Womack v. Young

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Womack v. Young

627 So. 2d 1304, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 12147, 1993 WL 504486

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 10, 1993

DocketNo. 93-00943

StatusPublished

This text of 627 So. 2d 1304 (Womack v. Young) 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

Womack v. Young, 627 So. 2d 1304, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 12147, 1993 WL 504486 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on appeal from a final order which, inter alia, establishes appellee’s child support obligation. As to the first issue, we agree with appellants that the trial court erred as a matter of law in assessing appellee’s child support obligation at $10 per month, thus departing from the child support guidelines set forth in section 61.30, Florida Statutes, without making specific findings or entering a written order justifying such departure, Glover v. Glover, 601 So.2d 231 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Upshaw v. Reeves, 572 So.2d 560 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).

As to the second issue, section 409.-2567, Florida Statutes, unambiguously provides that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services is entitled to recover its costs in support and paternity determination cases, and does not direct that costs may be imposed on a need and ability to pay analysis, as under chapter 61, Florida Statutes. Accordingly, the trial court erred in failing to assess these costs against appellee.

The order appealed from is reversed, and this cause is remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.

BOOTH, MINER and KAHN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on appeal from a final order which, inter alia, establishes appellee’s child support obligation. As to the first issue, we agree with appellants that the trial court erred as a matter of law in assessing appellee’s child support obligation at $10 per month, thus departing from the child support guidelines set forth in section 61.30, Florida Statutes, without making specific findings or entering a written order justifying such departure, Glover v. Glover, 601 So.2d 231 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Upshaw v. Reeves, 572 So.2d 560 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).

As to the second issue, section 409.-2567, Florida Statutes, unambiguously provides that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services is entitled to recover its costs in support and paternity determination cases, and does not direct that costs may be imposed on a need and ability to pay analysis, as under chapter 61, Florida Statutes. Accordingly, the trial court erred in failing to assess these costs against appellee.

The order appealed from is reversed, and this cause is remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.

BOOTH, MINER and KAHN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

627 So. 2d 1304, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 12147, 1993 WL 504486, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/womack-v-young-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack