TIMOTHY J. BEAL, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
KAREN T. BEAL, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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.
The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to award retroactive child support, as parents cannot contract away a child's right to support.
The parties' marriage was dissolved, and the trial court initially ordered retroactive child support but later reversed that award on rehearing. The h…
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 Waiver Of Child Support cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Timothy J. Beal (husband) and Karen T. Beal (wife) were married on November 4, 1989. Their marriage was dissolved on October 11, 1994. The parties’ only child was born on June 24, 1991. The trial judge denied the husband’s motion to recuse him, ordered rotating parental custody until the child enters kindergarten, designated the wife the primary residential parent once the child enters kindergarten, and ordered the husband to pay retroactive child support. The judge on rehearing reversed the retroactive child support award. The husband appeals; the wife cross-appeals, raising a number of issues.
We write to address only the issue of retroactive child support. The trial court found that the wife waived her claim to retroactive child support. We however have held: “The law is clear that the parents may not contract away the rights of their child for support. Neither may the mother waive the child’s right to support by acquiescing in the father’s non-payment of support. Child support is a right which belongs to the child.” Armour v. Allen, 377 So. 2d 798, 799-800 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) (emphasis added). The trial court thus abused its discretion in failing to award child support retroactively, because the record shows that the child’s need and the husband’s ability to pay existed at the time of the filing of the petition for dissolution. See Campbell v. Campbell, 635 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).
We affirm in all other respects. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
ERVIN, MINER and LAWRENCE, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Arizona L. Sumlar v. Sumlar, 827 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…pellant after the parties’ separation. The paternal grandfather testified that Appellee had repaid him for the out-of-pocket amounts spent for the child’s care. Therefore, an award of retroactive child support in some amount is proper. Beal v. Beal, 666 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (holding that trial court abused its discretion by failing to award child support retroactively, where record demonstrated child’s need, and former husband’s ability to pay existed when dissolution petition was filed); Campbell v…
-
Tish Bardin v. State, 720 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…modification where the need for the support and the ability of the former spouse to pay existed at the time that the modification petition was filed. Anderson v. Anderson, 609 So. 2d 87, 89 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (citation omitted).3 In Beal v. Beal, 666 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), this court held that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to award retroactive child support to the date that the petition for dissolution was filed. The Beal court explained that “the child’s needs and the [fa-therm…
-
State OF Fla. Dep't OF Revenue v. Ortega, 682 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…directing that the mother shall relinquish all her rights to receive support from the minor child’s father. The case law is clear that parents may not waive their children’s right to support because that right belongs to the children. Beal v. Beal, 666 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); O’Brien v. O’Brien, 424 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Kirkconnell v. Kirkconnell, 222 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969). The parties stipulated to the mother’s waiver of child support in exchange for the father’s waiver of his rig…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Baumann v. Agudelo (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
- Armour v. Allen, 377 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- In the Interest of B.L.B. and J.D.H., 635 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)