FOSTER
v.
CHONG
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.
In this Florida family law appeal, the Third District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded a trial court's final judgment of paternity regarding child support and parental responsibility. The court found that the trial court failed to provide sufficient findings supporting its child support calculation and failed to properly order shared parental responsibility as required by statute.
The court reversed on two issues: (1) the child support award lacked sufficient evidentiary support because the trial court made no written or oral findings explaining how it calculated the amount in accordance with chapter 61 of the Florida Statutes; and (2) the Final Judgment failed to establish with necessary precision whether shared parental responsibility would be ordered or to make findings that shared parental responsibility would be detrimental to the child as required by statute. The court otherwise affirmed.
[1] A child support award must be supported by competent substantial evidence, and the record must reflect the trial court's findings regarding the statutory factors used in…
[2] A trial court must order shared parental responsibility unless it makes a finding that such an arrangement would be detrimental to the child.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“the trial court made no written or oral findings to describe how it arrived at Foster's child support obligation, and therefore, the record is unclear as to whether this amount comports with the allocation requirements of chapter 61 of the Florida Statutes”
Establishes the legal deficiency that required reversal: lack of findings supporting the child support calculation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePatrick Foster and Monique Chong are parents of a daughter born in 2011. After their separation in late 2012, Foster voluntarily paid $500 per month i…
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 Timesharing cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed September 5, 2018. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D17-2807 Lower Tribunal No. 16-21953
________________
Patrick G. Foster,
Appellant,
vs.
Monique S. Chong,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Abby Cynamon, Judge.
Cain & Snihur, LLP, and May L. Cain, for appellant.
Law Offices of Kenneth M. Kaplan, and Kenneth M. Kaplan, for appellee.
Before LOGUE, SCALES and LUCK, JJ.
SCALES, J.
Appellant Patrick G. Foster, the petitioner below, appeals a “Final Judgment of Paternity, Time Sharing/Paternity Plan.” Specifically, Foster challenges the
Final Judgment on five grounds. Because (i) we are unable to conclude that the trial court’s computation of Foster’s child support obligation is supported by competent substantial evidence; and (ii) the Final Judgment neglects to order shared parental responsibility, we reverse and remand for further proceedings on these two issues, but otherwise affirm the Final Judgment.
Appellee Monique S. Chong, the respondent below, and Foster are the parents of a daughter born in 2011. After Chong and Foster separated in late 2012,
Foster voluntarily paid $500 per month in child support, not pursuant to a court order. Foster ceased these monthly payments when Chong left Florida with their daughter and moved to Georgia without notifying Foster. In 2016, Foster filed the instant petition seeking a determination of paternity, timesharing and child support.
After conducting a trial on the petition, the trial court entered a Final
Judgment that: (i) determined it was in the best interests of the child to reside with
Chong; (ii) outlined the parties’ timesharing of the child; and (iii) required Foster to pay $1286 per month for child support. Foster appealed the Final Judgment.
The trial court made no written or oral findings to describe how it arrived at
Foster’s child support obligation, and therefore, the record is unclear as to whether this amount comports with the allocation requirements of chapter 61 of the Florida
Statutes. As a result, we are unable to conclude that the child support award of
$1268 is supported by competent substantial evidence and are compelled to reverse. See Van Exter v. Diodonet-Molina, 152 So. 3d 699, 701 (Fla. 3d DCA
2014); see also Ondrejack v. Ondrejack, 839 So. 2d 867, 871-72 (Fla. 4th DCA
2003) (holding that trial court must consider all appropriate statutory factors in determining child support and make specific findings therefor).
Additionally, the Final Judgment suggests, but does not establish with the necessary precision, that Chong and Foster will share parental responsibility. The trial court is required to order shared parental responsibility unless it finds that shared parental responsibility would be detrimental to the child. § 61.13(2)(c)2.,
Fla. Stat. (2017); Aranda v. Padilla, 216 So. 3d 652, 653 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Garcia v. Juliette Espinosa-Garcia (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)
Authorities Cited
- Ondrejack v. Ondrejack, 839 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Aranda v. Linnette Padilla, 216 So. 3d 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)
- Van Exter v. Diodonet-Molina, 152 So. 3d 699 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)