R.M., APPELLANT,
v.
R.C., 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 appellate court affirmed the trial court's order granting equal time sharing and an injunction preventing removal of the child from the state, but reversed the child support determination for failure to include specific income findings and a child support guidelines worksheet.
A trial court's child support order must include specific findings regarding the parties' incomes and attach a child support guidelines worksheet to be affirmed on appeal.
[1] A child support order must include specific findings regarding each party's income and attach a child support guidelines worksheet to satisfy appellate review standards.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceR.M. and R.C. disputed paternity, custody, and support of their minor child. The trial court granted R.C.'s motion for temporary relief and injunction…
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 Custody Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
R.M. appeals the order granting R.C.’s motion for temporary relief and injunction in this action to establish paternity, custody, and support of the parties’ minor child. The order grants equal time sharing between the parties, awards child support to R.M. based on the child support guidelines and R.C.’s financial affidavit, and enjoins the parties from taking the child out of state without written permission. We affirm the portions of the order related to time sharing and the injunction. See Smith v. Smith, 39 So.3d 458, 459 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (“When there is no trial transcript in our appellate record, we ‘can not [sic] properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court’s judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory.’ ” (alteration in original) (quoting Applegate v. Barnett *161Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979))). However, we reverse the trial court’s determination of child support because it fails to include specific findings as to the parties’ incomes and to attach a child support guidelines worksheet. See Wilcox v. Munoz, 35 So.3d 136, 138 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (reversing child support award when the “order made no findings regarding the parties’ incomes or their ability to pay and did not attach a child support guidelines worksheet”).
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
VILLANTI, C.J., and SLEET and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hogan v. Aloia, 257 So. 3d 479 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)…worksheet to the judgment. The amended final judgment in the record does not have a child support guidelines worksheet attached to it, although it references such an attachment.3 The failure to attach the worksheet is error. See R.M. v. R.C., 227 So. 3d 160, 161 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017). 3 The transcript reflects that exhibits titled “Proposed Child Support Guidelines” were identified as exhibits, but not entered into evidence. The former husband claims the worksheet was entered into evidence and fi…
Authorities Cited
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Albert v. Applegate et ux., 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)
- Wilcox v. Munoz, 35 So. 3d 136 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- Smith v. Smith, 39 So. 3d 458 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)