MARY MCGHEE AND THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, APPELLANTS,
v.
ANDRE CHILDRESS, 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.
A Florida appellate court affirmed the trial court's finding that circumstances justified increasing a father's child support obligation but reversed the trial court's 20% deviation below the statutory guideline amount, holding that the father's minimum wage earnings cannot justify deviation since earnings are already factored into guideline calculations.
The court affirmed the finding that circumstances justified modifying child support upward but reversed the deviation from guideline amount because a party's earnings are already incorporated into the guideline calculation, making minimum wage an insufficient basis for deviation, and the deviation lacked legally sufficient reasoning under the statute.
[1] A substantial change in circumstances may justify an increase in child support obligations.
[2] Child support guideline amounts are presumptively correct.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“The guideline amount is presumptively correct.”
Establishes that Florida's child support guidelines create a presumption that cannot be overcome without proper findings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1988, a paternity judgment established appellee's child support obligation at $129.00 per month for two minor children. In November 1997, appellant…
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 Deviation From Child Support Guidelines cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants appeal an order of the trial court modifying the appellee’s child support obligation. We affirm the trial court’s finding that the circumstances justify an increase in the amount of child support paid by the appellee. However, we reverse the trial court’s deviation from the child support guideline amount.
In 1988, a final judgment of paternity was entered finding the appellee to be the father of two minor children. The judgment also established the appellee’s child support obligation at $129.00 per month. On November 18, 1997, the appellants filed a petition for modification seeking an increase in the appel-lee’s child support obligation. The appellee did not respond to the petition, and a default judgment was entered against him on December 30, 1997. After a hearing, the court entered an order determining the amount of the appellee’s obligation.
Pursuant to section 61.30, Florida Statutes, the appellee’s support obligation was calculated to be $251.00 per month for the two children.
The trial court, while finding that there had been a substantial change in circumstances sufficient to justify an increase in the amount of child support, deviated from the guideline amount of $251.00 and ordered the appellee to pay $200.00 per month. The guideline amount is presumptively correct. See § 61.30, Fla. Stat. (1997); State, Dept. of Revenue By and On Behalf of Young v. Sumblin, 675 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). The court’s order requiring the appellee to pay $200.00 per month is a twenty percent deviation from the guideline amount.
Section 61.30(l)(a), Florida Statutes states that “[t]he trier of fact may order payment of child support in an amount which varies more than 5 percent from such guideline amount only upon a written finding, or a specific finding on the record, explaining why ordering payment of such guideline amount would be unjust or inappropriate.” See State, Dept. of Revenue By and On Behalf of Bunting v. Cain, 675 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Stewmon v. Stewmon, 654 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).
In its order, the court stated that the deviation from the-statutory guidelines is “based on the fact that the appellee’s salary is currently at the minimum wage.” However, a party’s earnings are already taken into consideration when calculating the guideline child support obligation of the party. See § 61.30, Fla. Stat. (1997).
Consequently, the fact that the appellee’s salary is currently at the minimum wage cannot be used as a reason to deviate from the guideline amount.
Furthermore, the court’s reason for deviating does not comport with section 61.30(11), Florida Statutes, which lists criteria that the court can consider in adjusting the guideline amount. See Reynolds v. Reynolds, 668 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Because the court’s reason for deviating from the guidelines is legally insufficient, we reverse the portion of the order determining the amount of child support. See, e.g., Riley v. Parker, 624 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
BENTON, VAN NORTWICK and PADOVANO, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Swanston v. Swanston, 746 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…lines.” However, the trial court may not order payment of child support in an amount which deviates more than five percent from the guidelines [*570] without making specific written factual findings justifying such an award. See McGhee v. Childress, 724 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); State, Dept. of Revenue, By and on Behalf of Bunting v. Cain, 675 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Walsh v. Walsh, 600 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Touchstone v. Touchstone, 579 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). We find that th…
-
Beatrice Bolds & the State of Fla. v. Strong, 744 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…guideline child support obligation of the party. See § 61.30, Fla.Stat. (1997). Consequently, the fact that the appellee’s salary is currently at the minimum wage cannot be used as a reason to deviate from the guideline amount. McGhee v. Childress, 724 So. 2d 196, 197 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); see also Davis v. Spencer, 737 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Riley v. Parker, 624 So. 2d 828, 828 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Two hundred dollars per month is some twenty-nine 'percent less than what the guidelines call for. T…
-
Hall v. Hall, 994 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…upport guidelines by 17% where the child’s school provided a stabilizing element in child’s life). However, where a criterion is taken into account by the child support guidelines, courts have not permitted deviation. See, e.g., McGhee v. Childress, 724 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (fact that father’s salary was at minimum wage was legally insufficient reason for deviating by 20% from child support guideline amount since salary had been factored into guideline award). While the former wife’s lack of employ…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Reynolds v. Reynolds, 668 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- State v. Sumblin, 675 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Stewmon v. Stewmon, 654 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Riley v. Parker, 624 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Harrelson v. State, 624 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- State v. Davis S. Cain, 675 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)