LUCIA NEPOLA

v.

TODD NEPOLA

CIKLIN, J.

The appellant, Lucia Nepola (“the mother”), appeals from an order denying her amended supplemental petition for modification. The appellee, Todd Nepola (“the father”), agrees with the mother that the trial court erred in denying her request for attorney’s fees without making required findings. We accept his concession of error. We also reverse for the trial court to include or otherwise reference a child support guidelines worksheet that has been filed with the court. See Sadlak v. Trujillo, 336 So. 3d 1275, 1279 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022). We decline to address the mother’s other arguments on appeal, finding they lack merit.

In reversing for the trial court to include a child support guidelines worksheet in the record, we take this opportunity to clarify previous opinions holding that the failure to “attach” the worksheet to an order is reversible error. We now hold that failure of a trial court to physically attach a child support guidelines worksheet to an order is not per se reversible error. We recognize that our courts have either held or suggested that failure to “attach” the child support guidelines worksheet to an order requires reversal. See, e.g., McGill v. McGill, 355 So. 3d 563, 564 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023) (reversing where trial court failed to make factual findings on the parties’ incomes and observing that the court “also did not attach any child support guidelines worksheets to its judgment”); Hiatt v. Mathieu, 350 So. 3d 357, 361 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (“The ‘failure to attach a child support guidelines worksheet to a final order is a reversible error.’” (quoting Dorvilien v. Verty, 335 So. 3d 146, 147 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022))); Minus v. Brockman, 326 So. 3d 1157, 1157 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (“An order granting child support must be reversed where a child support guidelines worksheet is not attached to the final judgment.”); Hogan v. Aloia, 257 So. 3d 479, 484 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (reversing in part based on trial court’s failure to “attach” the worksheet to the judgment); R.M. v. R.C., 227 So. 3d 160, 161 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (reversing where trial court failed to make required findings on the parties’ incomes “and to attach a child support guidelines worksheet”).

However, other opinions indicate the child support guidelines worksheet need simply be included in the record. See Tinoco v. Lugo, 342 So. 3d 845, 851 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022) (using both the words “attach” and “include” in reversing based in part on absence of child support guidelines worksheet in the record); Haddad v. Medina, 320 So. 3d 990, 991 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (reversing where amended judgment required parties to file proposed revised child support guidelines worksheets, “but the court has yet to approve or file any revised child support guidelines” and recognizing that “[i]t is reversible error for the court to fail to include a child support guidelines worksheet in a final judgment establishing paternity and child support”); Durham v. Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. Durham, 850 So. 2d 653, 654 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (holding that where neither party filed the requisite child support guidelines worksheet at or prior to the hearing, trial court erred in modifying child support “without the benefit of a guidelines worksheet”).

Whatever language has been used when discussing inclusion of the child support guidelines worksheet in the record, case law provides two reasons why the worksheet must be included in the record.

First, the worksheet contains the information which the trial court needs to calculate child support. The requirement that the child support guidelines worksheet be included in the record arises out of Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.285(k), which provides that in cases involving child support, “parties must file with the court at or before a hearing to establish or modify child support a Child Support Guidelines Worksheet in substantial conformity with Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure Form 12.902(e).” This is “so that the court has the benefit of the information when making its decision regarding the appropriate amount of child support to be awarded.” Reddick v. Reddick, 728 So. 2d 374, 375 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (quoting Amends. to the Fla. Fam. L. Rules of Proc., 723 So. 2d 208, 210 (Fla. 1998)).

Second, meaningful appellate review necessitates that the record include a child support guidelines worksheet which sheds light on the trial court’s calculation of child support. See Sadlak, 336 So. 3d at 1279 (“In order to conduct meaningful appellate review of an award of child support, a trial court must also include a child support guidelines worksheet in the final judgment.”); Garcia v. Espinosa, 314 So. 3d 619, 625 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (“There is also no child support guidelines worksheet filed by the trial court to conduct a meaningful appellate review of the award.”); Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. R.S.M. v. B.J.M., 127 So. 3d 859, 861 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (reversing where the trial court failed “to include in its order a child support guidelines worksheet,” “[t]he only guidelines worksheet in the record is that of the Department, which shows a higher amount for the father’s net monthly income,” and thus “the final judgment fails to show how the trial court calculated the child support amount”).

With these concerns in mind, physical attachment of the worksheet is not necessary. Rather, the worksheet’s inclusion in the record is required. Rule 12.285(k), although cited by this court and the Second District for the “attachment” requirement, does not contain any language indicating the guidelines worksheet must be physically attached to the order. If the parties comply with rule 12.285(k), and the trial court either files the guidelines worksheet with the order or indicates in the order that it relied on one of the submitted worksheets, then it is apparent how the trial court arrived at its determination of the child support, and there will typically be no impediment to review. If the trial court declines to approve any of the submitted proposed worksheets, and it adopts a modified version of a submitted worksheet, the party submitting the modified worksheet must ensure it is made a part of the record.

To the extent our previous opinions could be read to announce a bright-line rule that failure to physically attach the child support guidelines worksheet to an order requires reversal, we recede from those opinions.

Here, no child support guidelines worksheet is included in the record. The father argues that the mother did not file the trial exhibits on appeal and that his guidelines worksheet was admitted at trial and referenced and identified in the trial court’s order. But even if the father submitted a guidelines worksheet at trial, the order is not clear that the trial court approved the father’s guidelines worksheet. As such, reversal is required.

Based on the foregoing, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for the trial court to make required findings as to the mother’s request for attorney’s fees and to include a child support guidelines worksheet in the record or indicate which submission it approved.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.

KLINGENSMITH, C.J., WARNER, GROSS, MAY, DAMOORGIAN, GERBER, LEVINE, CONNER, FORST, KUNTZ, and ARTAU, JJ., concur.