DEBORAH K. CLARKE, N/K/A DEBORAH K. HAHN, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
THOMAS H. CLARKE, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Income Disparity cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the trial court’s rulings in this case except for the decision to deny child support to appellant. Even though appellant is not the primary custodial parent, the amount of visitation awarded appellant is so substantial that the parties’ arrangement borders on being a split custody situation with appellee having primary physical custody of the parties’ minor daughter. Because of this unique arrangement and the great discrepancy in the income of the parties, we reverse the denial of an award of child support to appellant and remand this cause to the trial court to award appellant a reasonable amount of child support, taking into account the best interests of the child and the unique facts and circumstances of this case.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.
HARRIS and DIAMANTIS, JJ., and STROKER, R.J., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mauricio A. Arze v. Soheila Sadough-Arze, 789 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…e does, and has custody of the child an equal amount of the time. The court determined that after factoring time into the equation, it would have been more appropriate to require Johnson to pay Jones some child support. Id. (citing Clarke v. Clarke, 619 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Devereaux v. Devereaux, 710 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Brock v. Brock, 695 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Gingola v. Velasco, 668 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), Winters v. Katseralis, 623 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)).…
-
Jones v. Johnson, 747 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…three and one-half days per week. The parties also equally divide the obligation to deliver the child back and forth between their residences. This is, in effect, a “rotating” custody (sometimes called “split” custody) arrangement. Clarke v. Clarke, 619 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). Section 61.30(1) requires a deviation from the guidelines support amount in cases where a child is spending a “substantial amount of time” with both parents. It provides: [T]he trier of fact shall order payment of child suppor…