Eduardo Perez v. State of Florida Department of Revenue, Child Support Program
This text of Eduardo Perez v. State of Florida Department of Revenue, Child Support Program (Eduardo Perez v. State of Florida Department of Revenue, Child Support Program) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed January 24, 2024.
________________
No. 3D23-1820 Lower Tribunal Nos. CS 1244821853, 13060028666FC ________________
Eduardo Perez, Appellant,
vs.
State of Florida, Department of Revenue, Child Support Program, et al., Appellees.
An Appeal from the State of Florida, Department of Revenue, Child Support Program.
Eduardo Perez, in proper person.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Toni C. Bernstein, Senior Assistant Attorney General (Tallahassee), for appellee Florida Department of Revenue.
Before EMAS, LINDSEY and MILLER, JJ.
PER CURIAM. ON CONCESSION OF ERROR
Appellant Eduardo Perez appeals a September 20, 2023, final order
which modified a 2007 Final Administrative Support Order rendered by the
Florida Department of Revenue, Child Support Program. The modification
of child support was sought by the mother of A.P., based upon an asserted
change in circumstances. Perez is the father of A.P.
On appeal, Perez contends—and the Department of Revenue
concedes—that the Department failed to consider Perez’s current income
and financial status in calculating the child support guidelines. We agree
that the child support guideline calculations contained in the order on appeal
are not supported by competent substantial evidence. Among other
infirmities, the order on appeal purports to rely upon Perez’s income from
2022, despite record evidence of Perez’s current income. It appears from
the record that Perez had provided the Department with documentation of
his earnings in 2023, including evidence that he became unemployed and
was to receive unemployment in July of 2023. The order contains additional
errors,1 as the Department concedes, but we deem it unnecessary to detail
them further.
1 For example, the order on appeal finds that the mother’s actual net monthly income is $743.67. The record establishes, however, that this amount represents supplemental security income (SSI), which the child receives for
2 Based upon the proper and commendable concession by the
Department of Revenue, and our own review of the record, we hold that the
Final Modified Administrative Support Order is not supported by competent
substantial evidence. We reverse the order and remand for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
the child’s own disability, and is not income of the mother. Further, such amounts should not be considered in adjusting the total minimum child support award. See § 61.30(11)(a)2, Fla. Stat. (2023) (providing: “The court may adjust the total minimum child support award, or either or both parents' share of the total minimum child support award, based upon the following deviation factors: . . . Independent income of the child, not to include moneys received by a child from supplemental security income.”).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Eduardo Perez v. State of Florida Department of Revenue, Child Support Program, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eduardo-perez-v-state-of-florida-department-of-revenue-child-support-fladistctapp-2024.