EDMUND L. WARNKEN, APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLENE B. WARNKEN, APPELLEE
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.
Florida appellate court vacated the portion of a child support modification order requiring automatic resumption of $200 weekly payments upon the father's release from prison, holding he is entitled to a post-release hearing to determine his financial circumstances before support obligations resume.
A parent released from incarceration is entitled to a hearing to determine current financial circumstances before child support obligations resume, rather than automatic resumption at a fixed amount.
[1] A parent released from incarceration is entitled to a post-release hearing to determine financial circumstances and appropriate child support amount rather than automatic…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEdmund Warnken appealed a child support modification order that required him to resume paying $200 per week in child support immediately upon his rele…
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 Florida Rule Of Appellate Procedure 9.200(B)(4) cases and more on FLexlaw
PETERSON, Chief Judge.
Edmund L. Warnken appeals from an order modifying his obligation to pay child support. Much of his pro se brief refers to matters that occurred at the hearing although no record was made of that hearing. He relies on a “state of proceedings” attached to his brief for the facts and states that it was prepared pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(b)(4). Unfortunately, the appellant has ignored the last two sentences of that rule which requires the statement to be submitted and approved by the trial court. We find no evidence in the record that this latter requirement was fulfilled. Therefore, this court is unable to fully review the matters about which the appellant complains. Tanner v. Tanner, 577 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Carter v. Carter, 504 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987).
We do find merit in Warnken’s complaint that child support of $200 per week shall resume immediately upon his release from prison. Warnken is entitled to a hearing after his release to determine his financial circumstances and the amount of child support to be paid at that time. Tanner. We vacate only that part of paragraph three of the order that reads “and the child support obligation of $200.00 per week shall resume at that time.” Except for the vacated portion of the order, we affirm.
AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED IN PART.
ANTOON, J., concurs.
GRIFFIN, J., concurs in part; dissents in part, with opinion.
GRIFFIN, Judge,
concurring in part; dissenting in part.
I respectfully disagree that the lower court should be reversed for ordering that appellant’s already adjudicated child support obligation should abate only while he is incarcerated, to resume upon release. His asserted inability to meet his child support obligation is due to his incarceration. Once his incarceration is over, the support should automatically resume unless he can come forward at that time with some other reason why his support obligation should further be modified. The burden should be on him to come forward if he needs further relief. In the Tanner case, child support had not been set. Here, it has.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Carter v. Carter, 504 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Tanner v. Dickie Marie Tanner, 577 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)