SHIRLEY J. CLAYTON, APPELLANT,
v.
BILLY P. CLAYTON, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appellate court affirmed termination of child support where the record showed no compelling evidence that the child would suffer from the termination.
A court may terminate child support obligations when there is no compelling evidence that the child will suffer as a result.
[1] When suspending or terminating child support due to denial of visitation, the court must consider whether the child will suffer, and the welfare of the child is the param…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the court should not refuse to require these payments for the support of the minor children where the children will thus be required to suffer.”
The court cited Hardy v. Hardy for the principle that child welfare must be protected when suspending support payments.
Appellant sought review of an order terminating child support payments under a prior dissolution decree and denying her counter petition for permanent…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Modification Of Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Appellant seeks review of an order granting appellee’s petition to terminate payment of child support under a prior dissolution decree and denying a counter petition for permanent alimony. We affirm.
Previous Florida decisions have permitted the suspension of support payments, by order of court, as a method of penalizing the recalcitrant party and enforcing the court’s decree granting visitation. Hardy v. Hardy, 118 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960); Putnam v. Putnam, 136 Fla. 220, 186 So. 517 (1939). The rule applied with respect to future payments, however, is that “the court should not refuse to require these payments for the support of the minor children where the children will thus be required to suffer.” Hardy, supra. Also see Vance v. Vance, 274 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973), Warrick v. Hender, 198 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967), and Cortina v. Cortina, 108 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1959), which indicate that the welfare of the child must be considered when suspending support payments due to a denial of visitation.
Although the order here appealed does not expressly reflect application of the correct standard in terminating the support obligation in the present case, our examination of the record shows no compelling evidence that the child “will be required to suffer.” We note, in addition, that the decision does not preclude subsequent modification upon a showing of changed circumstances.
The order appealed is therefore affirmed.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., and LARRY G. SMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gardner v. Elinor Chechak Gardner, 494 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…l defense to the wife’s claim which prevented entry of judgment against him. We would note, further, that in refusing to enforce a right to child support, it must be demonstrated that the child will not be required to suffer, see Clayton v. Clayton, 380 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), but this additional showing is not required where a trial court refuses to enforce, or modifies or terminates, a party’s right to alimony. We recognize that in the present case the wife has not refused to permit visitation, but…1 / 2
-
Elinor Chechak Gardner v. Gardner, 467 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…e father by either or both children.1 See Cortina v. Cortina, 108 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958); (b) The obligation of the father to prove what he had pled; namely, that the children would not suffer from the loss of support. See Clayton v. Clayton, 380 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); (c) The impropriety of granting relief not sought; namely, the termination of all college educational benefits. See Vance v. Vance, 274 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973); (d) The impropriety of granting modification without a mater…
Authorities Cited
- Joan Claire Hender Warrick (formerly known as Joan Claire Hender) v. Hender, 198 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)
- Cortina v. Cortina, 108 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- Hardy v. Hardy, 118 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)
- Putnam v. Webster F. Putnam, Jr., 136 Fla. 220 (Fla. 1939)
- Vance v. Vance, 274 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)