Child support payments are often made in a spirit of amicability, with the payer truly motivated to help the kids and promote their best interests.

At other times, though .... The following example is presented for its instructional value and as an indicator of how the Missouri courts will react to parties having child support duties who seek to circumvent them and mock the process.

It wasn't so much about the sardine-based mixture he applied to the doors of her workplace. It didn't primarily concern his act of disconnecting her car's battery cables. It was perhaps a bit more about his text message to her stating that, if she received full custody of the children, she would "never live through the night."

Predominantly, though, what most influenced a Missouri court - both at the trial level and on appeal - to rule against Douglas Heck in a child support matter was his undisguised attempt to hide assets and minimize his income during marriage dissolution proceedings.

Heck seemed less than concerned with the trail of evidence against him. He sent his wife pictures of $100 bills that he was withholding as part of his required support. He told her he planned to earn as little money as possible, and he backed that pledge by reporting no income in 2009 after stated income of almost $100,000 the prior year and well over that amount the year before that.

The trial judge ruled that Heck "purposefully engaged in conduct designed to avoid meeting his earning potential." The appellate court concurred with the lower court's order requiring Heck to retroactively pay up based on his earnings from 2008 and previous years.

The obvious lesson to be learned here by a person seeking to avoid court-mandated child support payments: Courts take the obligation seriously and will enforce the duty.

Related Resource: www.blogs.pitch.com "Douglas Heck, sardine-smearing ex-husband, will not have child support reduced" August 25, 2010