RANDY O'STEEN,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE CHILD SUPPORT PROGRAM
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.
Randy O'Steen appealed an administrative child support order issued by Florida's Department of Revenue, challenging the retroactive support calculation and claiming he was not credited for support provided to the child's mother. The court affirmed the order because O'Steen failed to participate in administrative proceedings, thereby waiving his right to challenge the evidence supporting the Department's determination.
O'Steen's challenges are not preserved for appellate review because he failed to participate in the administrative proceedings by not returning required financial forms and not providing a change of address, thereby waiving his right to a hearing and his ability to challenge the sufficiency of evidence supporting the Department's child support determination.
[1] An administrative child support order is reviewed for competent substantial evidence supporting the agency’s findings of fact.
[2] A party waives arguments on appeal if they failed to participate in the administrative proceedings and failed to provide information or request a hearing.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“By waiving his right to a hearing, O'Steen waived his ability to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the Department's determination of his child support obligations.”
Establishes that failure to participate in administrative proceedings results in waiver of appellate review rights
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceO'Steen received forms from the Department of Revenue requesting financial and parental information but failed to return them. He also failed to provi…
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 Error Demonstration cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Randy O’Steen challenges the administrative support order of the Department of Revenue (the “Department”), and corresponding income deduction order, entered in proceedings under section 409.2563(7), Florida Statutes. O’Steen seeks judicial review of the administrative order pursuant to section 409.2563(10)(a), arguing that retroactive support was incorrectly calculated as he disputes the period for which it was ordered, claiming that the parties and child lived together. He further argues that he provided support to the mother for which he was not given credit. Based on the record before this court, we must affirm. O’Steen failed to participate in the administrative proceedings by returning the forms for financial and parent information supplied to him by the Department and failed to provide a written change of address after being advised of the need to and the consequences for failing to do so.
Thus, he has not preserved any issue for this Court’s appellate review. By waiving his right to a hearing, O’Steen waived his ability to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the Department’s determination of his child support obligations. See § 409.2563(7)(b), Fla. Stat.; Standard v. State, Dep’t of Revenue, Child Support Enf’t Program, 249 So. 3d 798, 799 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018); see also Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (“In appellate proceedings the decision of a trial court has the presumption of correctness and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error. . . . When there are issues of fact the appellant necessarily asks the reviewing
court to draw conclusions about the evidence. Without a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court can not properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court's judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory.”) Affirmed.