The income of the parents, not the income of the caregiver, is to be used when calculating child support “Thus, it is evident that the income of the parents-not the income of the caregiver-is to be used when calculating the child support guidelines under chapter 409.” Dep’t of Revenue o/b/o Roberson v. Chaney.
A Court is not bound by an agreement between the parties concerning child support. “It is undisputed, and should be indisputable, that a trial court’s responsibility to the child cannot be abdicated to any parent, any expert. That heavy responsibility mandates that a court is not bound by any agreement between parents, nor by the opinions of any experts or group of experts.” Lane v. Lane, 599 So. 2d 218, 219 (Fla. 4th DCA 992); see Feliciano v. Feliciano, 674 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (confirming that a trial court is not bound by an agreement regarding child support, custody, and visitation where it determines that it is not in the best interests of the children). As noted by the reviewing court in Jones v. Jones, 674 So. 2d 770, 774 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), the “best interests of the children are to govern the custody decision, regardless of any stipulation between the parties.” Sparks v. Sparks.
The trial court may disregard the parent’s agreed upon time-sharing agreement, if it is not in the best interests of the children. “Prior to entry of the final judgment, the former wife filed a motion to set aside the MSA and parenting plan, alleging that the MSA was invalid and unenforceable because…As to the parenting plan, the former wife alleged that it was no longer in the children’s best interests to reside with the former husband…A court is not bound by an agreement of parents regarding child support, custody, or visitation. Higgins v. Higgins, 945 So. 2d 593, 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). As our sister court stated: ‘[i]t is undisputed, and should be indisputable, that a trial court’s responsibility to the child cannot be abdicated to any parent, any expert. That heavy responsibility mandates that a court is not bound by any agreement between parents, nor by the opinions of any expert or group of experts.’ Lane v. Lane, 599 So. 2d 218, 219 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); see Feliciano v. Feliciano, 674 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (confirming that trial court is not bound by agreement regarding child support, custody, and visitation where it determines that it is not in best interests of children). Instead, the trial court is required to ‘determine all matters relating to parenting and time-sharing of each minor child of the parties in accordance with the best interests of the child….’ §61.13(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2010); see Jones v. Jones, 674 So. 2d 770, 774 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (reiterating that ‘best interests of the children are to govern the custody decision, regardless of any stipulation between the parties’). Le v. Nguyen, 37 Fla. L. Weekly D1604 (Fla. 5th DCA July 6, 2012)
A Court is not bound by an agreement between the parties nor by opinions of experts concerning time-sharing. “It is undisputed, and should be indisputable, that a trial court’s responsibility to the child cannot be abdicated to any parent, any expert. That heavy responsibility mandates that a court is not bound by any agreement between parents, nor by the opinions of any experts or group of experts.” Lane v. Lane, 599 So. 2d 218, 219 (Fla. 4th DCA 992); see Feliciano v. Feliciano, 674 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (confirming that a trial court is not bound by an agreement regarding child support, custody, and visitation where it determines that it is not in the best interests of the children). As noted by the reviewing court in Jones v. Jones, 674 So. 2d 770, 774 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), the “best interests of the children are to govern the child custody decisions, regardless of any stipulation between the parties.” Sparks v. Sparks.
When the court makes an allocated award for each child, the modification is retroactive to the date the child reaches majority, and pre-dates the filing of the modification petition. “Furthermore, when the issue is arrearages, the obligor is entitled to a retroactive reduction pre-dating a modification petition, consistent with the statutory child support guidelines. See, e.g., State, Dep’t of Revenue ex rel Ortega v. Ortega, 948 So. 2d 855,857 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (explaining that, in the McClung decision, the court was ‘careful to distinguish those authorities that refused to retroactively modify an unallocated support award from the case then before us involving what we determined to be an allocated award…’). Gilbert v. Cole.
Contempt is not available to enforce an obligation to pay college expenses. “Where a party is obligated to pay his adult child’s college expenses pursuant to a marital settlement agreement, the obligation “is not child support, but rather a contractual obligation arising from the marital settlement agreement” Sutton v. Sutton, 701 So. 2d 370, 372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (emphasis added). Thus, contempt is not available to enforce the parties’ contractual obligation to pay their adult son’s college expenses. Nicoletti v. Nicoletti, 901 So. 2d 290, 292 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)” Riera v. Riera
A court cannot order a party to maintain life insurance without a request from one of the parties. “It is true that section 61.13(1)(c),Florida Statutes (2010), provides that the court may order a party to maintain life insurance to protect an award of child support. But this court has held that a trial court does not have the authority to require a party to obtain life insurance in order to secure child support payments where such relief was not sought or litigated. See Williamitis v. Williamitis, 741 So. 2d 1176, 1177 (Fla. 2d DCA1999); cf. Broome v. Broome, 821So.2d406, 408 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (reversing requirement that Former Husband obtain life insurance to secure alimony because Former Wife did not request such relief).” Eisele v. Eisele
A court cannot delegate parental decision making authority to a third party. “In the event of a deadlock between the parents regarding these issues, the dispute must be presented to the trial court for resolution in accordance with the child’s best interests. Gerencser v. Mills, 4 So. 3d 22, 23 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009); Sotnick v. Sotnick, 650 So. 2d 157, 160(Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Tamari v. Turko-Tamari, 599 So. 2d 680, 681 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). It is error for the trial court to delegate the ultimate decision as to visitation and other issues to a third party. Lovell v. Lovell, 14 So. 3d 1111, 1114 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). Here, the provisions improperly allow former husband’s parents to resolve a dispute between the parties.” Schwieterman v. Schwieterman
Florida Rulings Child Support – Enforcement Hearing in Florida A party who is called by his opponent to testify on direct, has the right to testify during rebuttal as well. “Accordingly, we reverse the order finding appellant in contempt. Further, on remand we direct that a new evidentiary hearing be held because appellant, over objection, was prevented from presenting rebuttal evidence before the contempt order was entered. A person facing civil contempt is entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard. See Bresch v. Henderson, 761 So. 2d 449, 451 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Although appellant had been called to the witness stand by appellee and testified on direct and cross-examination, he was not allowed to present his own case in rebuttal. By preventing appellant from presenting any rebuttal evidence, he was denied the opportunity to be heard. See Hipschman v. Cochran, 683 So. 2d 209, 211 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)” Ramirez v. Ramirez
Florida Rulings Child Support – Financial Affidavits in Florida Both parties must file financial affidavits for the trial court to award child support. “The appellant, Ari Palewsky, in this appeal from an order approving a magistrate’s report determining paternity and awarding child support, submits that, because the mother had not filed a financial affidavit, the trial court erred in determining the child support award. The appellee, the Department of Revenue, concedes that, in accordance with rule 12.285, Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure, both parties’ financial affidavits must be a part of the record, but argues that the absence of the mother’s affidavit was harmless error. Concluding that this error may not be considered harmless in this case, we reverse the support award and remand for an evidentiary hearing on the amount of support to be awarded.” Palewsky v. Dep’t of Revenue o/b/o Miller
Palm Beach Florida Divorce & Family Law Blog