USA – FLORIDA Law and Practice Contributed by: Elisha D. Roy, Sasser, Cestero & Roy
Child support is calculated by a statutory guide - line based upon the parents’ combined net income estimated to have been allocated to the child as if the parents and child(ren) were living together in one household, § 61.29, Fla. Stat. After determining the total support obliga - tion, this is divided between the parents based upon each parent’s percentage of the overnights with the child(ren). The difference between the amounts is used to determine which parent is the payor and the amount of the payment nec - essary to care for the child(ren). These amounts are adjusted for each parent’s contributions to the child(ren)’s health insurance and day care expenses, producing the final support amount, § 61.30, Fla. Stat. Parents may enter an agreement concerning their child support obligations so long as the agreement serves the best interest of the child, however, they may not waive or contract away their child’s right to support. Lester v Lester, 736 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (citations omit - ted). Contracts between the parents regarding the support of their minor child are subject to the plenary power of the state to control and regulate. Zolonz v Zolonz, 659 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). The court may make orders in relation to child support. All child support orders and income deduction orders must provide for child support to terminate on a child’s 18th birthday unless the court finds or previously found that a child is dependent due to a mental or physical inca - pacity which began prior to the child turning 18 or if a dependent child is between the ages of 18 and 19, and is still in high school performing in good faith with a reasonable expectation of graduating before age 19. § 61.13, Fla. Stat, § 743.07(2), Fla. Stat.
Florida law does not provide an avenue for a child to seek support on their own. 3.3 Other Matters Courts have broad discretion in entering orders on children’s issues. See Miller v Miller, 842 So. 2d (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). When parents have opposing views on specific issues the court may modify parental responsibility to allow one parent ultimate decision-making authority on the spe - cific issue. For example, in Hancock v Hancock, 915 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), when par - ents could not agree on a school for their child, the lower court was directed to award ultimate decision-making and designate one parent to make educational decisions for the child. The courts cannot order or provide decision- making authority to a third party. As such, if there is an impasse on parenting decisions, and this is brought before the court, the court will not likely make the actual decision, but will give one par - ent ultimate decision-making authority over that specific issue or topic. For example, if the par - ties do not agree on which school a child shall attend, after a hearing, the court would award one parent with ultimate decision-making on that issue. Unless there is evidence that the order would harm the child, the court may not choose one parent’s religious beliefs and practices over another’s. This would violate the First Amend - ment. Mesa v Mesa, 652 So. 2d 456, 457 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Parental alienation is a bit of a misnomer but is really about gate-keeping behaviours. Flori - da courts recognise that parental alienation, if proved by competent, substantial evidence, can justify a post-dissolution request for a modifica - tion of a time-sharing designation in a final judg -
380 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook