RONALD F. BROOKSHIRE
v.
DEPT. OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AND SHATORRIA MANUEL
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.
An administrative child support order may not include a time-sharing or parenting plan absent written agreement by both parents, and a father's request for shared custody is not properly before an appellate court reviewing an administrative support order.
[1] A party waives the right to a final hearing before an administrative agency by failing to request one prior to the issuance of the final order.
[2] An administrative order establishing child support obligations cannot include a parenting time plan unless both parents agree to and sign such a plan.
Previewing 2 of 6 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 administrative procedure set forth in this section concerns only the establishment of child support obligations and, if agreed to and signed by both parents, a parenting time plan or Title IV-D Standard Parenting Time Plan.”
Court's explanation of the limited scope of administrative child support proceedings under Florida Statute § 409.2563(2)(e)
Ronald Brookshire appealed a final administrative child support order issued by the Florida Department of Revenue. Brookshire sought modification of t…
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
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
RONALD F. BROOKSHIRE, JR.,
Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT, and SHATORRIA MANUEL,
Appellees.
No. 4D19-1308
[January 8, 2020]
Administrative appeal from the State of Florida, Department of Revenue, Child Support Program; L.T. Case No. 2000579962.
Ronald F. Brookshire, Jr., Greenacres, pro se. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Toni C. Bernstein, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for appellee Department of Revenue.
PER CURIAM.
Ronald Brookshire (“the father”) appeals from a final administrative support order entered by the Florida Department of Revenue Child Support Program (“the department”). On appeal, the father asks for “shared/split custody” of the parties’ minor child, and that his monthly child support payment be reduced. The department responds that (1) this court lacks jurisdiction to award custody or visitation and (2) no error has been demonstrated in the child support calculations. We agree with the department and affirm, though without prejudice, as set forth below.
As an initial matter, the father did not request a hearing prior to issuance of the final order. Thus, he waived his right to a final hearing, and the department was authorized to enter the final order. See § 409.2563(7)(b)-(c), Fla. Stat. (2019).
As to the father’s request for shared custody, the issue of time-sharing is not properly before us. “If the parents do not have an existing time-sharing schedule or parenting time plan and do not agree to a parenting
time plan, a plan may not be included in the initial administrative order . . . .” § 409.2563(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2019); see also § 409.2563(2)(e), Fla. Stat. (2019) (“The administrative procedure set forth in this section concerns only the establishment of child support obligations and, if agreed to and signed by both parents, a parenting time plan or Title IV-D Standard Parenting Time Plan.”) (emphasis added). Here, both parents did not agree to and sign a parenting time plan so that it could be incorporated into the administrative support order. As time-sharing was not addressed below, this court may not address it on appeal. Thus, we affirm on the issue.
However, the father is not without a remedy, as he may file an action for custody and visitation in the circuit court. See § 409.2563(2)(h), Fla. Stat. (2019) (“Either parent may at any time file a civil action in a circuit having jurisdiction and proper venue for a determination of child custody and rights of parental contact.”). Thus, our affirmance on this issue is without prejudice.
As to the father’s child support obligation, we affirm the award in the final order as it is supported by competent, substantial evidence.1 Again, however, our affirmance is without prejudice. The father may seek a modification of the final administrative support order as set forth in section 409.2563(12), Florida Statutes, or he may seek a superseding order in the circuit court pursuant to section 409.2563(10)(c), Florida Statutes. Miley v. Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. Barker, 23 So. 3d 1284, 1284 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); accord Salters v. Dep’t of Revenue, Child Support Enf’t Program ex rel. Mobley, 32 So. 3d 777, 778 n.2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).
Affirmed. LEVINE, C.J., MAY and FORST, JJ., concur.
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
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)
- Dorcely v. State of Fla. Dep't OF Bus. & Prof'l Reg. & Thrity Malhotra, 22 So. 3d 834 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)
- Miley v. Dep't OF Revenue o/b/o Amanda Lyn Barker, 23 So. 3d 1284 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)