STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, AND PATRICIA D'ANDREA, APPELLANTS,
v.
RONALD D'ANDREA, 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.
The Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) and Patricia D'Andrea appealed a trial court order requiring both the husband and wife to jointly reimburse HRS for public assistance paid on behalf of their minor children. The court reversed the portion requiring the custodial mother to repay HRS while affirming the husband's liability for half the debt.
The custodial parent (Patricia) cannot be required to reimburse HRS for AFDC received on behalf of the child in her custody under Florida Statute section 409.2561(4), which expressly excludes custodial parents from reimbursement liability. However, the non-custodial parent (Ronald) can be held liable for past assistance under section 409.2561(1) even if not an 'obligor' under the statutory definition, and the trial court did not err in apportioning liability equally between the parents.
[1] A custodial parent is expressly excluded from liability for reimbursement of public assistance funds received on behalf of a minor child.
[2] A party is not considered an "obligor" for the purpose of public assistance debt reimbursement if they were not under a court order for support during the period the assi…
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“Section 409.2561(4), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), expressly excludes the custodial parent from liability for reimbursement, and the wife thus cannot be required to reimburse HRS for the monies she received in this case.”
Establishes the controlling statutory principle that custodial parents are immune from reimbursement liability for AFDC benefits received on behalf of their children.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRonald and Patricia D'Andrea divorced in July 1975, with Patricia receiving custody of three children and Ronald ordered to pay child support. In May …
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 Child Support Obligation cases and more on FLexlaw
THREADGILL, Judge.
Appellants, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) and Patricia D’Andrea, challenge the order of the trial court requiring both parents to jointly reimburse HRS for monies received by the wife for past public assistance for the parties’ minor children. We reverse that part of the order requiring the wife, as the custodial parent, to repay HRS. We affirm the order in all other respects.
Ronald D’Andrea (husband) and Patricia D’Andrea (wife) were divorced in July, 1975. The final judgment of dissolution of marriage awarded custody of the three children to the wife and ordered the husband to pay child support. Subsequently, by order dated May 25, 1982, the husband received custody of two of the children, with the wife retaining custody of one. In addition, the order provided that neither party was required to pay child support to the other. This order has never been modified.
On March 7, 1988, HRS filed a petition for public assistance debt, suing the husband for $2,762.66, which HRS had paid to the wife from April, 1983 through August, 1987. The trial court entered an order finding that the husband and the wife were liable for one-half of the public assistance debt and ordered each to pay $1,381.33 in monthly installments. •
HRS argues that the wife, being the custodial parent, should not be obligated to repay HRS for the amounts of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) received on behalf of a minor child. We agree. Section 409.2561(4), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), expressly excludes the custodial parent from liability for reimbursement, and the wife thus cannot be required to reimburse HRS for the monies she received in this case. Sapp v. Daniels, 520 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).
HRS also contends the husband should be liable for the entire amount of public assistance debt because the husband is the “obligor” as defined by section 409.-2554(6), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.). We do not find the husband to meet the statutory definition of obligor as he was not under an order of support during the period for which HRS asks reimbursement.
Pursuant to section 409.2561(1), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), the trial court did have the authority to establish the husband’s liability for the past assistance debt. Lamm v. Chapman, 413 So. 2d 749 (Fla.1982). HRS has not established any error by the court in the order requiring the husband to pay only one-half of the obligation. Accordingly, we reverse that portion of the final judgment ordering the wife to reimburse HRS. We affirm the judgment in all other respects.
Reversed in part, affirmed in part.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and PARKER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Doretha Davis v. Swatts, 556 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…(emphasis in original.) The court found that the mother, a custodial parent, could not be considered an “obligor” and thus, could not be held liable for reimbursement. See also Jones v. Ross, 529 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). In HRS v. D'Andrea, 542 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), the Second District faced a similar situation. In D ’Andrea, the wife was awarded custody of the child, but the husband was not ordered to pay child support. When the wife received AFDC benefits, HRS brought a reimbursement actio…
-
Lewis v. Lewis, 569 So. 2d 1342 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…t she and Husband should bear equal responsibility for such repayment. Section 409.-2561(4), F.S., however, expressly excludes the custodial parent from liability for reimbursement. State Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. D’Andrea, 542 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). SMITH and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.…
-
State v. Daumier Collins, 727 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…not modify the manner of repayment of an arrearage at a hearing for contempt). Moreover, the DOR is correct that a trial court cannot order a custodial parent to repay an arrearage owed. See State Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. D’Andrea, 542 So. 2d 1369, 1370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Sapp v. Daniels, 520 So. 2d 641, 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Reversed and remanded. WHATLEY and CASANUEVA, JJ., Concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lamm v. Chapman, 413 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 1982)
- Wanda Y. Sapp & the State of Fla. v. Daniels, 520 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)