Lewis v. Poulson, 89-03277

• Decision Date: 01 February 1991
• Docket Number: No. 89-03277,89-03277
• Citation: 573 So.2d 443,16 Fla. L. Weekly 354
• Parties: 16 Fla. L. Weekly 354 Sara C. LEWIS, Appellant, v. Robert A. POULSON, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 443

573 So.2d 443

16 Fla. L. Weekly 354

Sara C. LEWIS, Appellant, v. Robert A. POULSON, Appellee.

No. 89-03277.

District Court of Appeal of Florida,

Second District.

Feb. 1, 1991.

Joan LoBianco Walker of Joan LoBianco Walker, P.A., St. Petersburg, for appellant.

Carl T. Boake of Wallace, Finck & Boake, St. Petersburg, for appellee.

ALTENBERND, Judge.

Sara C. Lewis appeals a final judgment of dissolution concerning her eleven-year marriage to Robert A. Poulson. She contests the awards of child support and rehabilitative alimony. She also complains of the trial court's failure to grant temporary cost money for the services of a certified public accountant to assist in the evaluation of certain pension plans. While we recognize that the terms of this judgment may eventually need to be modified due to circumstances which were unresolved at the time of its entry, we affirm the judgment except for an unauthorized automatic increase in future child support.

This couple married in 1977. Both parties are intelligent and well-educated. The wife has a bachelor's degree in graphic design from Ohio University, but has not worked outside the home since the birth of the couple's first child in 1980. The husband earns an after-tax income in excess of $70,000, as vice-president of engineering in a business which is run by a small group of people, including members of the wife's family. The couple now has a ten-year-old daughter and a four-year-old son.

The single biggest challenge for this couple is undoubtedly the severe retardation of their daughter. The child sustained severe brain damage as a result of an illness several weeks after her birth. Until the time of the couple's separation, the daughter lived in their home. She has the mental ability of a two-year-old, limited communication skills, and little or no ability to care for herself.

Shortly after the couple's separation, the daughter was placed in a foster home. At the time of the final hearing in this divorce, it was clear that the wife had a very strong desire to return the child to her home. It appears that the couple does not agree on whether the child and the family would be better served by her continued stay in foster care or by her return to the wife's home.

At the final hearing, the trial court was not asked to determine whether the child should stay in foster care or return home. The parties presented limited testimony concerning the child, her present needs, and her future prognosis. The limited testimony suggests that the child could live for many years and may ultimately need placement in a permanent care facility for adults. Under these difficult circumstances we fault no one for the failure to address this central question at the time of the divorce hearing. From this record, it is clear that the trial court made its decision on the assumption that the daughter would...