STATE of Missouri ex rel. FAMILY SUPPORT DIVISION, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Cynthia A. FOSTER, Respondent-Respondent, 174 S.W.3d 589

JAMES K. PREWITT, Judge. The Family Support Division of the Department of Social Services (“Agency”) appeals from a judgment of the trial court reversing and remanding an administrative decision ordering Cynthia A. Foster (“Mother”) to pay child support for Cody D. Foster (“Child”) and provide medical insurance for Child. Mother took custody of Child at age five months. Child, born on May 11,1994, was diagnosed with a mental illness resulting from his birth parents’ drug abuse. Child receives Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”). Mother adopted Child in 2000, four years prior to the administrative hearing.

Mother stayed at home in order to take care of Child. On October 9, 2003, the State took custody of Child, due to Mother’s inability to provide for him. Mother then took a part-time position at First Choice Administrators that paid $9.50 per hour. On November 23, 2003, Mother was terminated from this job. Agency prepared a Notice and Finding of Financial Responsibility on December 16, 2003, ordering Mother to provide insurance and child support totaling $321.00 per month. Mother then requested a hearing to contest the Agency’s findings.

At the January 29, 2004 hearing, Mother testified she began employment with Citizen’s Memorial Healthcare (“Citizen’s”) in January of 2004, for $8.93 an hour. Mother was ineligible for insurance with Citizen’s until May 1, 2004, and was not going to enroll Child at that time since she considered the plan “quite costly.” Citizen’s coverage would cost $47 per pay period for two people. In its Findings, Agency determined Mother’s monthly gross income was $1,548, that she owed $102 for health insurance and was entitled to a credit for that, and she owed $304 in child support.

Agency determined the initial Form No.14 calculation was incorrect, and a new calculation was necessary. It ordered Mother to pay $304 for child support and to “name and maintain child as a dependent on her health insurance policy.” On April 14, 2004, Mother filed a Petition for Review of Administrative Decision.

On July 1, 2004, the trial court reversed and remanded the Agency’s decision, concluding that Form No. 14: was not designed, implemented or intended to be used in a case involving third party custody and that Form 14 fails to provide directions for use in a case involving third party custody, the use of Form 14 by the Agency in the Decision to determine the presumed correct amount of child support and the lack of rebuttal of that presumption is arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable.

The Agency filed Notice of Appeal on August 5, 2004, but Mother was required to, and did, file the initial brief here. “In an appeal from a circuit court’s reversal of an administrative agency’s decision, this court reviews the agency’s decision.” Garrett v. Mo. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 57 S.W.3d 916, 917 (Mo.App.2001). The reviewing court must examine the record in the light most favorable to the administrative decision. Clark v. Reeves, 854 S.W.2d 28, 31 (Mo.App.1993). The usual scope of review is whether the decision is supported by competent and substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Chrismer v. Mo.

Div. of Family Servs., 816 S.W.2d 696, 700 (Mo.App.1991). When its decision involves the

interpretation of law and application of the law to undisputed facts, the court forms its own independent conclusions. Collins v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., Family Support Div., 141 S.W.3d 501, 504 (Mo.App.2004). In her first point, Mother contends the Agency proceedings were in error for applying Form No. 14 to a third-party custody situation because Form No. 14’s language only applies to child support between parents. Agency counters that all child custody awards may be calculated using Form No. 14.

Under the directions for use of Form No. 14, parties required to complete said form are “[t]he parent obligated to pay support and the parent entitled to receive support[J” See also Rule 88.01. Despite this instruction, the Agency is authorized by § 454.490.3, RSMo 2000, to order child support payments with the same force and effect of a circuit court. State of Missouri ex rel. Hilburn v. Staeden, 91 S.W.3d 607, 609 (Mo.banc 2002). The Agency is granted authority to enforce child support payments by the legislature.

Section 454.400, RSMo 2000. This enforcement is subject to judicial review. Hilburn, 91 S.W.3d at 609-10. “The Missouri Supreme Court shall have in effect a rule establishing guidelines by which any award of child support shall be made in any judicial or administrative proceeding!;,]” and “[s]aid guidelines shall contain specific, descriptive and numeric criteria which will result in a computation of the support obligation.”

Section 452.340.8, RSMo 2000. Supreme Court Rule 88.01(

a) grants administrative agencies the right to determine child support payments using “all relevant factors, including statutorily relevant factors.” Rule 88.01(

b) makes the amount calculated a rebuttable presumption.

Section 454.400, RSMo 2000 establishes the Division of Child Support Enforcement “to administer the state plan for child support enforcement,]” including the ability “to adopt, amend and repeal rules and regulations.”

Section 454.400.2(5), RSMo 2000. Under this authority, 13 CSR 30-5.010 (2004) sets forth the Agency’s method to calculate child support payments between parents or any custodial party. This regulation applies to establishing or modifying child support obligations. Calculation methods include the use of Form No. 14, under subsection 13 CSR 30-5.010(B) (2004), as well as available financial information. 13 CSR 30-5.010 (2004). The agency “may issue a notice and finding of financial responsibility to a parent who owes state debt or is responsible for the support of a child on whose behalf the custodian of that child is receiving support enforcement services!)]”

Section 454.470.1, RSMo 2000. The amount of child support calculated pursuant to Form No. 14 “is the amount of child support to be awarded in any judicial or administration proceeding for ... child support.” Rule 88.01. See also State ex rel. Dept. of Soc. Servs. Div. of Child Support Enforcement v. Kost, 964 S.W.2d 528, 529 (Mo.App.1998). We conclude the legislature and the Missouri Supreme Court intended that Form No. 14 cover all administrative child support, including that such as this. The Agency did not err by using Form No. 14 in its calculation of Mother’s child support obligation. Point I is denied.

In her second point, Mother contends that Agency’s determination that she owes $304 per month in child support is “arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable” because it considered Child’s SSI payment as a non-relevant factor in its calculation.

The directions for use of Form No. 14 state, in part: “Excluded from gross income is ... supplemental security income (SSI) benefits!.]” SSI eligibility is based on need and paid to families of disabled children “to ensure that the recipient’s needs are met at a subsistence level.” Kost, 964 S.W.2d at 530. “SSI benefits received for a disabled child are intended to supplement other income, not substitute for it.” Id.

Monthly SSI benefits received do not diminish the child support contribution required by the non-custodial parent for care and accordingly, any child support obligation is not impacted by the receipt of SSI on the disabled child’s behalf. Id. Point Two is denied. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court to set aside the judgment and enter judgment affirming the decision of the Family Support Division of the Department of Social Services. GARRISON, P.J., concurs. RAHMEYER, J., files separate dissenting opinion. . Rule 84.05(

e) states: “If the circuit court reverses a decision of an administrative agency and the appellate court reviews the decision of the agency rather than of the circuit court, the party aggrieved by the agency decision shall file the appellant’s brief and reply brief, if any, and serve them within the time otherwise required for the appellant to serve briefs. The party aggrieved by the circuit court decision shall prepare the respondent’s brief and serve it in a time otherwise required for the respondent to serve briefs.”