STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, BY AND ON BEHALF OF KENNY R. HICKMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
LORI J. HICKMAN, 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's Department of Revenue, on behalf of Kenny Hickman, sought to establish child support against the mother Lori Hickman under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA). The trial court granted the mother's motion for directed verdict, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the father did not have legal custody. The court reversed, holding that legal custody is not a prerequisite for establishing child support under UIFSA.
The trial court had jurisdiction to hear the UIFSA petition. Legal custody is not a prerequisite for establishing a child support obligation under UIFSA; the relevant inquiry is whether there exists a basis to establish that the defendant parent should pay support.
[1] A Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) petition may be commenced to establish a child support obligation even if the petitioner does not have legal custody of th…
[2] A state may properly commence a UIFSA proceeding in another state to establish a parent's support obligation when the parent and child reside in the initiating state.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“[QUOTE REDACTED — failed verbatim audit (paraphrase, not verbatim). See original_text for the text as originally displayed.]”
The trial court's erroneous reasoning for denying jurisdiction based on lack of legal custody.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKenny and Lori Hickman were divorced in Utah in December 1985, with the mother granted custody and the father ordered to pay $150 monthly in child sup…
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 Uniform Interstate Family Support Act cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Kenny R. Hickman (father) and Lori J. Hickman (mother) were divorced in December of 1985 in San Juan County, Utah. The mother was granted custody of the parties’ minor child and the father was required to pay $150 per month in child support. The final order of dissolution of marriage from the Utah trial court did not establish a support obligation for the mother. The father now resides in Georgia and is now the custodial parent of the minor child. The mother is now a resident of the state of Florida.
The father, represented by the State of Florida Department of Revenue (Department), on May 29, 1998, filed in Florida a Uniform Support Petition under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIF-SA) seeking to establish an order of child support. The mother filed an answer to the Uniform Support Petition and a counter-petition, seeking to establish back child support for the time that the minor child resided with her. At the hearing on the Uniform Support Petition, the mother, after the father presented his case, moved for a directed verdict. The trial court granted the mother’s motion, reasoning that it did not have jurisdiction since the UIFSA petition did not allege a basis upon which to establish that the father had custody of the minor child. The father argues, on appeal that the trial court had jurisdiction to hear the petition. We agree and reverse the trial court’s order granting the mother’s motion for directed verdict.
In State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Harnois, 609 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), the father and mother divorced pursuant to a Georgia divorce decree which awarded the father legal custody of the child. The mother, who had actual physical custody of the child from the time of the divorce, moved to Arizona, and the father moved to Florida. The State of Arizona filed a URESA action (now UIFSA) against the father seeking to establish a support obligation. The trial court denied the petition on the grounds that the father still had legal custody of the child even though the child was living with the mother in Arizona.
The Hamois court reversed, finding that the mother was not required to have legal custody of the child in order to institute a proceeding under URESA. Similarly, the trial court in the instant case erred in granting the mother’s motion for directed verdict on the grounds that the father did not have legal custody of the child.
There is nothing in the record to show that there has ever been an order entered in any state ordering the mother to pay child support for the child. Thus, pursuant to UIFSA, the State of Georgia, where the father and the minor child currently reside, properly commenced a UIFSA proceeding in Florida to establish the mother’s support obligation. The trial court’s order granting the mother’s motion for directed verdict is REVERSED and the case REMANDED with instructions for the trial court to determine the appropriate child support obligation of the mother. ERVIN, LAWRENCE and PADOVANO, JJ„ CONCUR.