(i) In a modification of child support case, the fact that the former wife's bills are being paid by her new husband may be considered as part of her gross income in calculating child support. In a recent case captioned Thompson v. Malicki the Florida Court of Appeals had before it a case where the former wife sought to relocate the parties' children, modify the parties' custody and visitation schedule with the children, and modify child support. The Former Wife wanted to move the parties' children from Charlotte County to Palm Beach County, Florida so that she and they could live with her new husband. The lower court denied the relocation but permitted a modification of child support.
Modification of child support in Florida was recently explained in Arquette v. Rutter. In Arquette v. Rutter the Florida Court of Appeal stated: "This court recently explained the circumstances, under the UIFSA, in which a Florida court may modify a child support order issued in another state: [A]s is the case here, when not all of the parties reside in Florida, a Florida court may only modify the order under one of the following circumstances: 1. After notice and hearing the tribunal finds that a. the child, individual obligee, and obligor do not reside in the issuing state; b. the petitioner seeks modification and is not a Florida resident; and c. the Florida tribunal has personal jurisdiction over the respondent. 2. The tribunal finds that it has personal jurisdiction over an individual party or the child and that all of the individual parties have filed a consent in the issuing tribunal to the Florida tribunal's modifying the support order and assuming continuing exclusive jurisdiction over it.
Child Support Award Modification - Date on Which the Modification Takes Place in Florida
When the court makes an allocated award for each child, the modification is retroactive to the date the child reaches majority, and pre-dates the filing of the modification petition. "Furthermore, when the issue is arrearages, the obligor is entitled to a retroactive reduction pre-dating a modification petition, consistent with the statutory child support guidelines. See, e.g., State, Dep't of Revenue ex rel Ortega v. Ortega, 948 So. 2d 855,857 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (explaining that, in the McClung decision, the court was 'careful to distinguish those authorities that refused to retroactively modify an unallocated support award from the case then before us involving what we determined to be an allocated award...'). Gilbert v. Cole.
Failure to exercise time-sharing results in an adjustment of child support. "We previously held that application of section 61.30(11(b) is mandatory. Seiberlich v. Wolf, 859 So. 2d 570, 571 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Florida law mandates a reduction in child support whenever the non-custodial parent spends a "substantial amount of time" with the child. § 61.3O(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2006). It seems intuitive that, conversely, the failure to spend time with a child mandates forfeiture of the right to a reduction in child support. The Legislature has specifically provided that a parent's failure to exercise court-ordered or agreed-upon time-sharing, not caused by the other parent, resulting in the adjustment of child support "shall be deemed a substantial change of circumstances...." § 61.30(11)(c), Fla. Stat. (2001). That modification is "retroactive to the date the noncustodial parent first failed to regularly exercise court-ordered or agreed visitation. Id." Buhler v. Buhler
Trial Court has jurisdiction over a petition for modification during the pendency of an appeal. "Both the Third and Fourth Districts have held that the trial court has jurisdiction over a petition for prospective downward modification of alimony and/or child support even while the appeal of an initial award of alimony and child support is pending because "'[t]he granting of modification relief prospectively would have no effect on the order being appealed.'" Atlas v. Atlas, 708 So. 2d 296, 298 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (quoting Merian v. Merhige, 690 So. 2d 678, 681 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) ) (emphasis added)." Cooper v. Cooper