M.M. v. J.H., Case No. 2D17–1921

Decision Date06 July 2018
Docket NumberCase No. 2D17–1921
Citation251 So.3d 970
Parties M.M., Appellant, v. J.H., Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Mark F. Baseman of Felix, Felix & Baseman, Tampa, for Appellant.

Thomas A. Burns and Arda Goker of Burns, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee.

BADALAMENTI, Judge.

M.M. (the Mother) seeks review of a Final Judgment of Paternity and Parenting Plan that, among other things, ordered her to pay child support to J.H. (the Father). After careful review and the benefit of oral argument, we reverse the trial court's award of child support to the Father. At bottom, the trial court neglected to make the required findings to order the Mother to pay child support to the Father. We thus remand to the trial court to make the requisite findings to support any child support award.

The Mother and the Father were a couple for approximately fourteen years but never married. In 2009, the Mother gave birth to a boy and, in 2011, the couple separated. In 2013, the Mother filed a petition for paternity seeking a judgment declaring the Father as the legal father of the boy. The petition also set forth a proposed parenting plan for the trial court's consideration. The trial court subsequently entered final judgment of paternity, which incorporated the Mother's proposed parenting plan.

For the next three years, the parents followed through with the parenting plan, amicably agreeing, as co-parents, to make adjustments where needed. During this period, the Mother married a man who subsequently accepted an employment offer, necessitating his relocation from Florida to Idaho. The Mother thus petitioned the trial court to relocate the child to Idaho so that the child could join her and her husband. This launched a barrage of court filings by the Father, attacking, among other things, the validity of the underlying paternity judgment and parenting plan. The Father further filed a counterpetition for paternity and for related relief. In sum, the trial court ultimately vacated its 2013 final judgment of paternity and parenting plan as void ab initio and proceeded on the Father's counterpetition. While the vacation of the final judgment of paternity and parenting plan rendered the Mother's relocation petition moot, the court approached the final hearing as if the Mother was advocating for a long-distance parenting plan and analyzed the relocation factors in its final judgment.

The trial court conducted a bench trial on the Father's counterpetition for paternity and for related relief. Both the Father and the Mother submitted proposed parenting plans and written closing arguments. In 2017, the trial court entered a new Final Judgment of Paternity and Parenting Plan, ordering shared parental responsibility of the child in Hillsborough County, where the child had lived his entire life.1 Furthermore, and germane to the sole issue we decide in this appeal, the trial court ordered that the Mother: (1) pay $97 per month to the Father in child support; (2) reimburse the Father $1400 for overpayments of past child support; and (3) pay $582 in retroactive child support.

In its order, the trial court neglects to set forth the parties' respective incomes. The only, albeit tangential, reference to the Mother's income is that she is not working and relies on the income of her husband to support her and the child. The trial court notes, though, that the Father is self-employed and grosses between $8000 and $11000 per month, $2000 of which is reinvested in his business. As for the $97 per month child support award to the Father, the trial court references that this amount was "pursuant to the child support guidelines worksheet that will be filed under separate cover." But no such worksheet was filed by the trial court. As for the retroactive child support award to the Father and the Father's overpayments owed by the Mother, the trial court's order does not set forth how these amounts were derived.

Section 61.30, Florida Statutes (2017), provides guidelines establishing the amount of child support to be awarded based on the parties' combined net monthly incomes. The legislature has made clear that the child support guidelines amount "presumptively establishes the amount the trier of fact shall order as child support in an initial proceeding for such support or in a proceeding for modification of an existing order for such support" § 61.30(1)(a). This statute affords trial courts discretion to deviate by more than five percent from a presumptive child support amount "only upon a written finding explaining why ordering payment of such guideline amount would be unjust or inappropriate." Id. In conformance with section 61.30, the case law is "well-settled that a trial court errs by failing to make...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Tinoco v. Lugo
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 15. Juli 2022
    ...support." J.A.D. v. K.M.A. , 264 So. 3d 1080, 1083 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting M.M. v. J.H. , 251 So. 3d 970, 972 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) ). This requires findings about the parents’ net incomes, not just their gross incomes. Id. ("The trial court erred by fail......
  • Ortiz v. Ortiz
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 7. April 2021
    ...parties' incomes for purposes of child support calculations renders a final judgment facially erroneous." Id. (quoting M.M. v. J.H., 251 So. 3d 970, 972 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) ). Here, the amended final judgment states, "Based upon the most recent financial affidavits submitted by both parties,......
  • Carmack v. Carmack
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 3. Juli 2019
    ...is a departure from the child support guidelines and, if so, whether the departure from the guidelines is justified. M.M. v. J.H., 251 So. 3d 970, 972 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (quoting Wilcox v. Munoz, 35 So. 3d 136, 139 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) ). Consequently, "case law is ‘well-settled that a trial ......
  • McGill v. McGill
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 10. Februar 2023
    ...factual findings regarding the parties' incomes for purposes of child support calculations renders a final judgment facially erroneous." Id. (reversing child support retroactive child support awards when the order did not include any "findings as to the Mother's income or ability to pay" an......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT