Child Support

Fort Lauderdale, Florida Divorce Court Judge Reversed For Holding Indigent Father In Contempt For Failure To Pay Child Support

Published on: May 19, 2009 | by Sandy T. Fox

In Anderson v. Department of Revenue, the Fourth District Court of Appeals reversed a Broward County, Florida divorce court decision holding an indigent father in contempt of court for his failure to pay child support and for setting a purge of $5,000.00. Judge Alfred J. Horowitz, a divorce judge in Fort Lauderdale, Florida ordered Mr. Anderson to pay $5,000 in child support arrears within 48 hours to avoid jail time. Mr. Anderson timely appealed Judge Horowitz’s order to the Fourth District Court of Appeals because he was indigent; and therefore, would not be able to make the immediate $5,000 payment. The trial court determined that Mr. Anderson was indigent purposes of his appeal.

Mr. Anderson was in child support arrears over $50,000. Even though he owed a substantial amount of money, the Fourth District Court of Appeals held that the trial court committed reversible error in finding Mr. Anderson in contempt of court and thereafter determining that he was indigent for the purposes of the appeal. The Court reasoned that the finding of indigent status evidenced an inability to pay the $5,000.00 purge.

When a party is requesting that a court find an obligor in indirect civil contempt of court, incarceration cannot be used as a means to seek compliance with the court order when the contemnor does not have the present ability to purge himself of contempt. The contemnor must have the key to the jailhouse door.

Can Your Broward County, Florida Divorce Judge Extend Child Support Beyond The Age of Majority?

Published on: May 14, 2009 | by Sandy T. Fox

In Rose v. Rose the Fourth District of Appeals recently reviewed a Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage entered by Judge Renne Goldenberg, a divorce judge in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The father appealed the trial court’s order granting the mother’s request for an extension of the father’s child support obligation until their daughter graduated from high school. The Fourth District Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court located in Broward County, Florida.

In 1994 when the parties were divorced, they had agreed that the father would pay child support for each minor child until “they reach the age of majority, marry, die, graduate from high school or becomes self supporting, whichever occurs first.” Three months before their daughter reached the age of majority, the mother petitioned the court for modification of child support. Because their daughter would turn eighteen while still in high school, the mother requested the court extend the father’s obligation until the child graduated from high school. The trial court granted the mother’s request and entered summary judgment for her concluding that the child’s passage to majority while still in high school constitutes a substantial change not contemplated by the parties.

In order to modify your child support obligation, a party seeking modification must prove that there has been a substantial change of circumstances and must show that this change is significant, material, involuntary and permanent in nature. Here, the parents had specifically contemplated in their marital settlement agreement the time when the father’s support obligation would terminate. The Fourth District Court of Appeals did not agree that the parents had failed to contemplate their child reaching the age of majority before graduation when the parties listed this as an event that would terminate the child support obligation. Finally, the court explained that the parent’s obligation to support their children is limited to their minority and dependency except as provided for in Florida Statute, § 743. 07(2).

The Florida Family Law Court Can Impute Income When Calculating Child Support

Published on: May 6, 2009 | by Sandy T. Fox

In Scarti v Scarti, the Fourth District Court of Appeals recently reviewed a Florida family law court’s final judgment of paternity where the father challenged the amount he owed to the mother for retroactive child support. In particular, the father appealed the amount of income that the trial court imputed to the mother. In determining the amount the father had to pay to the mother pursuant to the child support guidelines, the court imputed $2,031 net monthly income to the mother.

The mother had a high school GED. In 2004, she earned between $1,000 and $4,500 a month operating her own landscaping company. She also testified that the most she ever earned in a year was $22,000. Her only other work experience was as a waitress at the age of seventeen and working in her mother’s flower shop. Based on her education and prior work history the court imputed $2,031 per month which totals $24,372, more than the mother earned in a given year.

The Fourth District affirmed the imputation of income to the mother in the amount of $2,031 and found that this was not an abuse of discretion.