DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OBO YOVANA N. SANTILLANA, APPELLANT,
v.
DAMIEN S. DORKINS, 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 Florida First District Court of Appeal reversed an administrative support order that deviated downward from child support guidelines based on an informal visitation arrangement between the parents. The court held that deviations from child support guidelines based on time-sharing require a court-approved parenting plan, not merely an informal verbal agreement.
A deviation from child support guidelines based on time-sharing is unauthorized unless there exists a court-approved parenting plan. Informal verbal visitation agreements, even when equity may support a deviation, cannot serve as the basis for departing from the statutory child support guidelines.
[1] A downward deviation from child support guidelines based on time-sharing is permissible only when a court-approved parenting plan exists and the parent has less than 20%…
[2] An informal visitation arrangement, not contained within a court-approved parenting plan, does not support a deviation from child support guidelines.
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“a non-court-approved visitation arrangement does not support deviation from the guidelines under section 61.30(ll)(a)ll.”
Establishes the core holding that informal visitation agreements cannot justify guideline deviations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Department of Revenue sought to establish child support for Damien Dorkins. An administrative law judge reduced Dorkins's child support obligation…
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 Equitable Result cases and more on FLexlaw
The Department of Revenue challenges an administrative support order that deviated from the child support guidelines based on an informal visitation arrangement between the parties. Because the visitation arrangement was not contained in a court-approved parenting plan, the deviation was unauthorized.
In setting the Appellee’s monthly child support obligation, the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) departed downward from the guidelines after the Appellee testified *279that pursuant to an informal arrangement between him and the children’s mother, the children visit him overnight each Saturday and Sunday. Section 61.30(ll)(a), Florida Statutes (2011), permits a trier of fact to deviate from the child support guidelines based on enumerated factors. The ALJ relied on section 61.30(ll)(a)ll., known as the “catch-all” provision, which allows “[a]ny other adjustment that is needed to achieve an equitable' result[.]”
In Department of Revenue v. Daly, 74 So.3d 165, 167-68 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011), we held that a non-court-approved visitation arrangement does not support deviation from the guidelines under section 61.30(ll)(a)ll.
The addition of the term “other” indicates the adjustment must be based on some other grounds not already expressed in [section 61.30(ll)(a)ll., Florida Statutes]. Section 61.30(ll)(a)(10) expressly requires that an equitable deviation based on time-sharing be awarded only where (1) there exists a “parenting plan,” and (2) the parent has time-sharing with the child for less than 20% of the time.... [A] parenting plan is defined in section 61.046(14) as a court-approved parenting plan with a time-sharing arrangement that can be created through mediation and later approved by a court, or approved by a court where the parties cannot agree. Thus, the plain language of the statute prohibits a trial court from deviating from the guidelines based on a verbal visitation agreement even where equity compels the deviation.
Id.; see also Dep’t of Revenue v. Aluscar, 82 So.3d 1165, 1166 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Dep’t of Revenue v. Williams, 79 So.3d 240, 241 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). Accordingly, we reverse the support order on appeal and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
LEWIS, CLARK, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Dep't OF Revenue obo Alanna H. Sherman v. Daly, 74 So. 3d 165 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Dep't OF Revenue o/b/o Lemeicia L. Rambert v. Williams, 79 So. 3d 240 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- Deneal Brown v. State, 82 So. 3d 1165 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)
- Dep't OF Revenue o/b/o Chianti L. Taylor v. Jude Aluscar, 82 So. 3d 1165 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)