LibGuides: Florida Child Support: Case Law

WHAT IS CASE LAW

When a court hears arguments from both sides in a case, it will often refer to other rulings and court opinions regarding the law or laws in question before issuing a decision. These existing rulings and legal precedents set by the judicial branch of our government are collectively called case law.

The courts must interpret laws written by the legislative branch of government-this includes senators and representatives at the state and federal levels. After a bill is signed into law, it stands to be tested in the courts. Courts have the power to interpret the law and rule as to whether or not it is constitutional.

Case law ensures consistency throughout the legal system, and it’s the reason why U.S. Supreme Court cases are given such great attention. Because all lower courts must abide by the precedents set by the U.S. Supreme Court, these key decisions affect the rights of citizens for years to come.

Judges at every level of the court system refer to precedents while hearing a case, and attorneys often refer to case law in court as part of their arguments.

Below is case law regarding family law and child support in Florida.

FLORIDA DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS CASES

Zepeda v. Zepeda, 32 So. 3d 679 This case determined what sort of income can be included in a child support calculation.

Wallace v. Dep't of Revenue ex rel. Cutter, 774 So. 2d 804 This case held that when a parent is receiving social security disability income due to a disability and, as a result, his or her children receive dependent benefits, the total benefits received by or on behalf of that parent are attributed to the disabled parent as income in the child support guideline calculation.

Wilcox v. Munoz, 35 So. 3d 136 In this case an order modifying the child support a father was required to pay was reversed because the trial court failed to make findings regarding the parties' incomes and ability to pay, which was required under § 61.30, Fla. Stat. (2006), but instead erroneously ordered the parties to equally share child care expenses.

Sealander v. Sealander, 789 So. 2d 401, 403 This case held that when a parent is receiving social security disability income due to a disability and, as a result, his or her children receive dependent benefits, the total benefits received by or on behalf of that parent are attributed to the disabled parent as income in the child support guideline calculation.

Sunderwirth v. Sunderwirth, 332 So. 3d 1087 This case held that in kind payments made by a new spouse are not to be included as additional income when calculating child support.

Rainsberger v. Rainsberger, 819 So. 2d 275 This case held that a trial court must apply the child support guidelines as amended to a case that is pending when the amendment becomes effective

Lifaite v. Charles, 338 So. 3d 271 In this case the court held that a trial court abuses its discretion when it denies retroactive child support where there is a demonstrated need for the child support and the parent has the ability to pay the retroactive support.
Kareff v. Kareff, 943 So. 2d 890, 892 This case held that for a combined monthly available income greater than $ 10,000, the child support obligation shall be the minimum amount of support provided by the guidelines, plus the amount of income over $ 10,000 multiplied by a statutorily delineated percentage. § 61.30(6), Fla. Stat. (2006).
Lennon v. Lennon, 264 So. 3d 1084, 1085 This case held that a trial court's decisions about support must be supported by competent substantial evidence and factual findings sufficient to enable the appellate court to determine how the trial court made the decisions it did.
Durham v. Dep't of Revenue ex rel. Durham, 850 So. 2d 653 Pursuant to this case, if the case involves child support, the parties shall file with the court at or prior to a hearing to establish or modify child support a Child Support Guidelines Worksheet in substantial conformity with Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure Form 12.902(e). This requirement cannot be waived by the parties.
Fuesy v. Fuesy, 64 So. 3d 151 The Appellate Court in this case held that wife's withdrawals from a voluntary retirement account shall not be included as income for the purposes of determining child support.

FLORIDA SUPREME COURT CASES

Daniel v. Daniel, 695 So. 2d 1253 This case evaluated whether the presumption of legitimacy was overcome when respondent/husband and petitioner/wife stipulated that the child's father was not the respondent but did not challenge the child's legitimacy. The court held that because respondent/husband had no legal duty to provide support for the minor child where she was neither his natural nor his adopted child, and he had not contracted for her care and support.

Simmonds v. Perkins, 247 So. 3d 397 This case held that the biological father had standing to rebut the common law presumption that the mother's husband was the legal father of the child born to the intact marriage, even though the mother and her husband objected to allowing such rebuttal, because the biological father manifested a substantial and continuing concern for the welfare of the child.

Fla. Dep't of Revenue v. Cummings, 930 So. 2d 604 This case held that a legal father was an indispensable party in an action to determine paternity and to place support obligations on another man unless it was conclusively established that the legal father's rights to the child had been divested by some earlier judgment.

Finley v. Scott, 707 So. 2d 1112 The court in this case considered "good faith" awards of child support.

Dep't of Revenue v. Jackson, 846 So. 2d 486 This case considered whether a parent could have a pre-existing support obligation modified or suspended based upon their imprisonment. The Florida Supreme Court held that an incarcerated parent could not automatically have his or her child support payment obligations modified based solely on a reduction in income resulting from incarceration.

Miller v. Schou, 616 So. 2d 436, 436 In this case, the court held that a substantial change in the paying parent's income was itself sufficient to constitute a change in circumstances warranting an increase in child support without a demonstration of increased need, the trial court was entitled to financial disclosure to enable it to make a determination regarding child support. The supreme court held that a minor child had every right to share in the good fortune of his or her parents, even after their divorce, given the minor child's general entitlement to the bounty of his or her parents and the fact that the parent-child relationship continued notwithstanding the divorce.