PORTER THOMPKINS, III, APPELLANT,
v.
SUSAN J. POWELL AND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEES
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.
A father appealed an order denying modification of his $500 monthly child support obligation, claiming substantial change in circumstances due to reduced work hours and changed medical insurance availability for his child with Down's Syndrome. The court affirmed the denial, finding no abuse of discretion and noting the insurance issue was not yet ripe for adjudication.
The court affirmed the denial of modification on both grounds. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the work hours reduction and indebtedness argument insufficient. Regarding the insurance change, while the court agreed in principle that such a change constituted good grounds for modification, the issue was not ripe because the child's actual eligibility was uncertain without submitting a claim, no reliable expense projection data was available, and it was unclear whether modification would be necessary given potential reimbursement or credit options.
[1] A substantial change in circumstances, such as a reduction in work hours, may warrant modification of child support payments.
[2] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to modify child support when the evidence presented is sharply disputed.
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“We agree in principle that a change in the 'no-insurance' premise on which a portion of the child support award was based constitutes good grounds for modification.”
Establishes that the court recognized the father's insurance argument had merit in principle, but rejected it on the particular facts.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe father was obligated to pay $500 per month in child support under an order entered in 1986. He sought modification based on two grounds: (1) a sub…
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 Motion To Modify Child Support cases and more on FLexlaw
[*349] PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order denying modification of child support payments. We affirm.
The appellant father moved for modification of an order requiring him to pay $500 per month in child support. He argued that he had experienced a substantial change in circumstances owing to a reduction in work hours which, when considered against his other indebtedness, required relief from the previously ordered child support level. The evidence before the general master was sharply disputed, and we are unable to say that the trial court abused its discretion in denying modification on that ground.
The father also argues that modification should have been ordered because of a change in the availability of medical insurance coverage. The original child support award, entered in 1986, was expressly predicated on the assumption that no medical insurance coverage would be available for the child, who has Down’s Syndrome. Recently the father’s insurance plan administrator has indicated, and testified below, that there was a high probability that the father’s plan would cover medical expenses of the child.
We agree in principle that a change in the “no-insurance” premise on which a portion of the child support award was based constitutes good grounds for modification. On the facts present here, however, we conclude that there was no abuse of discretion in determining, in effect, that the issue was not ripe. The child’s eligibility for the insurance coverage could be determined with certainty only by submitting a claim. That has not been done. Nor was data available to the general master on which to base a reliable projection of covered expenses.
Finally, it is not clear on this record that the level of support would need to be modified so long as the father receives either reimbursement from the insurer or credit against his monthly support payment for medical expenses covered directly by the insurer. The father urges, however, that judicial intervention will be needed in order to compel the mother to comply with the insurance plan requirements. Since no such request has previously been made to the mother or the trial court, there has been no abuse of discretion in denying the requested modification at this time. Our affirmance is without prejudice to an appropriate application to the trial court for such assistance as may be needed to obtain the medical insurance benefits, or to a renewed application for modification should that be necessary.
Affirmed.