STATE OF FLORIDA, ON BEHALF OF KIM Y. RIDGE, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT G. RIDGE, 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 appealed a URESA child support order that conditioned payment on visitation rights. The court reversed, holding that URESA courts lack authority to determine visitation rights or condition support payments on visitation, as URESA addresses only support duties.
Under URESA, the court may address only matters of support and cannot determine visitation rights or condition support payments on visitation. The trial court lacked authority to impound support funds pending visitation.
[1] A court acting under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA) is limited to determining matters of child support and cannot adjudicate visitation rights.
[2] A trial court may not condition the payment of child support on the granting of visitation rights under URESA.
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 purpose of the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA), chapter 88, Florida Statutes (1985), is to "improve and extend by reciprocal legislation the enforcement of duties of support."”
Establishes the narrow statutory purpose that limits URESA courts to support matters only
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties were divorced in Ohio in 1982, with the mother awarded custody of two children and the father ordered to pay $50/week support. In 1984, th…
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 Petition For Support cases and more on FLexlaw
UPCHURCH, Judge.
The state of Florida appeals from an order determining child support and visitation rights under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA). We reverse because the trial court had no authority under URESA to determine visitation rights and to condition payment of support on visitation.
The parties in this case were divorced in Ohio in 1982. The wife was awarded custody of the parties’ two minor children and the husband was ordered to pay $50.00 per week as child support. In 1984, the wife filed a petition for support in Ohio. The Ohio court found that the husband owed a duty of support, that $60 per week was necessary and that the husband was in arrears in support payments. The court further found that the husband was residing in Florida and sent a copy of the petition to the Florida circuit court.
The husband was served in Florida and filed an answer to the wife’s petition. The husband requested that if the court determine support, then it should also provide for enforceable visitation rights. The husband alleged that the wife had kidnapped the parties’ children in 1982 and had fled to Ohio for the purpose of securing a divorce and depriving him of his parental rights.
The court below entered an order determining support and visitation rights. In its order, the court required the husband to pay support but impounded the funds until the wife permitted the husband to visit the children. On behalf of the wife, the state contends that the court erred in impounding the support and in determining specific visitation rights.
We agree. The purpose of the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URE-SA), chapter 88, Florida Statutes (1985), is to “improve and extend by reciprocal legislation the enforcement of duties of support.” § 88.021, 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. 4th DCA 1975).
Furthermore, the court may not condition the payment of support upon the granting of visitation. See Newbold v. Newbold, 472 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Jones; Rock; Ciferni; Carroll; Leland; Vecellio.
Accordingly, the order below is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to the trial court to enter an order requiring support payments be made to the clerk of the court without reference to visitation.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
COBB, C.J., and SHARP, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baggett v. Walsh, 510 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…ulder County, 494 So. 2d 1126; Hodge v. Maith, 435 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). In actions under URESA, the court may address only matters of support and is not authorized to consider issues pertaining to visitation. State ex rel. Ridge v. Ridge, 483 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). Indeed, section 48.193 cannot be used to extend personal jurisdiction over a person appearing under URESA. Scales v. Scales, 469 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), pet. for rev. denied, 482 So. 2d 349 (Fla.1986). Appellee’s petiti…
-
State of Fla. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Kimmerly, 503 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…. . The Virginia order decreed that "during the time that [appellee] is unreasonably denied visitation, child support is suspended....” Florida courts have indicated that such a decree would be inappropriate in this state. See e.g., State v. Ridge, 483 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).…
Authorities 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)
- State v. Rock, 429 So. 2d 1351 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Jones v. Arlen Jones, 471 So. 2d 1363 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Leland v. Fricke, 376 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Carroll v. Bernie R. Carroll, 415 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Newbold v. Newbold, 472 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- City OF Miami Beach v. De Lapp, 472 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)