MARGARET DUNSTAN AND THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, APPELLANTS,
v.
DONNIE WEATHERSPOON, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In a paternity action, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed in part a trial court's child support order, holding that the father must contribute to birth expenses, provide health insurance, and pay the statutory presumptive amount in retroactive support, while affirming the prospective support award of $40 per week based on the father's limited financial circumstances.
The trial court abused its discretion in exempting the father from paying for birth expenses, health insurance, and the presumptive $40 per week in retroactive support, as these are minimal obligations the father can afford. However, the court did not abuse its discretion in awarding only $40 per week in prospective child support given the father's limited financial circumstances.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by failing to require a father to pay any portion of the expenses incidental to the birth of a minor child when the father can afford…
[2] A trial court abuses its discretion by failing to require a father to maintain health insurance for a minor child when the father can afford to do so and the mother has v…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“These rather minimal child support requirements seem to us the least that a father should be expected to do for his child, providing, of course, the father can afford it.”
Establishes the court's standard that minimal support obligations are required if the father can afford them.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMargaret Dunstan, the mother of a minor child, and the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services appealed a child support order in a paternity …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Paternity Action cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a final order of child support in a paternity action. The child’s mother, Margaret Dunstan, and the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services appeal contending that the trial court abused its discretion in (1) failing to require the child’s father, Donnie Weatherspoon, to pay any portion of the expenses incidental to the birth of the minor child; (2) failing to require the said father to maintain health insurance for the minor child; (3) awarding less than $40.00 a week in retroactive child support; and (4) awarding no more than $40.00 a week in prospective child support. We find merit in the first three points on appeal and no merit in the last point, based on the following briefly stated legal analysis.
First, it seems clear to us that the trial court’s decision exempting, in effect, the father (a) from paying for any portion of the birth expenses of the minor child, (b) from providing any health insurance for the said child, and (c) from paying less than the presumptive $40.00 a week in retroactive child support set by Section 742.031, Florida Statutes (1985) was an abuse of discretion. These rather minimal child support requirements seem to us the least that a father should be expected to do for his child, providing, of course, the father can afford it. We recognize the limited financial circumstances of the father in this case, but the fact remains that he can clearly afford to pay for the above items which are minimal in cost. This being so, we can see no reasonable basis for not requiring the said father to pay for same— especially when it is undisputed that the mother has virtually no financial resources and cannot, in any sense, pay for such items. See Coleman v. Mackey, 424 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Weinstein v. Weinstein, 148 So. 2d 737, 738 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963); De Moya v. De Pena, 148 So. 2d 735, 736 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963).
Second, we see no abuse of discretion, however, in the trial court’s decision to award the presumptive $40.00 a week in prospective child support set by Section 742.031, Florida Statutes (1985). We think the trial court could have reasonably concluded that the father could not afford any more child support, given his limited financial circumstances. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Elswick v. Martinez, 394 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Farrington v. Farrington, 390 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), pet. for review dismissed, 399 So. 2d 1142 (Fla.1981); Blum v. Blum, 382 So. 2d 52, 55 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).
The final order of child support is affirmed in all respects, save three. As to the following, the said order is reversed and remanded for further proceedings: (1) the father should be required to pay for a reasonable portion of the child’s birth expenses, (2) the father should be required to provide some health insurance for the minor child, and (3) the father should be required to pay $40.00 a week in retroactive child support.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mason v. Reiter, 564 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…r’s tax returns and financial affidavits. Therefore, we agree with the mother’s contentions that the court considered her financial resources and found that she could not pay for the child’s needs while the father could. See Dunstan v. Weatherspoon, 505 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). The trial court properly allocated the financial responsibility for support of this child where the mother earns only $500.00 a month and the father has stipulated to his ability to pay any reasonable amount for child support. Se…
-
Rodgers v. Diederichsen, 820 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…ordered to be separately paid). Section 61.13(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2000), directs the trial court to order one of the parties to provide health insurance for the child when the insurance is reasonably available. See also Dunstan v. Weatherspoon, 505 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).- In her petition to establish paternity and child support, appellee did request that appellant provide health insurance. However, the trial court did not address this issue in its final order nor in any of its temporary orders. T…
-
Suarez v. Suarez, 514 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…mony is plainly far beyond the ex-husband’s ability to pay. Farrington v. Farrington, 390 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), pet. for review denied, 399 So. 2d 1142 (Fla.1981); Blum v. Blum, 382 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); see Dunstan v. Weatherspoon, 505 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Consequently, after remand, the trial court shall fix a substantially smaller amount upon consideration of the then existing circumstances, including the change required by our determination concerning the disposition of the home…
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Blum v. Blum, 382 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Farrington v. Prince Farrington, 390 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Weinstein v. Doreene Weinstein, 148 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Coleman v. MacKey, 424 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- de Moya v. Athenia Leonard de Pena, 148 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Elswick v. Martinez, 394 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)