CINDY COLEMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
JOSEPH MACKEY, 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.
The appellate court reversed a trial court's child support award, finding it "grossly low as to shock the conscience." The court emphasized that child support should consider the child's needs and the parent's ability to pay, and should be retroactive to the date of birth.
Yes, the child support award was an abuse of discretion because it was "grossly low as to shock the conscience." Yes, child support should have been ordered retroactive to the date of birth.
[1] An award of child support that is grossly low may shock the conscience of the court and warrant reversal.
[2] Child support awards should be retroactive to the date of the child's birth.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“We reverse the award of child support because it is so grossly low as to shock the conscience of this court.”
Establishes the court's primary reason for reversal regarding the inadequacy of the child support award.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court found the defendant to be the father of the plaintiff's child and awarded $40.00 per month in child support. The father earned $480.00…
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 Child Support Award cases and more on FLexlaw
JORGENSON, Judge.
In an action to determine paternity and child support the trial court found the defendant to be the father of the plaintiff’s child and awarded child support in the statutory minimum amount of $40.00 per month, pursuant to section 742.041, Florida Statutes (1979). Mackey, the father, is employed, earns a gross income of $480.00 per week and owns real estate valued at $38,-000.00, with a $16,000.00 mortgage and net equity of $19,000.00. Coleman, the mother, receives $195.00 per month in public assistance for herself and her two other children. Mackey requested the trial court to take judicial notice of his $300.00 per week child support obligation which occurred as a result of an unrelated dissolution of marriage proceeding.
We reverse the award of child support because it is so grossly low as to shock the conscience of this court. See Mahoney v. Mahoney, 380 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). We also find error in the trial court’s not ordering child support retroactive to the date of birth. The mother has met her burden of showing a clear abuse of discretion by the trial judge. Id. The criteria to be considered in awarding child support are the child’s needs and the parent’s ability to pay. Davis v. Davis, 371 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). There can be no question that a child on public assistance at the time of his birth has the need for child support from the putative father. The rights of an illegitimate child must be considered on an equal basis with the rights of a legitimate child to receive child support. State Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. West, 378 So. 2d 1220 (Fla.1979); Shinall v. Pergeorelis, 325 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976).
We note in passing that once the trial court has fixed an appropriate amount for child support retroactive to the date of birth the appellee’s circumstances may have changed sufficiently to justify Mackey’s bringing to the attention of the trial court presiding over the unrelated dissolution the existence of new circumstances.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Mason v. Reiter, 564 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…ts discretion in ordering child support retroactive to the date of birth even though the mother did not request retroactive child support. The court was justified in reaching that result since the child’s needs begin at birth. See Coleman v. Mackey, 424 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (court held that it was reversible error for trial court not to order child support for child born out of wedlock retroactive to the date of birth). In addition, the father presented no evidence which would prevent an award of pas…1 / 2
-
Neal v. Meek, 591 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…ce we have reversed the monthly amount of child support, it follows that the lump sum awarded as retroactive child support must also be reversed. On remand, the trial court is clearly authorized to award retroactive child support. Coleman v. Mackey, 424 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). However, any requirement of payment of a lump sum within a time certain, as opposed to mere entry of a judgment against Mr. Neal, must be supported by findings of fact demonstrating that Mr. Neal would have the ability to pay wit…
-
Clark Fowhand, II v. Piper, 611 So. 2d 1308 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…01 So. 282, 283 (1924) (citation omitted). This court has recognized that child support is a right which belongs to the child. Armour v. Allen, supra. Illegitimate and legitimate children have the same rights to parental support. Coleman v. Mackey, 424 So. 2d 170, 171 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). In the present case the trial court specifically found: The minor child has needed support since her birth, and the Defendant has had the ability to contribute to the support of the minor child since her birth. A reasonable…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. West, 378 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 1979)
- Shinall v. Pergeorelis, 325 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- Olmstead v. Olmstead, 371 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Davis v. Davis, 371 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Mahoney v. Mahoney, 380 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)