STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, BY AND ON BEHALF OF KRISTEN A. ZEOLI, APPELLANT,
v.
SEAN H. KLINE, 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 Department of Revenue appeals a child support order that adjusted support based on an unsigned, unilateral time-sharing arrangement created by a hearing officer. The court reversed, holding that adjustments to child support for substantial time with a non-custodial parent must be based on a valid parenting plan developed by the parents or established by the court.
The order must be reversed and remanded because the adjustment to child support requires a valid parenting plan as defined in section 61.046(14)—either developed and agreed to by parents and approved by the court, or established by the circuit court. The unsigned stipulation created by the hearing officer does not qualify as a parenting plan.
[1] Child support adjustments for substantial time spent with a non-custodial parent must be made pursuant to a parenting plan.
[2] A parenting plan is a document governing parental decision-making and containing a time-sharing schedule for 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 intelligence“any adjustment to the presumptive child support amount for substantial time spent with a non-custodial parent is to be made when the time with the non-custodial parent is pursuant to 'a parenting plan.'”
Establishes the statutory requirement that time-sharing adjustments must be based on a parenting plan, not other arrangements
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKristen Zeoli and Sean Kline are biological parents of a child. The Department of Revenue petitioned on behalf of Zeoli for a child support order. A h…
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 Time-Sharing Schedule cases and more on FLexlaw
The Department of Revenue appeals an order establishing the child support obligations of Sean H. Kline, appellee, and a custody arrangement for the parties’ child. Because the order was not made pursuant to a parenting plan under section 61.046(4), Florida Statutes (2010), we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Appellant Kristen Zeoli and appellee Sean Kline are the biological parents of a child. On behalf of Zeoli, the Department petitioned for entry of an order setting appellee’s child support obligation. Following a hearing conducted by a court appointed hearing officer, the trial court entered an order setting child support. The order adopted the recommendation of the hearing officer who calculated the respective support obligations for each parent in accordance with section 61.30. In so doing, the hearing officer considered the number of nights the child resided with the appellee father and entered sua sponte a document entitled a “Stipulation for a Formal Visitation Agreement.” This so-called stipulation was not signed by either parent. Further, a review of the record discloses that, while the parents had established between them an informal time-sharing arrangement, neither stipulated on the record that the child stays with appel-lee in excess of 26% of nights per year, as the stipulation indicated.
While the determination of child support may consider time spent with a non-custodial parent, section 61.30(11), provides that any adjustment to the presumptive child support amount for substantial time spent with a non-custodial parent is to be made when the time with the non-custodial parent is pursuant to “a parenting plan.” A parenting plan, as defined in section 61.046(14), is a
document created to govern the relationship between the parents relating to decisions that must be made regarding the minor child and must contain a time-sharing schedule for the parents and child....
(a) The parenting plan must be:
1. Developed and agreed to by the parents and approved by the court; or
2. Established by the court, with or without the use of a court-ordered parenting plan recommendation, if the parents cannot agree on a plan or the parents agreed on a plan not approved by the court.
There is nothing in the record resembling a “parenting plan” as defined in section 61.046(14). The so-called “stipulation” created by the hearing officer neither reflects an agreement of the parents nor otherwise qualifies as a parenting plan because it does not establish a time-sharing schedule and was not established by the circuit court.
Accordingly, we reverse the order under review and remand the cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
VAN NORTWICK, CLARK, and RAY, JJ., concur.