CHARITY PARMER, AND THE STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, APPELLANTS,
v.
STEVIE ALAN PARMER, 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 court reversed an order suspending ongoing child support payments, holding that a trial court cannot modify a child support obligation without a formal petition for modification, even when the obligor claims financial hardship due to illness.
The court reversed the suspension of ongoing child support payments because modification of a child support obligation requires a formal petition for modification; the court cannot modify support by other means. The suspension of the past assistance payment obligation was affirmed as the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to hold Parmer in contempt without a complete hearing record.
[1] The State Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, upon acceptance of public assistance for a dependent child, is vested with the authority to pursue all remedie…
[2] A court cannot modify child support obligations absent a formal pleading seeking modification.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 cannot modify child support absent a pleading for modification.”
Establishes the procedural requirement that modification of child support must follow a formal petition, not occur through other judicial orders.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1980, HRS and Charity Parmer filed a petition against Stevie Alan Parmer for failure to provide child support. By stipulation, the court ordered Pa…
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 Modification cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIMES, Judge.
This is an appeal from an order suspending child support payments as well as the payment of prior child support obligations.
In January of 1980, the State Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) and Charity Parmer filed a petition against Stevie Alan Parmer for failure to provide child support for his child, Stevie Mark Parmer. The child, born April 3, 1975, was the recipient of aid to families with dependent children. Pursuant to stipulation, the court entered an order stating that Parmer owed the state $764 for past public assistance paid on behalf of his child and directed him to pay this obligation at $20 per month. In October of 1981, Parmer signed a stipulation agreeing to pay ongoing child support in the amount of $20 per week. The stipulation recited that Mrs. Parmer was receiving public assistance in the amount of $103 per month and that Mr. Parmer was employed at an average weekly income of $140 per week. The court entered an order confirming the stipulation and requiring Mr. Parmer to make the child support payments at $20 per week.
On May 6, 1982, the court entered an order to show cause why Mr. Parmer should not be held in contempt for being $536 in arrears on the first account and $212 in arrears on the second account. Following a hearing, the court entered an order reciting that Mr. Parmer had testified that while he currently earned $118 per week, a kidney disease rendered him unable to hold a full-time job. The order suspended his obligation to pay ongoing child support and to make payments on the past assistance debt until further direction from the court.
The acceptance of public assistance for the support of a dependent child vests in HRS the authority to proceed with all remedies available to the child’s custodian. Lamm v. Chapman, 413 So. 2d 749 (Fla.1982). Notwithstanding, without the benefit of a record of the testimony taken at this untranscribed hearing, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion in refusing to hold Mr. Parmer in contempt. However, the suspension of his requirement to pay ongoing child support constitutes a modification of a prior order, and Parmer did not file a petition for modification. The court cannot modify child support absent a pleading for modification. Smithwick v. Smithwick, 343 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).
Accordingly, we reverse that portion of the order suspending the ongoing support payments. In all other respects, the order is affirmed.
BOARDMAN, A.C.J., and SCHOON-OVER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sweetland v. Gauntlett, 460 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…a trial court may not modify a prior child support award, where, as here, no pleading has been filed requesting such modification. State, Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. Miller, 444 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Parmer v. Parmer, 431 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Lentz v. Lentz, 414 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Koken v. Neubauer, 374 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Smithwick v. Smithwick, 343 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Reversed.…
-
State v. Leonardi, 696 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…fore the [*473] court was appellant’s contempt motion to enforce domesticated child support order). This court has held that a suspension of the requirement to pay ongoing child support constitutes a modification of a prior order. Parmer v. Parmer, 431 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Leonardi did not file a pleading requesting modification of his ongoing child support obligation. Without such a pleading, the trial court was without authority to modify his obligation of support. Accordingly, we reverse the or…
-
State v. Screws, 688 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…ing public assistance from the Department for the support of dependent children, the Department acquires the authority to proceed with all remedies available to the child’s custodian. See Lamm v. Chapman, 413 So. 2d 749 (Fla.1982); Parmer v. Parmer, 431 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). The law is well established that the right to payments in the nature of child support arrears or alimony is vested and not subject to reduction absent compelling equities in the party obligated to make the payments. Filaretou v…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Smithwick v. Smithwick, 343 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Lamm v. Chapman, 413 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 1982)