Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 454
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 454.501 (2026)

Support, courts, jurisdiction, effect of determinations

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

  454.501.  Support, courts, jurisdiction, effect of determinations. — Nothing contained in sections 454.465 to 454.510 shall deprive courts of competent jurisdiction from determining the support duty of a parent against whom an order is entered by the director pursuant to the authority created by sections 454.460 to 454.505.  Such a determination by the court shall supersede the director's order as to support payments due subsequent to the entry of the order by the court, but shall not affect any support arrearage which may have accrued under the director's order.  The director's order shall be pleaded and received by the court as evidence of the extent of the parent's duty of support.

­­--------

(L. 1984 H.B. 1275)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1989–2024 · leading case: Wilson v. Nenninger, 561 S.W.3d 804 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wilson v. Nenninger, 561 S.W.3d 804 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 26× “Section 454.501 permits the trial court to enter a superseding order that prospectively alters the party's child support responsibilities.”
State Ex Rel. Moore v. Sharp, 151 S.W.3d 104 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 4× “See section 454.501. The court's adjudication of child support would "supersede the director's order as to support payments due subsequent to the entry of the order by the court, but .”
Dye v. Div. of Child Support Enf't, Dep't of Soc. Servs., 811 S.W.2d 355 (Mo. 1991). · cites it 4× “1990, and § 454.501, RSMo 1986. 3 Gary challenges the administrative hearing on due process grounds.”
D.M.K. v. Mueller, 152 S.W.3d 922 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 5× “Section 454.501 provides: Nothing contained in sections 454.”
State Ex Rel. Ryan v. Ryan, 124 S.W.3d 512 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). “See § 454.501. 8 . Although “collateral estoppel” may have been a defense that had to be raised at the time the Utah judgment was registered, see §§ 454.”
Lewis v. Roskin, 823 S.W.2d 152 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “Section 454.501 provides that nothing in §§ 454.”
State of Missouri, Dep't of Soc. Servs. Kimberly Leavell v. Eric Adams (Mo. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 12× “2 Father's argument fails because: (1) Father was, in fact, required to exhaust his administrative remedies in order to seek judicial review of the 2017 administrative modification order; (2) Father never sought judicial review of the administrative order because a judicial…”
Smith v. State ex rel. Rambo, 30 S.W.3d 925 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “Continuing, Division argues that § 454.501, RSMo 1994, precluded both the writ court and the modification court from “affect[ing] a final arrearage order entered by .”
Gray v. Jackson, 773 S.W.2d 202 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 3× “To be somewhat more explicit, § 454.501 clearly gave the court which heard the motion to modify jurisdiction to determine the defendant’s support duty.”
Timothy Wells v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. Fam. Support Div. (Mo. Ct. App. 2024). “§ 454.501 (emphasis added). Furthermore, “an administrative order modifying a court order is not effective until the administrative order is filed with and approved by the court that entered the court order.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.