February 2013 Archives

Child Support

A Court is not bound by an agreement between the parties concerning child support. "It is undisputed, and should be indisputable, that a trial court's responsibility to the child cannot be abdicated to any parent, any expert. That heavy responsibility mandates that a court is not bound by any agreement between parents, nor by the opinions of any experts or group of experts." Lane v. Lane, 599 So. 2d 218, 219 (Fla. 4th DCA \992); see Feliciano v. Feliciano, 674 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (confirming that a trial court is not bound by an agreement regarding child support, custody, and visitation where it determines that it is not in the best interests of the children). As noted by the reviewing court in Jones v. Jones, 674 So. 2d 770, 774 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), the "best interests of the children are to govern the custody decision, regardless of any stipulation between the parties." Sparks v. Sparks. 

The trial court may disregard the parent's agreed upon time-sharing agreement, if it is not in the best interests of the children. "Prior to entry of the final judgment, the former wife filed a motion to set aside the MSA and parenting plan, alleging that the MSA was invalid and unenforceable because...As to the parenting plan, the former wife alleged that it was no longer in the children's best interests to reside with the former husband...A court is not bound by an agreement of parents regarding child support, custody, or visitation. Higgins v. Higgins, 945 So. 2d 593, 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). As our sister court stated: '[i]t is undisputed, and should be indisputable, that a trial court's responsibility to the child cannot be abdicated to any parent, any expert. That heavy responsibility mandates that a court is not bound by any agreement between parents, nor by the opinions of any expert or group of experts.' Lane v. Lane, 599 So. 2d 218, 219 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); see Feliciano v. Feliciano, 674 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (confirming that trial court is not bound by agreement regarding child support, custody, and visitation where it determines that it is not in best interests of children). Instead, the trial court is required to 'determine all matters relating to parenting and time-sharing of each minor child of the parties in accordance with the best interests of the child....' §61.13(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2010); see Jones v. Jones, 674 So. 2d 770, 774 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (reiterating that 'best interests of the children are to govern the custody decision, regardless of any stipulation between the parties'). Le v. Nguyen, 37 Fla. L. Weekly D1604 (Fla. 5th DCA July 6, 2012)

Can impute income to a spouse whose expenses are being paid by another. "The former husband also complains about the trial court's imputation of income to him. We find no error in the trial court's decision to impute income to the former husband because he was living rent-free in a house owned by his parents. But, for the reasons explained below, the trial court erred in how it applied that imputation of income to the facts of this case. Imputation of income to a spouse for purposes of determining support is appropriate when someone, such as an employer or parent, is paying or subsidizing some of that spouse's monthly living expenses. See, e.g., Posner v. Posner, 39 So. 3d 411,413-14 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (affirming trial court's decision to impute $ 1400 income to the father based on the rental value of the home owned by the parents, where they allowed him to live rent-free); Chapoteau v. Chapoteau, 659 So.2d 1381,1384 (Fla. 3dDCA 1995) (holding that husband's employer-provided residence was income)." George v. George.

Disparity in income alone does not justify an award of permanent periodic alimony. "This court has recognized that '[d]isparity in income alone does not justify an award of permanent periodic alimony' and that '[a]n award of permanent alimony is improper where the evidence does not reflect permanent inability on the part of the wife to become self-sustaining.' Rosecan v. Springer, 845 So. 2d 927, 929, 930 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)." Beasley v. Beasley