LELAND W. MCKEE, APPELLANT,
v.
AMANDA SINCO, 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 court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering child support payments for day care, health insurance, and extracurricular activities.
The parties reside in the same household but are no longer a couple. The father appeals a temporary order for child support, arguing the trial court a…
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 Paternity Action cases and more on FLexlaw
Leland McKee appeals a temporary order on child support in this paternity action. The parties continue to reside in the same household, although no longer as a couple. The home is in foreclosure, and it is unclear from the record whether any mortgage payments are being made.
McKee argues the trial court abused its discretion in awarding any child support.1 We disagree. The trial court did not award support under the child support guidelines. Under those guidelines, McKee’s child support responsibility would be more than $1300 per month. Instead, the court ordered McKee, whose yearly net income exceeds $52,000, to pay his proportionate share of day care and health insurance costs of $517.16 per month, as well as fifty percent of agreed-upon extracurricular activities. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s ruling, and we find McKee’s appeal to be frivolous.
AFFIRMED.
GRIFFIN, MONACO and COHEN, JJ., concur.