Waters v. Bland

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Waters v. Bland

935 So. 2d 1239, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 13426, 2006 WL 2347740

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 11, 2006

DocketNos. 2D03-3523, 2D04-5246, 2D04-2349

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 935 So. 2d 1239 (Waters v. Bland) 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

Waters v. Bland, 935 So. 2d 1239, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 13426, 2006 WL 2347740 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

CASANUEVA, Judge.

In this appeal involving primary residential responsibility for a minor child, the parties have raised a number of issues, only one of which has merit. In her cross-appeal in case number 03-3523, Ms. Bland contends that the trial court erred by failing to consider child care expenses when it fashioned the child support award. We agree.

Section 61.30(7), Florida Statutes (2002), mandates that child care costs incurred due to a parent’s employment or job search be adjusted and included in the child support calculation. Ms. Bland had been employed in Arizona but was required to return to Florida with the child; the record suggests that she will continue to be employed in Florida. On remand, the trial court must determine whether Ms. Bland meets the statutory criteria and, if so, calculate the appropriate child support award. If the evidence discloses that the child is being cared for by a family member, the trial court should [1240]*1240make the necessary factual findings to support that conclusion.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded with instructions.

ALTENBERND and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.

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

CASANUEVA, Judge.

In this appeal involving primary residential responsibility for a minor child, the parties have raised a number of issues, only one of which has merit. In her cross-appeal in case number 03-3523, Ms. Bland contends that the trial court erred by failing to consider child care expenses when it fashioned the child support award. We agree.

Section 61.30(7), Florida Statutes (2002), mandates that child care costs incurred due to a parent’s employment or job search be adjusted and included in the child support calculation. Ms. Bland had been employed in Arizona but was required to return to Florida with the child; the record suggests that she will continue to be employed in Florida. On remand, the trial court must determine whether Ms. Bland meets the statutory criteria and, if so, calculate the appropriate child support award. If the evidence discloses that the child is being cared for by a family member, the trial court should [1240]*1240make the necessary factual findings to support that conclusion.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded with instructions.

ALTENBERND and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

935 So. 2d 1239, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 13426, 2006 WL 2347740, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waters-v-bland-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack