent to pay half of the costs for Child
to attend a vocational or technical school, college or
university, or junior college. Additionally, the court
ordered Father to pay Mother $1, 586.00 per month for child
support, finding the Civil Procedure Form No. 14 calculation
was unjust and inappropriate. The present appeal follows.
submits three points on appeal, contending the trial court
erred in: (I) denying Father's motion that the court
lacked jurisdiction under the Uniform Interstate Family
Support Act ("UIFSA"); (II) including private school
tuition in Mother's award; and (III) failing to specify
whether the judgment modified Child's age of
review of a modification judgment is limited to whether it is
supported by substantial evidence, is against the weight of
the evidence, or erroneously declares or misapplies the law.
Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976);
Nichols v. Nichols, 14 S.W.3d 630, 634 (Mo. App.
E.D. 2000). The evidence, and all ...