JOHN GARREN, APPELLANT,
v.
ANNE OLIVER, 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.
Father's appeal of paternity judgment partially successful: trial court erred in failing to apply mandatory child-support reduction under Fla. Stat. § 61.30(11)(b) based on time-sharing schedule.
A trial court must apply the mandatory child-support reduction under section 61.30(11)(b), Florida Statutes, when the time-sharing schedule provides for the nonresidential parent to have substantial time with the child as defined by statute.
[1] A trial court must apply the mandatory child-support reduction under Fla. …
Previewing 1 of 1 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“this reduction is mandatory when the time-sharing schedule provides for the child to be with the nonresidential parent for a substantial amount of time, as that concept is defined in the statute”
Court explaining the mandatory nature of the child-support reduction under section 61.30(11)(b)
John Garren, the father, appealed a final judgment of paternity, challenging the trial court's child-support obligation determination and the time-sha…
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 Time-Sharing Schedule cases and more on FLexlaw
John Garren, the father, seeks review of a final judgment of paternity. He raises several issues, only one of which has merit. The father argues, and we agree, that the trial court erred in failing to reduce the father’s child-support obligation under section 61.30(ll)(b), Florida Statutes (2011),* based on the time-sharing schedule the court ordered. As did the court in Buhler v. Buhler, 913 So.2d 767, 768 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), we note that this reduction is mandatory when the time-sharing schedule provides for the child to be with the nonresidential parent for a substantial amount of time, as that concept is defined in the statute. If the father does not regularly exercise a substantial amount of time-sharing with the child, the mother may seek modification of the child-support order on that basis. § 61.30(ll)(c), Fla. Stat. (2011); Buhler, 913 So.2d at 769. At this time, however, we reverse and remand for application of the section 61.30(ll)(b) variance. In all other respects, the final judgment of paternity is affirmed.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.
BENTON, C.J., ROBERTS, J., and WRIGHT, WILLIAM L., Associate Judge, concur.