Fort Lauderdale Divorce Lawyer Blog
Child support disputes often extend beyond the question of how much support is owed going forward and look back to periods when one parent provided primary care without a formal support order in place. Florida courts have discretion in awarding retroactive child support, but that discretion narrows significantly when parties enter clear and enforceable agreed orders governing how support issues will be resolved. A recent opinion from a Florida court illustrates how trial courts must honor those agreements and reinforces that child support is a right belonging to the child, not a bargaining chip between parents. If you are litigating child support issues in Palm Beach County or elsewhere in South Florida, consulting with a Miami family law attorney can help ensure that court orders and stipulations are enforced as written.
Factual and Procedural History
Allegedly, the plaintiff entered the marriage with substantial premarital wealth, and the parties executed a prenuptial agreement before marrying. During the marriage, the parties had two children, and the agreement did not purport to limit or waive child support obligations.
It is alleged that the plaintiff later filed a petition for dissolution of marriage, and the defendant filed a counter-petition. Approximately one month after the case began, the defendant moved for temporary relief, including child support. The plaintiff objected to mandatory financial disclosure, asserting that finances were not an issue for the children, while simultaneously acknowledging an obligation to pay guideline child support and not seeking a downward deviation.
Reportedly, disputes arose regarding the validity and interpretation of the prenuptial agreement, resulting in agreed orders addressing choice of law and child support. One agreed order specified that Florida law would govern child support issues. Another agreed order stated that the defendant’s request for temporary child support would be addressed at trial and that any unpaid child support determined by the court would be subject to retroactive payment.
It is reported that during the lengthy pendency of the dissolution proceedings, the parties’ oldest child reached the age of majority. At the conclusion of the trial, the court denied the defendant’s request for retroactive child support, including support for the period when the oldest child was still a minor. The trial court reasoned that there was no evidence that the children suffered adverse effects and appeared to reference the prenuptial agreement, despite prior agreements that child support would be governed by Florida law. Both parties appealed, with the defendant challenging only the denial of retroactive child support.
Retroactive Child Support in Florida
On appeal, the court first clarified that both parties agreed the prenuptial agreement did not control child support, eliminating the need for contract interpretation of that document. The court then focused on the agreed pretrial orders entered nearly two years before the final hearing. Those orders unambiguously provided that child support would be determined under Florida law, that the request for temporary support would be resolved at trial, and that unpaid support would be awarded retroactively once the appropriate amount was calculated. The court emphasized that agreed pretrial stipulations function as binding blueprints for trial and must be strictly enforced when they are clear, definite, and unambiguous.
The court rejected the trial court’s reasoning that the absence of demonstrated harm to the children justified denying retroactive support. Florida law recognizes child support as a dual parental obligation owed to the child, not a discretionary benefit dependent on a showing of deprivation. A parent’s ability to independently meet a child’s needs does not excuse the other parent from contributing support. The court further noted that although retroactive child support is discretionary in theory, appellate courts routinely find error when it is denied without proper legal justification.
Because the parties expressly agreed that retroactive child support would be considered and awarded for unpaid amounts during the pendency of the case, the trial court lacked discretion to disregard that agreement. The court therefore reversed the denial of retroactive child support and remanded for the determination of the appropriate amount and method of payment, while affirming all other aspects of the dissolution judgment.
Consult a Dedicated Miami Child Support Attorney About Enforcing Agreed Orders
Child support determinations can have lasting financial and practical consequences, particularly when temporary support is deferred, and retroactive obligations accumulate. If you have questions about the enforcement of a child support order, it is in your best interest to consult an attorney. The dedicated Miami family law attorneys at the Law Offices of Sandy T. Fox, P.A. can advise you of your options and work diligently to safeguard your rights and ensure court orders are enforced as intended. To discuss your case, call 800-596-0579 or contact the firm online.