STATE OF FLORIDA, EX REL. NANCY IRENE ROCK, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM E. ROCK, 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 held that a URESA child support enforcement proceeding cannot condition the payment of support on the grant of visitation rights, and that support payments must be made to the court clerk rather than directly to the custodial parent under Florida law.
A URESA proceeding may address only matters of support and cannot condition support payments on visitation rights. Additionally, Florida law requires that support payments be made to the clerk of the court, not directly to the custodial parent.
[1] Enforcement of child support payments under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA) cannot be conditioned on the grant of visitation rights.
[2] The Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA) excludes consideration of visitation rights.
Previewing 2 of 6 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 only matter that can be addressed in a URESA proceeding is that of support.”
Establishes the narrow scope of URESA proceedings and that visitation cannot be addressed
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliam and Nancy Rock were divorced in Ohio in 1974, with the mother awarded custody and the father ordered to pay child support. The father moved to…
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 Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement Of Support Act cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Judge.
This appeal addresses two issues: (1) whether enforcement of child support payments under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA) can be conditioned on grant of visitation rights, and (2) whether the court may direct that support payments be paid to the parent instead of the clerk of the court.
William and Nancy Rock were divorced in Ohio in 1974. Their Ohio divorce decree awarded custody of their minor child to the mother and ordered the father to pay child support. Sometime later, the father moved to Naples, Florida, and ceased making his support payments. Then, in May 1980, the mother initiated an action in Ohio under URESA. Pursuant to that act, the trial court in Florida held a hearing and entered an order requiring the father to provide support payments. As amended on February 27, 1981, the order required the support payments to be paid to the clerk of the circuit court for Collier County.
When the father failed to carry out his support obligation, the court held another hearing. The record contains no transcript of this hearing, but the father evidently complained about problems of visitation with his child. The court, on August 30, 1982, again ordered that the support payments be paid to the clerk of the circuit court; however, the court conditioned the mother’s receipt of those payments on her granting reasonable visitation privileges to the father. The order further provided that once those visitation rights were established, the support payments would be made directly to the mother. This appeal ensued with the mother challenging the court’s order. The only matter that can be addressed in a URESA proceeding is that of support. Florida Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services ex rel. Ciferni v. Ciferni, 429 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Maloney v. Maloney, 396 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Grosse v. Grosse, 347 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Vecellio v. Vecellio, 313 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). Recently, in Ciferni, Judge Grimes noted that URESA apparently excludes any consideration of visitation because of the language contained in section 88.271, Florida Statutes (1981): “The determination or enforcement of a duty of support owed to one petitioner is unaffected by any interference by another petitioner with rights of custody or visitation granted by a court.” Therefore, the trial court erred in tying the release of support money to the determination of reasonable visitation rights.
The trial court also erred in requiring that payments be made directly to the wife. Payment to the clerk of the court is specifically required in sections 88.211 and 88.231(2), Florida Statutes (1981). The Ohio version of URESA appears to allow a direct payment such as the court ordered; however, it is the law of Florida, not Ohio, which applies here. § 88.081, Fla.Stat. (1981).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions to the trial court to enter an order requiring that support payments be made to the clerk of the court for the mother’s account without reference to visitation privileges.1
OTT, C.J., and HOBSON, J., concur. . Of course, questions regarding visitation may be raised in a separate proceeding.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Robinson v. State, 473 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…not precedential authority, because the reasons for the affirmance cannot be determined. Dep’t of Legal Affairs v. District Court of Appeal, 5th District, 434 So. 2d 310 (Fla.1983). . § 88.271, Fla.Stat. (1983); see also State ex rel. Rock v. Rock, 429 So. 2d 1351 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).…
-
Jones v. Arlen Jones, 471 So. 2d 1363 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…ed pursuant to the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA). §§ 88.011-88.371, Fla.Stat. (1983). Under URESA the court may address only matters of support and may not consider issues pertaining to visitation. State ex rel. Rock v. Rock, 429 So. 2d 1351 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Carroll v. Carroll, 415 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Leland v. Fricke, 376 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Furthermore, the court may not condition the payment of support upon the granting of visitation. Rock; Carroll; Leland.…
-
State v. Ridge, 483 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…1, Fla.Stat. (1985). The Florida courts have held that, under URE-SA, the court may address only matters of support and may not consider issues pertaining to visitation. Jones v. Jones, 471 So. 2d 1363 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); State ex rel. Rock v. Rock, 429 So. 2d 1351 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Fla. Dept. of H.R.S. o/b/o Ciferni v. Ciferni, 429 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Carroll v. Carroll, 415 So. 2d 102 (Fla.3d DCA 1982); Leland v. Fricke, 376 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Vecellio v. Vecellio, 313 So. 2d 61 (Fla…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Loehe v. State, 313 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Fla. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Ciferni, 429 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Grosse v. Grosse, 347 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Maloney v. Maloney, 396 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)