State, Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. Norman

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State, Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. Norman

646 So. 2d 846, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 12792, 1994 WL 712734

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 23, 1994

DocketNo. 94-1848

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 646 So. 2d 846 (State, Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. Norman) 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.

Bluebook

State, Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. Norman, 646 So. 2d 846, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 12792, 1994 WL 712734 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a child support modification order. We conclude that the trial judge erred in departing from the child support guidelines without making a written finding or a specific finding on the record explaining why payment of such guideline amount plus or minus 5 percent would be unjust or inappropriate. § 61.30(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1994); Pitts v. Pitts, 626 So.2d 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Florida Dep’t of Health and Reh. Serv. v. Bush, 614 So.2d 32 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Walsh v. Walsh, 600 So.2d 1222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Touchstone v. Touchstone, 579 So.2d 826 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Accordingly, we reverse that portion of the order which specifies the amount of the child support payments, and we remand for the judge to either make the appropriate finding or order the guideline amount plus or minus 5 percent. In all other respects, the modification order is affirmed.

BARFIELD, KAHN and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a child support modification order. We conclude that the trial judge erred in departing from the child support guidelines without making a written finding or a specific finding on the record explaining why payment of such guideline amount plus or minus 5 percent would be unjust or inappropriate. § 61.30(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1994); Pitts v. Pitts, 626 So.2d 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Florida Dep’t of Health and Reh. Serv. v. Bush, 614 So.2d 32 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Walsh v. Walsh, 600 So.2d 1222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Touchstone v. Touchstone, 579 So.2d 826 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Accordingly, we reverse that portion of the order which specifies the amount of the child support payments, and we remand for the judge to either make the appropriate finding or order the guideline amount plus or minus 5 percent. In all other respects, the modification order is affirmed.

BARFIELD, KAHN and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

646 So. 2d 846, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 12792, 1994 WL 712734, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-department-of-health-rehabilitative-services-v-norman-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack