ROUSON, SR.
v.
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, JACSON
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.
When calculating retroactive child support, the Department must use the obligor's actual income during the retroactive period if available, and must attach a child support guidelines worksheet to the final order.
[1] When calculating retroactive child support, the court or administrative agency must apply the guidelines schedule in effect at the time of hearing and use the obligor's a…
[2] A child support guidelines worksheet must be attached to the final child support order to permit appellate review of whether the award is supported by the evidence.
Previewing 2 of 2 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 court shall apply the guidelines schedule in effect at the time of the hearing subject to the obligor's demonstration of his or her actual income . . . during the retroactive period.”
Statutory requirement for calculating retroactive child support under § 61.30(17)(a), Fla. Stat. (2023)
Daniel Rouson appealed a final administrative child support order entered by the Department of Revenue. The Department had records of Rouson's actual …
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 Administrative Support Order cases and more on FLexlaw
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
DANIEL ERVIN ROUSON, SR.,
Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE CHILD SUPPORT PROGRAM and NGIRI ASHIKI JACKSON,
Appellees.
No. 2D2024-0107
October 16, 2024
Appeal from the Department of Revenue Child Support Program.
Charis A. Campbell of Golden Key Law Group, PLLC, Pinellas Park, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee and Sarah C. Prieto, Assistant Attorney General, Fort Lauderdale, for Appellee Department of Revenue Child Support Program.
No appearance for Appellee Ngiri Ashiki Jackson.
KELLY, Judge.
Daniel Ervin Rouson appeals from a final administrative support order entered by the Department of Revenue, Child Support Enforcement Program (the Department). He argues, and the Department concedes, that reversal in part is required based on the Department's
2
miscalculation of retroactive child support and its failure to attach a child support guidelines worksheet to the final order. In determining retroactive child support, "[t]he court shall apply the guidelines schedule in effect at the time of the hearing subject to the obligor's demonstration of his or her actual income . . . during the retroactive period." § 61.30(17)(a), Fla. Stat. (2023); see also Gaut v. Dep't of Revenue, Child Support Enf't Program, 220 So. 3d 552, 553 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (stating that if available, the Department must use state wage information for the retroactive time period in calculating retroactive child support); Salters v. Dep't of Revenue, Child Support Enf't Program ex rel. Mobley, 32 So. 3d 777, 778 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (same); Finch v. Dep't of Revenue ex rel. John-Jules, 65 So. 3d 1150, 1151-52 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (reversing a retroactive child support award because the court used the obligor's current income to calculate retroactive support despite evidence of his income during the retroactive time period). Here, the final order reflects that the Department was provided with records reflecting Rouson's actual income during the retroactive time period but that the Department failed to use this evidence to calculate his support obligation. We therefore reverse and remand for recalculation of the retroactive support award in accordance with section 61.30(1)(a). Finally, as the parties correctly point out, the Department failed to incorporate a child support guidelines worksheet in the final order. Without a guidelines worksheet, we cannot determine whether an award of retroactive child support is supported by the evidence. Thus, on remand, the Department is directed to attach a child support guidelines worksheet to the amended final order. See McGill v. McGill, 355 So. 3d 563, 564 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023) (reversing where trial court failed to make factual findings on the parties' incomes and failed to attach a child support
3
guidelines worksheet to its judgment); Durham v. Dep't of Revenue ex rel. Durham, 850 So. 2d 653, 654 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (holding that it was error for the court to determine child support without a child support guidelines worksheet). In all other respects, we affirm. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
BLACK and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Salters v. Dep't OF Revenue, 32 So. 3d 777 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- Durham v. Dep't OF Revenue, 850 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Ashton J. Finch v. Dep't OF Revenue, 65 So. 3d 1150 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
- Nepola v. Nepola, 355 So. 3d 563 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)
- Gaut v. Dep't OF Revenue, 220 So. 3d 552 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)