DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE O/B/O CHIANTI L. TAYLOR, APPELLANT,
v.
JUDE ALUSCAR, 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 Department of Revenue appeals an administrative child support order that deviated downward from statutory guidelines based on an informal visitation arrangement between parents. The court reverses, holding that deviations from child support guidelines based on time-sharing require a court-approved parenting plan, not merely an informal arrangement.
No. The court held that section 61.30(ll)(a) permits deviation from child support guidelines based on time-sharing only when there is a court-approved parenting plan with a specified time-sharing arrangement. The 'catch-all' provision does not permit deviation based on informal visitation arrangements between parents.
[1] A court or administrative law judge may deviate from child support guidelines based on equitable factors enumerated in section 61.30(ll)(a), Florida Statutes.
[2] Deviation from child support guidelines based on a particular parenting plan, such as where a child spends significant time but less than 20 percent of overnights with on…
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“on the matter of time-sharing, section 61.30(ll)(a) only permits deviation based on a court-approved parenting plan with a time-sharing arrangement, and that the 'Any other adjustment' language in the catch-all provision does not permit deviation based on an informal visitation arrangement between the parents”
Establishes the controlling legal standard that time-sharing deviations require court-approved parenting plans, not informal arrangements
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parents have an informal visitation schedule but no court-approved or court-ordered parenting plan. The Administrative Law Judge relied on the 'ca…
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 Deviation cases and more on FLexlaw
The Department of Revenue (“Department”), on behalf of Chianti L. Taylor, appeals a Final Administrative Support Order arguing that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred in departing from the child support guidelines based on a visitation arrangement not contained in a court-approved or court-ordered parenting plan. We reverse based on this court’s recent decision in Department of Revenue v. Daly, 74 So.3d 165 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).
Section 61.30(ll)(a), Florida Statutes (2011), permits deviation from the child support guidelines and enumerates the equitable factors a court or an ALJ may consider. The two pertinent to this appeal — contained in subsections (ll)(a)10 and (ll)(a)ll — are:
10. The particular parenting plan, such as where the child spends a significant amount of the time, but less than 20 percent of the overnights, with one parent, thereby reducing the financial expenditures incurred by the other parent; or the refusal of a parent to become involved in the activities of the child.
11. Any other adjustment that is needed to achieve an equitable result which may include, but not be limited to, a reasonable and necessary existing expense or debt. Such expense or debt may include, but is not limited to, a reasonable and necessary expense or debt that the parties jointly incurred during the marriage.
The parents in this case have an informal visitation schedule but no court-approved parenting plan. Noting this, the ALJ relied on subsection (ll)(a)ll, known colloquially as the “catch-all” provision, to depart downward from the child support guidelines in setting the appellee’s monthly support obligation.
In Daly, this court reversed a similar downward deviation and held that on the matter of time-sharing, section 61.30(ll)(a) only permits deviation based on a court-approved parenting plan with a time-sharing arrangement, and that the “Any other adjustment” language in the catch-all provision does not permit deviation based on an informal visitation arrangement between the parents. Id. at 167-68. The ALJ did not have the benefit of the Daly decision when entering the support order now on review. Therefore, we reverse the order and remand for further proceedings consistent with Daly.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
DAVIS and MARSTILLER, JJ„ concur.
BENTON, C.J., concurs with opinion.
concurring.
If we were writing on a clean slate I would vote to affirm, and to approve the ALJ’s interpretation of section 61.30(ll)(a)ll, Florida Statutes (2011), in the present case.
BENTON, C.J.,
concurring.
If we were writing on a clean slate I would vote to affirm, and to approve the ALJ’s interpretation of section 61.30(ll)(a)ll, Florida Statutes (2011), in the present case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't OF Revenue obo Yovana N. Santillana v. Damien S. Dorkins, 91 So. 3d 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
Authorities Cited
- Dep't OF Revenue obo Alanna H. Sherman v. Daly, 74 So. 3d 165 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)