ELEIDY MIEDES
v.
STEVE B. IDESES
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.
A trial court's modification of a parenting plan and child support obligation is affirmed when supported by explicit findings of fact based on competent, substantial evidence and proper analysis of the statutory factors under Florida Statute § 61.13(3).
[1] A modification of child support is properly made retroactive to the date the modification petition is filed when the circumstances giving rise to modification existed at…
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 intelligenceThe parties shared one child born in August 2016 and had a prior final judgment of paternity with an agreed parenting plan. The father filed a petitio…
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 Status Quo Ante cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed August 24, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D21-1112 Lower Tribunal No. 16-24232
________________
Eleidy Miedes,
Appellant,
vs.
Steve B. Ideses,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Ivonne Cuesta, Judge. Sandy T. Fox, P.A., and Sandy T. Fox, for appellant. Abramowitz & Associates, and Jordan B. Abramowitz, for appellee. Before SCALES, HENDON and GORDO, JJ. GORDO, J.
Eleidy Miedes (“the Mother”) appeals from an order granting Steve
Ideses’ (“the Father’s”) petition for modification of the parenting plan and child support. We have jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A). The parties share one child together, born in August 2016. Prior to the child’s birth, the trial court entered final judgment of paternity, ratifying and incorporating the parties’ agreed upon parenting plan. In 2018, the Father filed a petition for modification of the parenting plan and child support. The trial court subsequently entered its written decision granting the Father’s petition. The Mother appealed.
We find no error in the trial court’s detailed thirty-four-page order granting modification of the parenting plan and child support, made after a seven-day trial with evidence from the parties and experts, as it contained explicit findings of fact supported by competent, substantial evidence and properly analyzed the statutory factors of section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes.
See Sordo v. Camblin, 130 So. 3d 743, 744 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (“[T]he evidence was competent and substantial that there has been a substantial change in circumstances and that the modification is in the best interests of the parties’ [child].”); Levi v. Levi, 780 So. 2d 261, 263 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (“When child support is modified, retroactivity is the rule rather than the exception.”); Spano v. Bruce, 62 So. 3d 2, 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (“Where the circumstances that give rise to a modification of child support exist at the time during which a petition for modification is filed, failure to order the modification retroactive to the date of the filing of the petition constitutes an abuse of discretion.”).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Susanna Alan v. West (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Levi v. Levi, 780 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Spano v. Bruce, 62 So. 3d 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
- Sordo v. Camblin, 130 So. 3d 743 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)