W.T., FATHER OF W.T., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, 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.
The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part a trial court's decision regarding child support modification, agreeing that a credit for child support paid after a modification petition was appropriate but disagreeing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to recalculate child support.
The appellate court held that the trial court had jurisdiction to recalculate child support, as the issue was raised by the appellant and tried by implied consent, and that child support should be recalculated based on current income and circumstances.
[1] A dependency adjudication requires a finding of abuse, abandonment, or neglect, and cannot be based solely on the best interests of the child.
[2] A trial court cannot base a dependency finding on domestic violence between parents if there is no evidence that such violence affected the child.
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 intelligenceThe parties divorced in 1996 with the father ordered to pay $850 per month in child support. The father later filed petitions to modify custody and ch…
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 Abuse, Abandonment, Or Neglect cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, J.
The trial court adjudicated the minor child of W.T. dependent based upon an acrimonious relationship between W.T. and the child’s mother. At the time of the adjudication, divorce proceedings between the parents were in progress. We agree with the father that the trial court utilized the wrong criterion for its finding of dependency.
As was held in Roberts v. Florida Dep’t of Children and Families, 687 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), the trial court in a dependency action cannot base its decision merely on the best interest of the child without consideration of the dependency status, which requires a finding of abuse, abandonment, or neglect. In this ease there was no finding that any domestic violence between the parents had any effect on the child. Indeed, the evidence of domestic violence in this case was uncorroborated and suspect. In this case there was no evidence that the child had ever been deserted or mistreated by the father, and no finding to that effect. The child did not testify and was never examined by any Department doctors. Since the parents are now separated and live apart, the situation which concerned the trial court no longer exists. The evidence which was presented did not show that placing the child with the natural father would endanger the child’s safety and well-being. See K.T. v. Department of Children and Families, 706 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). As was said in In re M.F., 770 So. 2d 1189, 1193 (Fla.2000): “The purpose of a dependency proceeding is not to punish the offending parent but to protect and care for a child who has been neglected, abandoned, or abused.” The child in this case has not been neglected, abandoned or abused — at least not by his father — and should be promptly returned to the father by the Department.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
HARRIS and PALMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- In the Interest of M.F. and M.F. v. Fla. Dep't of Child. & Families, 770 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 2000)
- Roberts v. Fla. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 687 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- K.T. v. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 706 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)